Poking through 11+ years of posts I find information that’s as useful now as when it was written.

Golden Oldies is a collection of the most relevant and timeless posts during that time.

Coaches, pundits, etc., offer advice on how to handle disrespect, bullying and other negative behavior, some of which is very good. But the approach I like best is summed up in this story of Gandhi and his professor.

The difference between what Gandhi did and what most people do today is that it involved no anger or four letter words; Gandhi used his intelligence to turn the professors own belittling comments against him — and he did it with grace.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

I am frequently asked how to deal with arrogance, disrespect and other antisocial behavior.

Often, the people asking are looking for approaches that echo the classy insults post from 2009.

KG Charles-Harris recently provided a brilliant example of how to handle such comments, with class and amiable good will—although the recipient might not agree.

While I doubt that the following actually happened, that doesn’t change the intelligence and elegance behind the responses.

When Gandhi was studying law at the University College of London, there was a professor, whose last name was Peters, who felt animosity for Gandhi, and because Gandhi never lowered his head towards him, their “arguments” were very common.

One day, Mr. Peters was having lunch at the dining room of the University and Gandhi came along with his tray and sat next to the professor. The professor, in his arrogance, said, “Mr. Gandhi: you do not understand… a pig and a bird do not sit together to eat,” to which Gandhi replies, “You do not worry professor, I’ll fly away ,” and he went and sat at another table.

Mr. Peters, green of rage, decides to take revenge on the next test, but Gandhi responds brilliantly to all questions. Then, Mr. Peters asked him the following question: “Mr Gandhi, if you are walking down the street and find a package, and within it there is a bag of wisdom and another bag with a lot of money; which one will you take?”

Without hesitating, Gandhi responded, “The one with the money, of course.”

Mr. Peters, smiling, said, “I, in your place, would have taken the wisdom, don’t you think?”

“Each one takes what one doesn’t have,” responded Gandhi indifferently.

Mr. Peters, already hysteric, writes on the exam sheet the word “idiot” and gives it to Gandhi. Gandhi takes the exam sheet and sits down.

A few minutes later, Gandhi goes to the professor and says, “Mr. Peters, you signed the sheet, but you did not give me the grade.”

The ‘trick’ is responding to the actual content, rather than the intent or the person, and turning the put-downs back on the speaker.

A good lesson for us all.

Image credit: Okinawa Soba

A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read all If the Shoe Fits posts here.

As I keep saying, I do love CB Insights daily newsletter. It provides me with needed information, but my love stems from Anand Sanwal’s quirky, irreverent, incisive comments, like this one.

I now see toothbrushes in a whole new light after this comment by the founder of a subscription-as-a-service toothbrush company.

Does this guy actually believe that something (AKA a toothbrush) that has no wheels, software or circuits can substitute as an “extension of personality?”

The only “change the world” ethos I can find here is greed coupled with the ability to sucker people who are either too lazy, too incompetent or too busy on social media to take care of their basic necessities.

Good grief, is this the best the vaunted Silicon Valley innovation machine can produce?

Image credit: HikingArtist

I read something today that made me take pause. It mentioned that in the early days of the internet, hen chat rooms were prevalent, you would tell people you were taking a break and would be back soon.

It was announced when you wouldn’t be there, because you had to literally sit at a computer to chat. Nowadays, we don’t need to do that as we are always on and always connected.

Until I read that post it didn’t occur to me how true that is. We can be at work, home, the beach and still be connected.

This is a topic touched on quite a bit and I have been intrigued by it for some time. When we are younger we can go to work and then home. They are separate entities. I had a job working at Pizza Hut as a teen. I can recall not once did I get home thinking about work or responding to emails. ( I did love it though, as I’m a huge pizza fan).

One result of that job was that I didn’t learn the lesson that sometimes work does need to be done at home or after hours. And now, as a professional, I struggle to figure out a balance to it all.

I had a CEO tell me one time that work and life are actually a blend.

There will typically not be a true balance, but both bleed into each other. As a father I find myself on my phone too much at home. Sometimes it’s work and sometimes not.

The blend idea teaches that the most important thing is to be present in the moment. It will pay dividends in the long run.

Being present may be the most important lesson I have learned on this topic.

And perhaps if we, as a society, put it in practice then work-life balance would not be such an issue.

I don’t believe there is one simple solution, but that would be good start.

Image credit: Laura LaRose

The last few days we’ve been talking various aspects and effects of respect, but one of the most important to business is its effect on creativity and innovation (they’re not the same thing), although we touched on it when talking about the drawbacks of a “nice” culture.

The opposite of respect is disrespect and if it permeates a culture you can count on four things.

• Less creativity;
• less innovation;
• higher attrition; and
• ‘nice’, homogenized candidates.

From this perspective, “misfits” are valuable to companies. They don’t quite fit into a specific team. They’re always challenging why the company does what it does. They’re rebellious. They’re independent. They can seem counterproductive to everything that a manager needs to achieve—to maintain order.

But those are the people that are going to change the game on how your company innovates.

As a boss, culture is your responsibility. You can’t afford to assume that your boss or their boss will make the right choices.

No matter the scope, within your organization it’s your choice.

Choose wisely.

Image credit: MiloszB

Last week I cited research the showed a culture of respect was far more productive than a nice one and the next day went on to say that ‘respect’ and ‘like’ aren’t inseparable.

Now I have to add that being respectful doesn’t indicate any form of agreement.

This may be especially shocking to the tech world where a war is raging in the open source world.

They are arguing about whether they should have to agree to a community code of conduct (CCoC) that requires them to behave respectfully. (…) That code of conduct basically says that the group is open to people of all walks of life and expects its members to be courteous.

In this context courteous probably means you don’t act like a troll — screaming, cursing, intimidating, harassing, etc — online or real world.

There is nothing that says you have to agree.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out how to disagree without being a troll.

It’s also possible to have passionate arguments over a subject that include yelling and profanity directed at the subject/opinion, as opposed to the person.

It’s the difference between

• That’s the stupidest thing I ever heard

and

• You are really stupid to say that.

Further, online trolls don’t necessarily act the same in the real world — it’s easier to be a bully on a keyboard than face-to-face — although more and more do.

It’s actually amusing in a way, since every community of which one is a member has its own CCoC, whether written or inherent.

People abide by them, because, by and large, they agree with them.

And vice versa.

Image credit: InterfaceLeader

Poking through 11+ years of posts I find information that’s as useful now as when it was written.

Golden Oldies is a collection of the most relevant and timeless posts during that time.

When I wrote this a decade ago it resulted in a comment and my response, which are included today. The reason I included my response is because, in these days of bad examples, lower self-control and less personal responsibility the responsibility of leaders is even greater. As you will see in tomorrow’s post.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

What responsibility?

A lot.

My focus isn’t meant to be just race or gender issues, but on the attitude that I’m/we’re-right-so-you-should-do/think-our-way-or-else. It’s not the ‘we’re right/you’re wrong’ that bothers me, but the ‘do-it-our-way-or-else’ that shows the intolerance for what it really is.

During my adult life (I missed being a Boomer by a hair) I’ve watched as hate and intolerance spread across the country masked by religion, a façade of political correctness or a mea culpa that is supposed to make everything OK, but doesn’t.

Various business, political, religious and community leaders give passionate, fiery talks to their followers and then express surprise and dismay when some of those same followers steal trade secrets, plant bombs, and kill individuals—whose only error was following their own beliefs.

No longer are we all entitled to the pursuit of happiness if our happiness offends someone next door or living at the other end of the country.

I remember Ann Rand saying in an interview that she believed that she had the right to be totally selfish, where upon the interviewer said that would give her freedom to kill. Rand said absolutely not, in fact the reverse was true, since her selfishness couldn’t take away anyone else’s right to be selfish. That about sums up my attitude

I just wish there were fewer followers for all the Ellsworth Toohey types in today’s world.

1. Kathy Says:
   I don’t know if you can blame abstract entities such as leadership business or religion or politics for the actions of individuals. I’m tempted to put the blame on the person taking the action. There is a big difference between hearing someone talk and acting on the content of the talk. We hear people talk persuasively all the time about the importance of saving for retirement or flossing our teeth or using sunscreen, and many, many people who’ve heard these persuasive speeches do none of the above. So, I’d say, no matter what people are saying to me, in the newspaper, on TV or over coffee, if I take the action, I’m responsible for the result. I always had the choice.
2. Miki Saxon Says:
   Kathy, I agree that it is the responsibility of followers to think, but we live in an age where many people have opted out of thinking, and merely follow the lead of any person with whom they are comfortable (see the 9 post on followers) For that reason I do hold the leaders, who aren’t abstract, and incite their followers through passionate rhetoric responsible for the outcome. I think they are responsible for the results of their comments.

Image credit: Sean MacEntee

A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read all If the Shoe Fits posts here.

A few years ago I wrote that good bosses need to be part shrink in order to deal with imposter syndrome and real programmer syndrome (for lack of a better term).

Now, there’s a third mental quirk to add to that list; call it high performer expectations syndrome.

Founders have notoriously high expectations of themselves and everyone they hire.

Those expectations are great motivators as long as things are going well.

However, those same high expectations, both external and internal, can have a negative effect on the best people — including the founder.

What we found essentially is this: When the going gets tough, favorites are more likely to quit. […]  When people walk in with high expectations and they begin to falter and experience setbacks, they have two options. They could persist and try to grind it out, or they could take the easier route that might preserve their self-esteem, be less embarrassing, and exit.

Founders and other high-performance team members aren’t likely to quit, although massively hyped stars are another matter.

Most high performance people know they are fallible, so the hit to their self-esteem is more internal and they are less likely to personalize public embarrassment — both attitudes that usually respond positively to “we’re all in this together” team support and coaching.

Stars, however, typically have a strong belief in their infallibility and a high sensitivity to public embarrassment — not a combination that lends itself to team support or coaching.

Good bosses take care of their people and themselves.

They also meld high expectations with a strong culture; one that makes glitches and even failing a learning experience that leads to both company and personal growth.

Image credit: HikingArtist

It can be helpful to look at our past and see the progress we have made. There are also times when a significant event occurred that prompts you to remember it forever. It can be a turning point, a watershed moment or a placeholder of things to come.

Ten years ago on May 2nd, 2008 I was on patrol in Fallujah, Iraq as a US Marine. By this point I had been in the country for about three months and was starting to feel more comfortable with my surroundings and what our role was. I was one member of a 100 member Marine Company and we were tasked to provide security within a given geography. Our Company was made up of six squads. Each squad would have its own mission and area to patrol.

That evening was very similar to most. Our missions were at night so we would not disturb the local population. Typically we would have a late lunch, go into a conference room to discuss the mission for that evening and head out around 8 PM. During the mission briefings all the squads were together, we would meet up and tell each other to be safe, go out separate ways, and meet back in the morning to debrief

While we were on patrol that evening around 1 am in the morning I looked into the night sky to see flares floating down on parachutes about a half mile from my location. Typically this was done to provide light to an area when needed. I remember actually thinking it was rather beautiful. Each flare lasted about 5 minutes before going out and another would take its place. Unbeknownst to me at the time was the purpose of the flares.

When my squad returned in the morning something was off. There were somber faces and I saw our chaplain. As a Marine when you see the chaplain you know something is wrong. We were called into the briefing room and I saw grown men crying. These were hardened Marines who had seen a lot. It was then that we were told the news.

While on patrol during the night four Marines in our sister squad were killed when their Humvee rolled over an improvised explosive device, an IED. The purpose of those flares the night before were to provide light to my fellow Marines so they could recover what was left of the bodies.

That night was a watershed moment for me. I won’t claim I became my best self after; I didn’t. However I use it as a bookend and a beginning.

Ten years later I am a father to three beautiful girls and married to my best friend. I get to travel, I get to help people and I get to live.

For a long time I carried some measure of survivors guilt. Maybe I still do, but I also carry hope with me.

Will every day be my best? Absolutely not. Will I always make the right decision and honor the memory of my friends? No, I won’t. But I do know that I can make a choice everyday, while those four cannot.

I remember them as friends and companions. Mentors and leaders. Fragile and strong at the same time.

You are not forgotten and we will see each other again.

Until Valhalla —

Sgt. Glenn E. Martinez

Cpl. Miguel A. Guzman

Lcpl. James F. Kimple

Lcpl. Casey L. Casanova

Image credit: Richard Potts

Yesterday we looked at why a respectful culture is more creative and productive than one where the prime concern is being nice and not offending.

Granted, some things just go together, like peanut butter and jelly, but ‘like’ and ‘respect’ aren’t two of them.

If there is one thing I’ve learned (there are more) over a long life is that you can like a person, but not respect them, and you can respect someone whom you don’t like.

The two attitudes are totally separate and easily stand alone.

For example, recently I came upon new information about a couple I’ve liked and respected for more than two decades. The info made me lose my respect for them, although it did nothing to change the enjoyment I get from their company.

It’s not hypocritical, they are still the same interesting, fun and caring friends, but what I learned made me lose the respect I had for them.

Many people confronted the same situation in the aftermath of the 2017 election.

By the same token, I had a boss for whom I had enormous respect, but avoided spending unnecessary time with — no harassment or inappropriate behavior — I just didn’t like him.

But that didn’t stop me from respecting him and learning all I could, nor did it stop him from promoting me.

Looking back, I think our feelings were probably mutual; I doubt he liked me any more than I liked him, but he listened, recognized my contributions and provided opportunities for me to grow.

I’ve also had bosses, both male and female, who were good folks, great to be around, but I didn’t have much respect for some of the stuff they did.

It’s best when you can both respect and like your boss, teammate, whomever, and vice versa, but if  you have to choose always opt for respect.

It’s worth a lot more in the long run.

Image credit: Matias Garabedian

Yesterday I said we would “consider the difference between respect and nice on culture, creativity, innovation, and success.”

According to the Oxford Dictionary there is a substantial difference between nice and respect:

• Respect: A feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
• Nice: good-natured; kind.

If one of these was going to be the basis of the culture created, which would you choose?

If you worked in that culture, which would do more to motivate you?

If you chose respect, you hit a home run.

Nice? A grounder to first, with little chance of getting home.

What’s the problem with ‘nice’?

…a powerful quirk in group psychology called shared information bias.

Here’s what happens: in nice organizations, team members become highly attuned to each other’s feelings and short-term well-being. Individuals rightly assume that their survival and advancement is based as much on how nice they can be and how good they make others feel as on the results they produce.

Obviously, if the strongest motivator in your team is not to offend or upset anyone, then creativity will be stifled and innovation crushed.

Recent research and discussions have focused on various forms of bias, both conscious and unconscious. However, it seems to me that information bias often reflects more pernicious biases.

That said, it may also be one of the easier to fight.

Easier, because respect is the antidote and respect is well understood and can be cultivated, since all people crave respect.

Bosses at any level can set the tone simply by respecting everyone on their team equally and not giving a pass to any form of disrespect — no matter who it comes from.

It’s also easier to recognize disrespect and censure it, since it is relatively obvious if you are looking for it.

One of the most common forms of information bias can be found in meetings when the person trying to speak is belittled, cut off or ignored.

It’s up to the boss to stop it, just as it’s up to the boss to model respectful behavior, since most people follow the lead of their bosses — similar to monkey see, monkey do.

Image credit: David Kivlin