High Stakes Cover

Yesterday and last week I wrote about what i'm reading right now (see HERE). The week before that I wrote about the first line from that book, as I often like to do (see HERE for all my first lines and why I catalog them). As anyone who follows this blog knows, I am currently in a phase of liking to see all the different varieties of covers that go along with the books I read (see HERE). 

This first one is what I like best about Dick Francis books. This style. this is what I was trying to mimic with my first series of covers for my own books. I failed. I do still like this style though. 

Adding Intrigue in Card Hands

As a part of my "Meat on the Bone" series that is supposed to provide a bit more information, thoughts, inspiration than the normal blog post you might find round here, I'm going to discuss my Friday night. I had the opportunity to play poker with about twelve other guys. These guys are very good. They go to tournaments in Vegas or Louisiana casinos at least once a month. They know the percentages, count chips with a daunting speed and usually know the strength of my hand before I do.

Whenever I play I find that without even trying I am the most remarkably predictable player in the hand. My rule of thumb . . . don't laugh . . .  is I only play if I would be comfortable going "all in" with the hand. "Oh look! I have a King and a four. Uh oh, they aren't suited so the chance of a flush is out. No chance to make a straight. Full house, sure, but with a four? Someone else may have a low card better than a four then were will I be? Nope, wouldn't go all in with a King, four, so I best fold."

That's the way most my hands go. Betcha you already realize I never ever win. I console myself with the thought that I only really go to see my friends and hang out away from the fam.

Still, there was one night when on the first hand I got bullets,  . . . two aces. So I calmed my palpitating heart and threw on a mein that said, "Huh, this isn't a great hand, but I'll play it" as I threw in the minimum bet to stay in. Apparently I should have tried to scare away the rest of the table from the get go cause the guy with the two's . . . he stayed in for the flop, got a third two on the river and beat my Aces that go no help from the table. It was the first hand and I was out on hundred bucks having gone all in. I was gun shy the rest of the night throwing away hands that even a three year old could have one. I remember I folded three hands that turned out to be full house hands had I played them right.

So, . . . what's the point of this post? It's that I love the underlying, understated conflict that comes from descriptions of card games and hands. That little snippet above about my two aces, I love the patois and the lingo that comes with card games. Bullets, big stack, broadway, limp in, fourth street, . . . even if the reader doesn't know the game the terms used are intriguing and fun.

In Casino Royale, Fleming writes about baccarat. I've never played baccarat. I've never even seen it played. The game has nothing to do with the plot and provides very little to the characterization. But when I read about the hands being played I was rapt. In Moonraker there is one of the most amazing card game descriptions I've ever read. In this case bridge. Ever played bridge? I have. It's not THAT exciting. Go read the chapter in Moonraker where Bond traps Drax. It's amazing. I particularly love when Basildon calls the hand "sheer murder" (see here or below).

And suddenly Basildon understood. It was a laydown Grand Slam for Bond against any defense. Whatever Meyer led, Bond must get in with a trump in his own hand or on the table. Then, in between clearing trumps, finessing of course against Drax, he would play two rounds of diamonds, trumping them in dummy and catching Drax's ace and king in the process. After five plays he would be left with the remaining trumps and six winning diamonds. Drax's aces and kings would be totally valueless. It was sheer murder.

Last night I came in fourth. I was short stack at a table of four having whittled down the two tables of ten. I had enough chips for maybe three more hands. We were playing for a couple hundred dollars. In fourth place I made two fifty. If I had won and hung onto third I would have made five hundred. I didn't think I would get a better hand in the next three than a King ten off-suit. So I went all in before the flop. Not a great hand but before seeing the flop, it was probably better than anyone else. The guy next to me followed me all in and when we both showed our hands, he had a nine and a four, off suit. Mine was a clearly superior hand. He beat me with a two, three, five, Ace, Jack on the table. Heart breaker. He followed me in with a horrible hand and got lucky. I was out.

It's these little subplot and side stories in Moonraker and Casino Royale that make the book more exciting. It's hard to believe that a description of a card game can be exciting, but it is. I doubt I'm good enough to do it, but it certainly increases the stakes in the story to throw in something similar in the story. Sure throw challenges at the main character, put in a ticking time bomb or dead line for them to solve the mystery, but throwing in some high stakes element, maybe with some jargon that brings the reader in, and writers can add a new dimension to their writing and suck the reader in even more.

Old School

Now that I've finished old Trav McGee and Nightmare in Pink (see HERE), I've moved on to more Dick Francis. This time it's High Stakes see (HERE). 

I'm really looking forward to this one. I have never read it and it's among the older version of Dick Francis' work.

Within the first few lines the reader is reminded that this is from a bygone(ish) era. 

Funny Ole World of Writing

This week, I didn't have a tone of meetings, so I thought I would have a ton of time to write. I have that writing bug right now, I was hoping to capitalize on it. Sadly, I did not.   

Work piled up quickly. Tons of little things, a couple of big ones, and more politics and personnel decisions than I normally have to deal with. It's the end of the year, and so we are dealing with wage increases and bonuses, and no matter how generous you think you might be, it's never as generous as your employees hope. 

Trust is Key

In the text for my class on Adult Leadership, Meisinger (2013) describes different strategies to lead executive teams and includes many tips, strategies, and thoughts that would be beneficial for any president, COO, or CEO who must bear the responsibility of leading executives within an organization. Executive leadership is different and more complex than the team or departmental leadership and Meisinger (2013) points this out by writing that “for executive teams, the stakes are often more significant for the individual members and to the organization as a whole. This creates some additional dynamics” (p. 183).  

These dynamics, Meisinger (2013) points out can include downstream effects on morale and function of the organization in other departments; “if employees see that members of the executive team are not working collaboratively, it’s likely to have a ripple impact throughout the organization” (p. 183). There is a great deal of importance in ensuring that leading executive teams is done well, and there is one key that can help ensure that it is done well, with a minimum of negative impact on the organization. That key is trust. 

All of the conflicts that Meisinger (2013) discusses and the advice that she provides throughout the chapter is similar to the advice and the conflicts discussed by Lencioni (2002). Meisinger (2013) discusses the risk of distrust when writing “dysfunctional teams will lead to failures of communication on a key business issue. There will be distrust and disagreement over critical resource allocations (p. 184). Meisinger (2013) also writes about how to overcome this by writing, “leaders must lead a team of executives in such a way that open sharing and debate on competing viewpoints are encouraged, but without behaviors or actions that disturb the trust among the team’s members” (p. 185). This is almost an exact duplication of the advice provided Lencioni (2002) when he writes, “teamwork begins by building trust” (p. 63). 

Lencioni (2002) spends much of his fable about a Silicon Valley software organization building, establishing, and maintaining trust within the executive team. There are multiple examples of the leader, making the team comfortable with each other and specifically with conflict within the team, such as when the leader notices a lack of debate; “I’d have to say that more than anything I’ve been told by others, I see a trust problem here in the lack of debate that exists” (Lencioni, 2002, p. 45). Conflict, Lencioni (2002) writes, is okay and healthy for executive teams as long as there is a foundation of trust between them. 

Leaders must also trust the members of the executive team to do the work for them. Lencioni (2002) demonstrates times when her main character, Katheryn, waits while other members of her team express the goals, she hopes they will understand on her behalf. Meisinger (2013) also writes that “leaders of executive teams have to know when to remain silent. Frequently, top executives are where they are because they have a clear vision of what needs to be done and have the drive and intellect to know how best to get there” (p. 186). Covey (2008) emphasizes this as well when he writes, “in a high-trust relationship, you can say the wrong thing, and people will still get your meaning. In a low-trust relationship, you can be very measured, even precise, and they’ll still misinterpret you” (p. 6). 

Trust is a key to any functioning team. Covey (2008) writes, “the first job of a leader . . . is to inspire trust. It’s to bring out the best in people by entrusting them with meaningful stewardships, and to create an environment in which high-trust interaction inspires creativity and possibility” (p. 319). As Meisinger (2013) writes, having that level of trust and potential for creativity is more important for executive teams because of the opportunity to inspire those who look to the team for direction and to influence harmony within the organization. 

Despite all the advice that Miesinger (2013) and Lencioni (2002) bring up in their writing, the most important is that of establishing trust for the executive teams. Without that trust between members, the work of the executive team can undermine not just the work of that team, but also the work within the organization. 

References

Covey, S. (2008). Speed of trust: The one thing that changes everything. Simon & Schuster.

Lencioni, P. M. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. Jossey-Bass.

Meisinger, S. R. (2013). Leading executive teams: The good, the bad, and the ugly. In E. Salas, G. Latham, D. J. Cohen, & S. I. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Developing and enhancing teamwork in organizations: Evidence-based best practices and Guidelines (pp. 182 - 207). essay, Jossey-Bass.