Guilt is a positive force or at least it can be as long as it is the right kind.

First, some background.

When people mess up they have one of two reactions, guilt or shame.

What is important to understand is that they neither the same nor is one the flip side of the other.

Whereas someone who feels guilty feels bad about a specific mistake and wants to make amends, a person who’s ashamed of a mistake feels bad about himself or herself and shrinks away from the error.

In other words, guilt embraces and focuses on fixing whatever, whereas shame runs away and hides.

This is important to you because in both controlled experiments and real-world feedback the guilt prone tend to have more initiative, AKA leadership.

In all the groups tested, the people who were most likely to be judged by others as the group’s leaders tended to be the same ones who had scored highest in guilt proneness. Not only that, but guilt proneness predicted emerging leadership even more than did extraversion,

As a manager, no matter your level, it is important to remember that everybody makes mistakes, causes errors or just plain screws up.

When interviewing, learning about mistakes, errors and screw-ups along with reactions and subsequent actions is often more important than knowing what candidates did correctly or their greatest strengths.

Initiative is one of the most valuable components of MAP and it’s difficult to evaluate when interviewing; after all, candidates are unlikely to say they don’t have any.

And that is why smart mangers hire MAP, not skills.

Flickr image credit: Murray Barnes

Back in January I provided a link to The Mix (Management Information Exchange) and recommended that you register and read hacks of interest to you.

If I hadn’t done so it’s doubtful I would have heard about Ricardo Semler and Semco Group.

Since the mid-80s when Semler arrived on the scene, that has meant an ever-evolving experiment in upending the organizational status quo: no organizational chart, no fixed offices or working hours, no fixed CEO, no HR department, no five-year plan (or two- or one-year-plan), no job descriptions or permanent positions, no approvals necessary—and an endless array of clever practices and initiatives to increase individual autonomy and agency, participation at every level, trust, and informality.

The result? Market success—Semco is private but Semler reports average annual revenue growth at 40% and profitability. (…)

“We constantly talk about passion—serving customers passionately, filling in forms passionately—but what if we created the conditions for people to feel exhilaration, to get involved to the point they shout ‘yes!’ and give each other high fives because they did it their way and it worked?”

Would your people thrive in a going concern that functions more like a startup than most startups?

If yes, why? If not, why not?

Knowing why it would/does work is useful because you can share the knowledge and lessons learned with others.

If you don’t believe similar actions, tweaked for your organization, would work you need to ask why not.

You can ask your peers or, better yet your people, but first ask the mirror.

You may need to look no farther.

Flickr image credit: Cea

What do Wal-Mart, Dewey & LeBoeuf and NewsCorp have in common?

Cultural deficiencies manifested in bad judgment, lies and executive shilly-shallying.

What was not previously known until the Times report on the bribery scandal is that at about the same time Mr Scott began the offensive to improve Wal-Mart’s image in the United States, he also rebuked the company’s internal bribery investigation in Mexico for being overly aggressive. The investigation was soon dropped. (Wal-Mart)

“The [compensation] guarantees were extremely corrosive culturally because they were divorced from individual or firm performance, which shatters the whole notion of a partnership,” Mr. MacEwen said. “And they were promiscuously awarded.” (Dewey)

The negotiations were so tightly held that only Mr. Crone, Mr. Myler and Mr. Murdoch knew about them, said two company officials. The officials said that even employees who were typically involved in legal decisions did not learn of the settlement until it leaked in a newspaper. (News Corp)

What does Google have in common with them?

Cultural deficiencies manifested in bad judgment, lies and executive shilly-shallying.

The report, which was first published in its unredacted form by The Los Angeles Times, also states that the engineer, who began the project as part of his “20 percent” time that Google gives employees to do work on their own initiative, “specifically told two engineers working on the project, including a senior manager, about collecting payload data.” (Google)

In a March post I asked, “Does Google’s new approach to privacy violate its ‘don’t be evil’ philosophy?”

I guess that question is answered now.

But I have to say, I find it sad to see Google all grown up and playing in the same class as Wal-Mart, Dewey and News Corp; I honestly thought they were better than that.

Flickr image credit: Djenan Kozic

(no ducks today:)

Every time someone gets in trouble or is fired for mouthing off about a boss or employer on social media people go up in flames citing their right to Freedom of Speech, but guess what?

The First Amendment doesn’t cover the workplace.

According to Wharton legal studies and business ethics professor Janice Bellace it just ain’t so.

She says in the U.S., anyone trying to challenge such a practice in court would have almost no legal ground to stand on. “People think they have more rights than they actually have; they seem to think they have rights that are just not there.” For example, she notes that employment law for decades has said that non-unionized workers could always be fired for taking actions that publicly disparage their employers.

Does the First Amendment protect candidates when they are asked for access to their social media? Probably not.

“It has always been the case that employers could ask others about you for a reference and, if you refuse to give them names, they can refuse to hire you.”

For years I’ve enviously read about privacy rights in Europe and watched the European Union enforce them, no matter the political/economic clout of the companies.

And for years friends and business associates laughed at my concerns and cited the First Amendment as our best protection.

While it is marvelous protection for political and religious freedom, it would be wise to remember that it has no protective power in the wonderful world of work.

Sure, that may change, but you have to function in the current reality no matter how hard you are willing to work to change it.

Flickr image credit: William F. Yurasko

“What they were thinking is beyond me.” –Peter King, House Chairman, Homeland Security Committee, on Meet the Press, 4/22/12

‘What were he/she/they thinking’ seems to be the universal question these days.

Boards ask it about CEOs and other executives.

Managers ask it about employees.

People ask it about their politicians and religious leaders.

Spouses ask it about their each other and their kids.

In short, everybody asks about everybody and no one is exempt as either asker or askee.

Have people really stopped thinking, gotten stupider or is something else going on?

All of the above.

The something else started with tele—telegraph, teletype, telephone, television—and the world shrank as communications sped up.

Attitudes too changed, as captured in the title of The Hombres 1967 hit “Let It Out (Let It All Hang Out).”

Subjects that were covert, if not downright taboo became titillation fodder for the salivating mob—everyday folks who were delighted to learn that feet of clay were as common in self-described role models and “superior” career paths as in their friends and neighbors.

Now communication is instant; not necessarily true, but real-time fast,

(Corrections, however, are problematical, since stuff on the web is uncontrollable and, therefore, for all practical purposes, uncorrectable.)

Were the pre-Boomer generations of secrecy better?

Not really; secrecy opens the door to threats and blackmail (still true today).

How much is too much?

Is it viable to evaluate you now based on your actions at Woodstock, Spring Break or even a drive-in movie when you were 17?

It’s not generational; men and women have raised hell, lied, stolen, cheated and played around since time immemorial and many were/are caught.

But in these days of instant, irretrievable and irrevocable information perhaps it’s time to start thinking about consequences before, instead of being asked “What were you thinking?” after.

Flickr image credit: Myrrien

Culture is today’s focus; it is considered the reason that companies succeed or fail and whether innovation will flourish or wither.

Culture is researched, dissected, written about and discussed; is culture a set of specific rules or a moving target, amorphous and difficult to pin down?

Perhaps it’s more like a computer, with core hardware and constantly changing software.

In computing, the term I/O refers to input, whatever is received by the system, and output, that which results when the input if processed.

Programmers know that if the input if bad what comes out of the computer won’t be any better, a phenomenon known as “garbage in/garbage out.”

GI/GO applies to culture and, for that matter, everything else in life.

What comes out is a function of what you put in.

Blindly accepting everything offered by even the most brilliant source will result in garbage out at some point.

Creating and sustaining good culture requires more than studying what’s worked elsewhere and best practice benchmarks; it requires critical thinking on your part.

No one person, past, present or future, has all the answers. No company has tried every possible combination of every approach conceivable.

Plus, they are not you, while your culture is you.

That means being your own computer—gathering input from all available sources, applying it to your situation, processing it—absorbing, reworking and rejecting.

The result will be at least slightly different from what you started with, because you’ve added the flavor of your own life experiences, knowledge and MAP to the mix—and that’s good, it shouldn’t be an exact copy.

Flickr image credit: John D

I have little tolerance for what I perceive as rudeness.

However, a jam-packed, always-on, socially-enabled lifestyle combined to varying degrees with a me-centric view of the world appears to be driving a rising tide of rudeness in people of all ages.

Is there anything else going on beyond the obvious?

Perhaps part of what comes across as rudeness is merely misunderstanding.

Perhaps the difference between such actions as “acknowledgment” and “feedback,” which is a different animal altogether, have blurred to the point of merger—for the record, feedback requires thought, while acknowledgement doesn’t.

Ask anybody in resume limbo how much they would appreciate some form of acknowledgement that their resume had been received.

There was a time when companies sent form letters acknowledging receipt, as well as thanks/no thanks rejections on hard copy and actually paid postage to do it.

These days they can’t even bother with programming an auto-response that costs them nothing, but gains good will.

Many (most?) individuals are even worse; screening their responses to calls and email through a what’s-in-it-for-me filter or are so busy checking Facebook and playing Angry Birds that they don’t have time for the niceties.

Yet, as with most things, the rudeness is not one-sided.

Resumes sent and contacts initiated based on the premise that if you throw enough something will stick also deserve the rudeness label.

Then, of course, there is always the possibility that my definition is archaic and what I see as rude has become acceptable.

Flickr image credit: Ronald Saunders

I’m not really a sports fan, but I read the NYT and occasionally an article that focuses on the human side as opposed to the play intrigues me. That’s how I ended up reading about Jeremy Lin and using him as an example of how easily bosses miss their real star talent.

In mid-March another Knicks story caught my eye.

[Coach] Mike D’Antoni and the Knicks parted ways Wednesday — an event that seemed fated once the franchise acquired Carmelo Anthony, an immense talent whose individual playing style clashed with D’Antoni’s spread-the-wealth offense.

At first glance you might not think this is applicable to business; obviously, no boss is going to quit when an employee disagrees with the culture, no matter how good he is.

In fact, it’s much more likely that the boss will laud him and shower him with whatever perks, bonuses, promotions and raises possible.

Anything to keep him happy; anything to keep him, period.

Not all star players have star egos; from the little I’ve read Lin is the former, while Anthony follows a more typical star profile with the ego to match.

So what really happens when a culture starts focusing on star egos?

The most obvious problem is the deep doodoo you are in if your star ego is injured or leaves.

The more subtle crisis takes place quietly over time as all the potential star players leave for more spread-the-wealth cultures and bosses who will give them a chance to shine.

Flickr image credit: Joshua Smith

How many cultures does a company have?

One if you believe the articles, studies and interviews that abound, but that isn’t a very accurate picture of reality.

Cultural reality is comprised of multiple micro cultures co-existing beneath the larger corporate culture umbrella.

How many?

One for every person in any type of management or leadership (if you insist on separating them) role, formal or not.

Culture is a function of MAP; everybody’s MAP is unique and because it’s unique each person’s perception of the culture fostered by their boss is at least slightly different.

And if the perception is different their interpretation and implementation of it will also be different.

The result is micro cultures.

That’s why cultural fit or, at the very least, cultural synergy, is the most important trait to look for when hiring at every level.

Flickr image credit: h080

If you are in touch with any media, traditional, new or social, you are probably aware that Greg Smith resigned last Wednesday from Goldman Sachs; resigned very publicly in the form of an op-ed piece in the NY Times.

The firm has veered so far from the place I joined right out of college that I can no longer in good conscience say that I identify with what it stands for.

Smith was executive director and head of the firm’s United States equity derivatives business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, but for years he was deeply involved with Goldman’s recruiting efforts.

I knew it was time to leave when I realized I could no longer look students in the eye and tell them what a great place this was to work.

Because of the recruiting video he wasn’t quite the anonymous 33-year-old midlevel executive described, but now his comments and opinions are on everybody’s mind.

(You can read Lloyd Blankfein and Gary Cohn’s response to the resignation here.)

Backing up one’s ethical beliefs means putting your money where your mouth is, which may be a difficult concept for many players and commentators in the financial world to understand.

Mr. Smith is making a considerable financial sacrifice in publicly criticizing Goldman. Most Wall Street employees sign nondisparagement and nondisclosure agreements before they join a firm. If Mr. Smith did, Goldman may take legal action and refuse to release stock options he has accumulated. Mr. Smith may also find it difficult to find work on Wall Street after such a public resignation.

But if I were an employer I would work particularly hard to bring Smith into my organization.

After all, how often do you have the opportunity to hire a moral compass that has already been tested and proven accurate?

Flickr image credit: Brett Jordan