“In many ways, it’s not my generation’s fault that Japan has so much debt,” he said. “But blaming others won’t get us anywhere. We just need to find a way forward. It’s the responsibility of all of us born into this age.” –31 year old Naomichi Suzuki, the youngest mayor of the country’s most rapidly aging city.
You could do much worse than incorporate Naomichi Suzuki’s attitude into your company culture, life and as an integral part of your MAP.
Organizations and individuals spend inordinate amounts of time and energy assigning blame and indulging in recriminations.
At times it seems they want apologies more than solutions.
Look not just around you, but also in the mirror, and you’ll find at least one such active situation (say thanks if it’s only one).
Assigning fault is necessary in certain circumstances, usually when specific legal and societal laws are broken by specific, identifiable individuals.
Assigning responsibility is most productive when used as a learning experience, again for specific, identifiable individuals.
Solutions that move the situation forward are where time, energy and resources should be focused, but for some it’s more about them than solving the problem.
“Supporters of the defeated Ms. Iijima [the losing candidate] dominate the city council, blocking proposals and hurling criticism at the young mayor.”
The question all individuals must answer for themselves is what’s most important,
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.
“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.
[Oops! My apologies. this weekend was the first warm days where I live and I spent them in my garden:) (What a mess!) In so doing, I lost track and didn't write Sunday's Quotable Quotes and although I had this post ready I forgot to schedule it for this morning. --Miki]
It’s the traditional compact in corporate America: what C.E.O.’s do on their own time is their business, as long as they are not breaking any laws. And it’s a compact that is rapidly going by the wayside, as boards concerned with the corporate reputation are increasingly making clear.
However, it does make one wonder when actions that have almost always resulted in termination at lower levels make headlines when they happen in the executive suite.
With few exceptions, most companies have rules against managers dating subordinates; affairs between peers are considered dicey and intra-office adultery is a definite no-no.
When companies are demanding entre to the personal/private areas of candidates’ social media prior to hiring why is it so surprising that corporate boards are focusing on personal/private executive behavior?
In a world where street reps are forever and the bedrock of good corporate culture is trust and authenticity there is no room for do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do executives.
Tomorrow is T day (if you aren’t prepared I hope you have filed your extension), so it seemed like a good time to look at who pays what.
No new books meant President Obama’s income is down nearly a million, but he still paid 20%.
President Obama and his wife, Michelle, reported adjusted gross income of $789,674 in 2011 and paid just over 20 percent of it to the federal government in taxes.
He paid 13.9 percent in taxes on income of $21.7 million for 2010 and about the same rate for the not fully completed 2011 returns.
The current tax code is 5,296 pages long vs. 27 when it was written. The majority of the additional 5,969 pages are descriptions and explanations of how to legally cheat on your taxes.
If economists ran the tax system, there would be virtually no exemptions or loopholes. Instead, businesses, rich people, Congressmen and attorneys spend a shockingly large amount of time lobbying for tax breaks or exploiting the ones that exist.
As is often the case with his activities, just beneath the surface was a shrewd use of the United States tax code.
Just in case you are wondering, here’s some intel on what catches the eye of those who pay in the 15% tax bracket.
Neiman Marcus sold out of pewter-color Ferraris (luggage set matching the interior included) at $395,000 each within 50 minutes of making 10 of them available through its “fantasy” holiday catalog late last month.
But in the great scheme of US taxation, Romney’s 14% is still significantly higher than many of our large corporations pay, especially those in the so-called “Dirty Thirty.”
In January, the two organizations identified 30 corporations whose cumulative profit was $164 billion from 2008 to 2011. These corporations didn’t just avoid paying taxes — they actually collected $10.6 billion in tax rebates, according to the groups. They were dubbed the “Dirty Thirty.”
I know this sounds like a joke, but it really happened.
The comments below were part of a larger discussion regarding role, responsibilities and expectations.
The discussion was at the request of a boss as a final effort to turn a new hire around before the end of his probationary period.
It takes a lot to get to me, but 40 minutes into the conversation the words I uttered were pure sarcasm.
I said, “The world does not revolve around you.”
His response was real, honest and sincere.
After ten seconds of silence he said, “Oh.”
I said, “You as you are special to your parents, your love and some friends. Beyond that you must earn special status through your actions with each individual you meet and in every new situation throughout your life.”
This time the silence lasted closer to 20 seconds.
The belief that one is special and therefore is entitled to special treatment is rampant these days from those who feel they deserve more to join—more stock, more money, more title—to the frequent epidemics of founder ego that sweep across startup land.
But what about the not so obvious, such as a lack of accountability and favoritism?
Both are forms of entitlement that kill initiative, which, in turn, kills innovation right along with productivity, engagement, loyalty and a host of other desirable attitudes and actions.
Many younger employees are entering the workplace with no real understanding of accountability and many older employees have worked for managers who don’t enforce viable accountability in their organizations.
Accountability requires consequences and consequences need to be implemented evenly across the entire organization, with the only exceptions being made publicly and whose basis is obvious and acceptable to the rest of the team, e.g., serious illness, death, etc.
Founders and managers who claim to have no time to spare for accountability and use termination as a solution exacerbate the problem.
Bosses, whether entrepreneurs or not, have a responsibility to both their company and their people—enforcing accountability while stamping out entitlement is a big piece of it.
Have you been following the News Corp phone hacking scandal?
Obviously, as a corporate culture maven I find New Corp’s endemic culture fascinating—in much the same way that a snake fascinates a bird.
The phone and email hacking, dumpster-diving and snooping are disgusting in themselves, but it is Rupert and his son James’ denial of any knowledge despite extraordinary proof and testimony to the contrary that amazes me.
Moreover, I find the idea that ignorance excuses bosses from responsibility for the actions of their organizations to be ludicrous, whether country, conglomerate, company or team.
I felt that way when Nixon denied knowing about Watergate; when Reagan denied knowing about Iran-Contra; and when Beech-Nut President Niels L. Hoyvald denied knowing about the fake apple juice; the list goes on and on.
In my mind it doesn’t matter if the top person knew or not, because as top person he (a pronoun of convenience) should have known.
A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read allIf the Shoe Fits posts here
People never cease to amaze me even though I know that what you see isn’t always what you get.
“Pete” is a great example of that.
Pete is an entrepreneur and a friend of mine works for his company.
My friend raves about the great culture. He says it is merit-based, treats everyone fairly and has very little of the politics and favoritism he has seen at other companies. He likes the values and Pete’s attitude to giving back to the community.
The company isn’t new, but it is still private, so when my friend heard that Pete was thinking of issuing stock he sent a link to Option Sanity and introduced me.
Long story short, we had an extensive conversation; Pete talked about his belief in the importance of fairness and merit and giving back and I explained how Option Sanity™ would strengthen his culture and work to ensure the fairness that seemed so important to him.
And because Pete was so emphatic about the importance of giving back I told him about 1% of Nothing, started by Shervin Pishevar and Matt Galligan, with the goal of getting startups to donate 1% of their equity to a charity of their choice.
Pete ended our conversation saying he wanted to think about it and work with the Option Sanity demo.
I just received an email and I thought it ironic that it came on Thanksgiving.
Although he dressed up his response in complimentary language, the upshot of what he said was that both Option Sanity™ and 1% of Nothing were naïve ideas.
He said that he wanted to have complete freedom when awarding incentive stock as opposed to committing to a methodology, even though he structured it. Some employees were relatives or good friends and he wanted the ability to give them more. He wasn’t worried about performance, because he could always rescind the grant or fire them.
With regards to 1% of Nothing, although he planned to give to some of the proceeds of an eventual sale to charity there was a good chance that certain products in development would substantially increase the value of the company.
He had a specific dollar amount in mind for charity and saw no reason to possibly exceed that by giving the 1%.
I was totally floored.
Option Sanity™ is authentic
Come visit Option Sanity for an easy-to-understand, simple-to-implement stock process. It’s so easy a CEO can do it.
Warning.
Do not attempt to use Option Sanity™ without a strong commitment to business planning, financial controls, honesty, ethics, and “doing the right thing.” Use only as directed.
Users of Option Sanity may experience sudden increases in team cohesion and worker satisfaction. In cases where team productivity, retention and company success is greater than typical, expect media interest and invitations as keynote speaker.
I apologize if this insults any of you, but I find a good deal of humor in the idea that the best answers come from peers.
Peers who most often have similar backgrounds and experiences as the person asking the question—here’s a great example.
Without much effort I can think of dozens of places to ask about working in a startup that would offer better information than peers who not only haven’t worked in a startup, but are lacking much, if any, post-school work experience.
It’s a classic case of the blind leading the blind.
New entrepreneurs often indulge in this kind of behavior.
Although they reach out and listen to highly successful entrepreneurs and investors, their actions frequently follow the advice they get from peers.
Quick story, short version. I’d been acting as an occasional sounding board for “Jerrod.” He called last summer in a quandary; several experienced entrepreneurs and investors had suggested that he pivot his company in a different direction, not a total change, but different from what he originally envisioned.
Jerrod was loathe to change and when he discussed it with other entrepreneurs several encouraged him to stay with his original vision and said his passion would carry him though, while a few felt that the advisory types probably had good reason for what they said.
Jerrod asked what I thought and after hearing everything I agreed with the need for a pivot.
That wasn’t the answer he wanted and he informed me that none of us really understood his vision and he was sticking with the original plan.
I haven’t heard from Jerrod since, but I’ve heard from others that his company is struggling.
I’ve also seen that two companies occupying his “pivot space” were recently funded and knowing the investment community there may be others.
Why? Especially with all the solid information and help available do some entrepreneurs put themselves and their babies, I mean companies, in harms way by following the advice of entrepreneurs with a similar depth of experience and knowledge, while others listen, process, and act on the advice of people whose knowledge was hard-won and who carry the startup scars to prove it.
At times it seems they want apologies more than solutions.
‘What were he/she/they thinking’ seems to be the universal question these days.
I know this sounds like a joke, but it really happened.
Entitlement is a hallmark of many Millennials, but if you have a startup entitlement can literally kill it, as it has done many times.
Have you been following the News Corp phone hacking scandal?
People never cease to amaze me even though I know that what you see isn’t always what you get.
I apologize if this insults any of you, but I find a good deal of humor in the idea that the best answers come from peers.
Subscribe to MAPping Company Success 