“Life is not what it’s supposed to be. It’s what it is. The way you cope with it is what makes the difference.”
–Virginia Satir

Smart lady, Virginia.

That thought, or any variation thereof, is probably the single most important concept people need to wrap their heads around.

Neither vehement denial nor passionate pleas will change what is; what matters is what you choose to do.

Positional leaders and those who claim the leadership label are often more into pleas and denial than they are into coping.

Understandable, since it’s much easier to rail or whine than to get off the proverbial ass and do something.

But that is exactly what leading requires and leading yourself is the most important leadership job you will ever have, because if you can’t lead yourself you will never have the opportunity to lead others.

Coping isn’t about playing ostrich or ignoring something and hoping it will go away.

Coping doesn’t involve ideology and rhetoric.

Coping doesn’t always mean solving the problem or overcoming the challenge.

Coping isn’t about being a hero or going it alone.

Coping rarely yields a perfect or even a complete fix.

Coping means facing whatever it is head on, recognizing it in its entirety, figuring out how best to deal with it, and then doing what needs to be done—all while accepting the reality and limitations of what is possible.

Flickr image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cobrasick/4597169938/

I received a very irate email taking me to task for saying (in yesterday’s post), “I think that people still prefer their own comfort zone (whatever that might be) and probably always will—the goal is to expand it, since eliminating it is highly unlikely…” After removing the expletives the gist was that as a person supposedly teaching leadership why was I condoning closed-minded attitudes, even bigotry?

Short answer, I’m not, but I’m a realist.

Long answer, I’ve always believed that it’s great to work for an ideal, but you have to function in the real world and the real world is populated by people and people are a long way from ideal—additionally, my ideal is very likely not your ideal, so who chooses? What I consider close-minded or bigoted is very likely another person’s passionate belief—to me there is no “right.” Even when I’m violently opposed to the thoughts expressed, I remember S.G. Tallentyre’s (not Voltaire) comment, “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I’ll fight to the death for your right to say it.”

Back to practical.

I first wrote about comfort zones in a column I used to write for Microsoft Development Network (msdn) in 1999 (Hiring in Your Comfort Zone) and the idea hasn’t changed a lot.

Our comfort zone is where we all prefer to do things. People want to spend their time with people like themselves. This isn’t about simple labels, such as race, religion or gender, which are more society’s labels. Our own subjective labels have more to do with schools (Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Cal, etc.), specific professions (not fields), companies (think McKinsey), compensation, attitudes, clothes, etc. It’s how we choose to connect, because, true or not, Yale grads believe they have more in common with other Ivy League alums than with Cal or Columbia. Doctors hang out with doctors, usually those with the same, or similar, specialty or employer, but rarely with nurses or radiology techs. We like enough knowledge commonality so we don’t feel ignorant, but can still learn; we like to be with our “equals.”

It all boils down to, “people like me” (PLM).

And that may be fine in our personal life—but not so fine in our professional life, especially not for managers responsible for hiring. The broader the PLM definition the longer it takes to become noticeable, but it’s usually there if you look for it.

The long-term cost to companies is high. This is especially true when there’s a change in management, since the new person’s PLM rarely matches her predecessor’s.

• When the choice is between the best applicant and PLM, PLM usually wins out, slowly lowering the quality of talent.
• PLM homogenizes the staff; reducing diversity of both thinking and thought (methodology and result) and it’s that diversity that supplies strength, creativity and innovation.
• PLM wreaks havoc on retention efforts and often drives out legacy knowledge.
• PLM hiring may affect just one part of a company or create a ripple effect, e.g., lowered innovation slows product development delaying delivery, crimping sales and keeping the company from achieving its revenue goals.

All of this and much more is the product of a PLM mindset and the narrower the mindset the worse the damage.

Back to what I said at the start, I’m a realist and I do not believe that it’s possible to truly eradicate PLM from your MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™) more often it’s driven underground making it harder to recognize than when it’s overt.

I do believe that the definition of PLM can be expanded, since MAP is not, or should not be, carved in stone. Rather, like you, it’s vibrant—living, growing, and changing as you live, grow and change.

And, as always, it’s your choice.