Want to show your love and appreciation for your people, but not sure of the best way?

Study after study confirms that ‘feeling valued’ is a major factor in successful retention. During my headhunter years, I knew a recruiting call was successful the minute I heard, ‘…my boss doesn’t really appreciate…’ Sweet words, indeed—to a recruiter.

Those of you who read me regularly know that I believe your MAP is the only silver bullet you’ll ever have, but even MAP needs tools, so, here, in honor of Valentine’s Day, is a sterling silver tool—my present to your MAP.

QUESTION/LISTEN!/USE/CREDIT

It’s that simple.

Show your interest by asking everyone, not just your so-called stars, questions, requesting opinions, saying, ‘What do you think?’

Listen and really hear the response, discuss it, think about it.

Use what you get as often as possible, whether in whole or in part, or as the springboard that leads to something totally different.

Credit the source(s), both up and down, publicly and privately, thank them, compliment them, congratulate them.

If it’s sincere, you can’t lay it on too thick; if you’re faking it, they will know; and if you don’t do it, preferring to steal the credit for yourself, you’ll have the fun of explaining to your boss the increased turnover in your organization, along with all its associated costs.

Here’s a complimentary idea to yesterday’s post about the importance of context.

Call it the importance of source: Consider the source of the comment, before considering what was actually said.

This is especially true when the comments are questioning, critical or downright negative.

It never ceases to amaze me how often the human animal (myself included) shrugs off compliments and positive feedback from trusted sources, yet embraces negative comments from questionable or even unknown sources.

Moreover, along with evaluating the merits of the commenter, i.e., knowledge, trustworthiness, vested interest, etc., also consider the context in which the comment was made.

For example, Joe, in the next cubicle, says that he thinks that your presentation is too busy and the advanced techniques you used make it confusing.

You need to ask yourself is Joe

• knowledgeable about presentations in general, as well as the specific focus of this one;
• historically trustworthy;
• jealous of technical skills he doesn’t have;
• a team player who has my best interests at heart; and
• any other questions you think pertinent.

Doing this moves you from subjective to objective, allowing you to evaluate what was said painlessly and leach out whatever value is present.

I heard from Scott Allen again and I want to share it with you, because it’s such a great illustration of how two people who have a history of accurate communications and are generally on the same page can still miss and see the same thing differently.

When I wrote Are you understood? using a video to illustrate that ideas that have brilliant clarity inside one’s head may not come through when presented externally.

Scott responded by sending me Mackenzie v. Miller Brewing Company because he saw a direct connection. Hmm, I didn’t, but I have enormous respect for Scott, agreed that there was a good lesson in the case and wrote The high cost of gaming employees.

I then emailed Scott a link and said that I was really curious exactly what connection he saw because I thought it likely that I had missed it.

Scott wrote back, “I didn’t think Mackenzie’s judgment was faulty in the first place…The point I think it makes is about context. Out of context, it would have been harassment to just walk up to her and hand her the open dictionary. But IN CONTEXT, it was actually the polite thing to do — not say it out loud, but also not be rude and just leave her hanging, either.

I don’t know if you’ve heard this from me before, but one of my favorite sayings is “Context creates meaning.” That’s the case in the Mackenzie case, and also in the cartoon. Out of context, the woman’s just fondling herself or making suggestive gestures. In context, though, it makes some sense.”

I still think Mackenzie’s judgment was faulty, but also that she was setting him up. Mackenzie may not have had a real reason to think that, but he knew he was on shaky ground or he wouldn’t have used the dictionary. (As opposed to the dictionary, I think his best/safest bet to extricate himself from a deteriorating situation would have been to politely sidestep out of the discussion by suggesting that she ask a friend.)

One final note, I agree that context does create meaning, or, at the very least, shapes it. What managers need to remember is that their words will be repeated and discussed by their subordinates, so they should be as context-independent as possible.

When I was growing up I had an aunt with whom I didn’t see eye to eye; to say our relationship was rocky would be very diplomatic.

Yet, it was because of this aunt that I learned something that became a cornerstone of my MAP, although I often struggle to adhere to it.

My aunt had a glass topped dressing table and, like many women of that era, she would place inspirational clippings and notes under the glass. That is where I first saw

Profit from the mistakes of others,
you don’t have time to make them all yourself.

I recognized the soundness of the words even back then, but I have to say that it’s been one of the hardest for me to follow. I seem to profit well from small and medium mistakes, but have an unhappy tendency to make the really large ones myself. However, although I follow it imperfectly, hindsight shows that it has saved me from a lot of grief and, I’m sure, will continue to do so.

I sometimes wonder: if she hadn’t had the clipping, and only said it to me, would it have had any, let alone the same, impact?

Sadly, the answer is probably not.

I’m very glad she had the clipping.

Yesterday I cited the importance of being heard, which includes being understood. I received an email from Scott Allen (THE go-to guy for doing business online) with a link to Mackenzie v. Miller Brewing Company.

Since there’s nothing like money to get people’s attention, I’ll start with the verdict, “Jurors awarded Mackenzie $26.6 million on July 15, 1997. Mackenzie was awarded $24.5 million from Miller Brewing Co., $1.5 from former co-worker Best and $601,500 from former supervisor Smith.”

The case, in a nutshell, is as follows, “Jerold J. Mackenzie was fired from his job with the Miller Brewing Co. in March 1993 for “poor managerial judgment” triggered by allegations that he sexually harassed a coworker by discussing an episode of Seinfeld, the popular TV sitcom, with a female coworker. In the episode, Seinfeld tries to guess the name of his date, which he knows rhymes with a part of the female anatomy (her name was Delores).

Mackenzie alleged that his firing was improper, the coworker was not harassed and the company was looking for an excuse to terminate him. He sued Miller Brewing Co., Patricia Best, the alleged harassed coworker, and Robert Smith, former Vice President of Miller Brewing Co. and Mackenzie’s former supervisor.”

Although I think Mackenzie’s judgment in pursuing the Seinfeld discussion was faulty, this case is far more about a company that played fast and loose communications games and believed it could rewrite history to suite current needs.

Believe it. Employees don’t forget, not communicating doesn’t pay and words have a value beyond their near-term meaning; abuse them and you, too, may end up paying for the privilege.

I talk a lot about good communications, that it’s a MAP function, what it takes, how to improve it, and on and on. I use words, articles and examples to drive the point home.

I harp, knowing from personal experience, that what one person says may have very little relationship to what the other person hears.

Managers must make sure that their people not only hear and understand them [the manager], but are also heard and understood [by the manager and the team].

We’ve all been in situations when the idea we presented was totally clear inside our head, but made absolutely no sense to the other party.

Having said all this before, why am I saying it again? Because I finally have something that will drive the point home graphically, with laughter—two of the best communication aids in existence.

So, without more ado, here’s the show!

How far outside the box do you encourage your people to go? Who defines “off-the-wall” within your company? Do you seriously cultivate a culture that fosters innovation?

Do you believe that cats can paint? Elephants? Maggots (scroll to the bottom)?

Think how many billions of dollars resulted from these edible mistakes.

Surprises are often more welcome in academia.

But accidents happen and you need a culture that’s open and prepared to recognize and exploit something totally new.

How open are you—really?

It’s funny where you can find messages that inspire, motivate and give you a lift.

I opened a new roll of really cheap paper towel and found this phrase:

I can’t change the direction of the wind, but I can adjust my sails to reach my destination.

Pretty good, I’ve seen entire books around this subject that didn’t put it nearly as well.

Put in still simpler terms, the only thing you can actually control in this life is you—and your MAP.

We all have a tendency to forget this.

Good stuff comes and bad stuff happens; people come and go—and die; great bosses join—and leave; companies start, grow, get acquired and, sometimes, file bankruptcy.

For better or for worse, you will always have you, so why not appreciate yourself? Value the best and improve the rest.

There is only one you and you get to live only one life, so focus your time and energy on changing/adjusting/enhancing what you control and let the rest go.

A few days ago I read Fourth Down, Death, an old mystery by Michael T. Hinkemeyer, and I’ve been thinking about how true was the statement, “Power is the ability to sustain illusion.”

We see the illusions fail all the time in the news these days—think Enron, WorldCom, options backdating.

What will it take for the corporate elite to realize that the illusion is fragile and that it takes very little to crack the power that sustains it?

Put another way, when will they stop operating on a “but me” basis? ” As in, “the rules apply to everybody, but me.”

However, “but me” is also

• the mindset that yields the greatest inventions, as when two brothers thought, “everybody thinks that man can’t fly, but us,” and fosters innovation at any level;
• what lets each of us continue functioning in our crazy world, knowing that the bad and scary stuff we hear about in the news can happen to anybody, but us.

Think of “but me” as having both a light side and a dark side—then choose the side on which you want to play.