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.

Bad writing isn’t age related. Bad writing spans all ages and keeps getting worse. You deal with it daily in email, web content, hardcopy marketing material, resumes, and, the worst, information and instructions from the boss. Decoding bad writing is not only time-consuming, but can also be downright scary if a design change or product launch depends on it.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

Bosses, business coaches, academics, bloggers and many others bemoan the lack of communications skills in Gen Y, especially written communications, but they have plenty of company in preceding generations.

Not just bad writing, but opaque writing, the kind that leaves readers scratching their heads wondering what they are missing.

Of course, I shouldn’t complain, since one of my company’s most popular products is Clarity RE-writing, which involves using the fewest possible words to present even the most complex information in the most understandable way.

Who are the worst writers?

Granting that many of Gen Y don’t understand the difference between writing and texting, I find lousy writing much more offensive when it comes from those who (should) know better.

And while the more lofty their position the more offended I am, I save my greatest reaction for those old enough and senior enough to know better who work in the field—in other words, they are, or should be, professional communicators.

Charles H. Townsend, the chief executive of Condé Nast Publications, which includes Vogue, The New Yorker and Vanity Fair, is such a one. He recently sent a 500 word memo to his staff, here is a sample from it.

“…a consumer-centric business model, a holistic brand management approach and the establishment of a multi-platform, integrated sales and marketing organization.”… “To optimize brand revenue growth, we will shift responsibility for single-site, digital sales and marketing to the brand level. Publishers can now fully leverage their offerings across all platforms.”

Don’t feel badly if you aren’t sure what he is trying to say, his staff wasn’t sure, either.

If you want to write clearly here is some quick and basic guidance.

• • • Avoid jargon;
    • shun multi-syllabic words;
    • use short, simple sentences;
    • pass on large blocks of text, especially on the Net;
    • spell check everything; and, most importantly,
    • never forget that most people scan and don’t actually read.

Image credit: Karin Dalziel

There was a time that having influence meant something.

Maybe it still does in certain circles, but for much of the world it means you have millions, or at least hundreds of thousands, of followers on Instagram, YouTube and Twitter (Facebook seems to be passé).

They are called ‘influencers’ and their followers treat their words, actions, recommendations, and opinions as gospel.

In spite of the fact that many of them are paid to promote [whatever].

Of course, famous people have been paid to endorse products for decades.

The difference is that many influencers are famous only because they are expert manipulators of social media — or they pay experts to build their brand.

So. Not new and relatively harmless.

But not when they are built on a lie and involve your health or money.

[Yovana Mendoza] The 28-year-old influencer, also known as Rawvana, has amassed more than 3 million followers across YouTube and Instagram by extolling the life-changing properties of a raw vegan diet. (…)  a couple of weeks ago, Mendoza was recorded eating seafood (…) Realising she was being filmed, she tried to hide the fish, but the jig was up.

Mendoza admitted she had stopped eating vegan for health reasons.

But she kept preaching the lifestyle.

There are dozens of similar stories and hundreds of influencers whose only true skill is self-promotion.

They talk about health; about money; about “living your best life.”

They talk to the millions of fools who follow them.

Image credit: Marco Raaphorst

This recent post from Wally Bock seemed like a great way to wrap up this week’s commentary about values and bosses.

Alan Turing made many contributions to the Allied effort in World War II and to the many fields that have coalesced into computer science. He’s best known among laypeople like me for his “Turing Test,” a test of whether a computer can exhibit intelligent behavior like a human being.

My question for you is: “Could you pass such a test?” If I watched you work for a few hours, would it be obvious that you were a human being and not some kind of AI-powered, cyborg-boss?

In my career I’ve seen too many bosses who couldn’t. They imagined their job as passing on instructions and enforcing regulations. One of their favorite phrases is “I have no choice …”

Most bosses aren’t that way. They may not get everything right, but it’s clear that they’re human beings struggling to do the right thing. That’s probably where you fit, but let’s check. Is it obvious that you’re a real human being or do you act like a walking, talking bunch of algorithms?

Do you take time to have frequent conversations with your team members where you do something more than just pass on directives?

Do you strive to be fair to everyone while you make adjustments for individual strengths, weaknesses, and preferences?

Do you argue for your team or team member when something comes down from above that’s wrong or unfair?

Do you help your team members grow, develop, and succeed?

Boss’s Bottom Line

Human bosses who act intelligently are the best for human beings. That means more than passing on instructions and enforcing rules and standards. Show your humanity by acknowledging the emotion in the workplace and by using both your brain and your heart

Image credit: HikingArtist

When you’re a boss, one of your biggest responsibilities is to help your people grow.

Doing that requires patience, because they won’t all grow at the same rate.

Some people grow fast, like a hare, others are more in the tortoise category, but that doesn’t make them less valuable.

The hares may grow faster, but the growth often lacks substance. Tortoises, on the other hand, are known to dig deep in order to go beyond the knowledge needed to do something and understand the underlying principles.

Speed is important and the lack of depth may not be a problem until something goes wrong. Finding a solution or work-around often requires the deeper understanding that tortoises possess.

The smart boss knows having a balance of both hares and tortoises yields the strongest team; one that can accomplish far more on time and in budget than a team that is predominantly one type or the other.

Image credit: Inspiyr.com

Poking through 12+ 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.

Ryan’s post a couple of weeks ago reminded me of something I’ve wrote a long time ago.

The sum of it was not that great but in the moment it was contentious. Emails and gnashing of teeth on both sides. In that moment I was angry, but I chose to wait to respond.

My solution? Sleep.

Good solution, but when you’re a boss and something happens that makes you angry you usually can’t wait until the next day to deal with it.

So what do you do? Here’s a solution from the 1970s (and before). It worked then, it works now and it will work in the future.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

How angry do you become when you ask your team or colleague for X and get X — 4, or X + 1. or even Y? How often have you lost, or almost lost it, because of the response you received during a meeting?

What is the only perfect response you can make when something happens and you’re ready to blow your top?

You’ve heard the answer all your life—when you’re angry, shut up/stay quiet/ don’t say anything; don’t “look” anything, either, until you’ve calmed down. Smart advice, but hard to follow.

Many managers don’t even realize when they go into “screaming mode,” because they don’t actually scream—they drip sarcasm, leak contempt, stream scorn or fire off zingers; they belittle and role their eyes. Most don’t realize the long-term damage that they do to their people; others just don’t care—their attitude is that stuff happens, get over it!

What neither type seems to realize is that, over time, one of three things happen,

• people grow inured to their tantrums,
• are damaged by them (people do stay in abusive relationships),
• or leave the company.

To change this,

• you must first acknowledge to yourself that you do it and that you want to change it; then
• whenever you feel yourself getting angry smile, nod and leave by saying that you have to make a call, use the bathroom, whatever innocuous excuse best fits the situation;
• go somewhere private, blow off steam if necessary, but calm down;
• schedule a time to resume the discussion; then
• simulate the least amount of anger (if any) needed to get your point across.

It’ll take people time to trust the “new” you, but it’s worth it. In the office, it will pay off in higher productivity and less turnover. You and your people will suffer less from stress, and you, personally, will have more energy, enjoy higher quality sleep, and see improvement in all your relationships

Image credit: istolethetv

Last Friday Adam Grant, an organizational psychologist professor at Wharton and columnist for the New York Times, wrote a column saying that not responding to email was rude.

I’m really sorry I didn’t say hi, make eye contact or acknowledge your presence in any way when you waved to me in the hallway the other day. It’s nothing personal. I just have too many people trying to greet me these days, and I can’t respond to everyone.

That sounds ridiculous, right? You would never snub a colleague trying to strike up a conversation. Yet when you ignore a personal email, that’s exactly what you’ve done: digital snubbery.

Two days later Mark Suster, a partner at Upfront Ventures, penned a 1600 word response on Medium saying he thought it was really dumb.

That people just got too much email, his examples?

Do you think that the CEO of Google should answer every written letter he receives? Should Jeff Bezos be required to address every written complaint that shows up in Seattle or Satya Nadella at Microsoft?

He goes on lumping every social media platform request together with email and how it’s impossible to respond to them all.

Grant’s post specifies colleagues and makes no reference to social media requests.

I also doubt that Suster’s examples are the folks Grant had in mind.

The great majority of workers don’t keep schedules the likes of Bezos, Page or Nadella nor do they carry the same responsibilities, so it’s actually a pretty dumb comparison.

But Suster has a big following in the tech world and I’m sure there are thousands of techies who will happily latch on to his words as justification to continue ignoring emails.

Image credit: matthewreid

Receiver Larry Fitzgerald, entering his 15th season, said this is the advice he’d like to give rookies.

God gave you two ears and one mouth for a reason. Listen twice as much as you talk. You learn a lot more when you’re listening.

Wally Bock quoted the same thing in a recent post.

Describing a manager who made a major hiring error that went uncorrected, I commented , that he couldn’t hear and wouldn’t have listened anyway.

Of course, it’s easier to talk than listen.

And you can’t really listen if you are looking at your phone.

Or doing anything on your computer.

Or thinking about where to go to lunch or what to make for dinner.

Or thinking about what you want to say as soon as the other person shuts up.

In other words, you can’t listen, really listen if you’re multitasking.

I might end this post with Wally’s high-level, positive summing up.

Listening is a critical leadership skill you can master. It will help you learn about the people you work with, demonstrate you think they’re important, and help you make better decisions.

But my take is low-level simple.

Knowing and practicing good listening is a great way to avoid being the lead character in Bob Sutten’s book The No Asshole Rule.

Image credit: Alan Goudy

Poking through 12+ 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.

You might think that stuff would change in 11 years and you would be correct if you were talking about technology, food, or similar topics. But when the subject is people, not so much.

Accents can be just as much a challenge today as they were when I wrote this and before. The difference 11 years have made is that while there is greater acceptance of diverse accents the need for understanding them hasn’t changed.

Nor has the solution described in this post. If anything, its importance has significantly increased.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

The ability to communicate successfully, in both directions, is the mark of a great manager, as is building and managing a powerful and innovative organization.

Accomplishing this mandates a willingness to hire the best available people.

But what do you do when the best can’t be easily understood?

Accents, whether from overseas or US regional, are a major turnoff to many people. Reactions range from idiotic assumptions of incompetence (essentially subconscious prejudice) to annoyance for having to exert effort listening (sheer laziness).

In a diverse world of shrinking talent pools, where English is a second language for many, it’s bad business to pass on those candidates, but it’s also ridiculous to believe that the problem will fix itself or just fade away if you ignore it.

I’m not talking about the need for flawless English, but about recognizing what happens if they aren’t understood.

What can you, as a manager, do?

If the challenge is accent (whether from India, China, New York, Liverpool, Mississippi, etc.), rather than comprehension or language knowledge, that could minimize their contribution or effectiveness, what do you do?

The same solution you use for any good candidate who is lacking a particular skill, you offer training. In this case, accent reduction training.

Again, not to force them to sound like you, but to improve their speech enough to ensure a reasonable level of understanding.

Yes, the discussion and offer needs to be handled with sensitivity, but people aren’t stupid and they know the things that put them at a disadvantage in the workplace. What you are offering to do is pay for training that will give them a boost throughout their career, not just at your company.

The cost isn’t that great, either, the company profiled in the article charges around $1000 per person. In comparison to the cost-per-day of continuing the search, $1000 doesn’t even qualify as a peanut.

Plus, there is additional ROI to you, individually, and to your company.

• You acquire top talent with a high degree of loyalty, while building a reputation as a creative manager, who knows how to successfully staff outside the box, is willing to invest in people, and has the vision to see beyond the obvious.
• Your company strengthens its diversity, which typically improves innovation, while your management achievements have an external halo effect on the company.

Image credit: 마 법사

One of the major reasons people ghost isn’t rocket science.

Nor is the major cause.

Candidates ghost because nothing connected — not the company, culture, job, people, and especially not the hiring manager.

Employees ghost because they aren’t engaged.

They feel that nobody — boss, company, colleagues — gives a damn so why should they.

And in many cases they are correct.

Companies don’t walk their cultural talk, low morale is obvious, as is a “me before thee” attitude, and

for a variety of reasons, bosses treat people as replaceable — even when they know it won’t be easy or could take months.

It’s nothing new.

Since the day people became hires, instead of slaves or indentured, bosses have used and abused them.

They still do, but on a more refined level.

Skipped promotions, demotions with little-to-no explanation, seriously brutal layoffs by email, with no warning (as Elon Musk just did), which is especially destructive to people when the company/job has been cast as some kind of “higher calling,” as is common in the tech world.

Candidates often fare no better.

Many managers consider hiring a necessary evil — resumes bore them, they hate wasting time interviewing — and they have more important things to do.

Strangely enough, HR often acts the same way, with preliminary interviews conducted by interviewers who look for word matches between resumes/candidates and job descriptions.

Obviously, it’s not all companies or all bosses — but likely the ones that get ghosted.

Image credit: Joe Le Merou

I especially like this post because, in today’s build-your-brand culture, it presents a solid road to success as a boss based on a radical idea: it’s not about you. You are not the be-all and end-all and even if you were it wouldn’t make you a success as a boss. It’s why, in the long run, AI won’t/can’t replace human bosses.

I joined the Marines right out of high school and started in business before I earned my degree. I had a family to support, so going the traditional student route made little sense. I earned my degree while I also worked full-time at responsible jobs. It turned out to be a good thing.

I could take classroom learning and try it on the job right away. It didn’t take long to figure out that an awful lot of the so-called expert advice was nonsense. The people in my economics textbooks, for example, didn’t act like me or any people I knew. Years later, Nobel Laureate Richard Thaler would call them “econs.”

Most of my books and most of my professors treated management as an engineering problem. There was much language about designing an effective system and “well-oiled machines.” There was plenty of advice that involved knowing what buttons to push or what levers to pull.

I learned a lot of good things, but most of the good stuff had nothing to do with working with people. I learned most of that on my own, mostly the hard way. You can have the biggest brain on Planet Earth but working with people requires your heart.

Working with people differs from working with machines. You don’t have to read a book or this blog post to figure this out. Look around you. Think about the people you work with every day.

What are People Like?

We know a lot about people. For starters, we know that we’re all imperfect. We make mistakes. That includes you. Forgive other people when they make a mistake. Admit it when you do.

People have strengths and weaknesses. You want to get the most you can out of those strengths and make those weaknesses irrelevant. People want to make progress. You should help them improve performance and spot opportunities they can seize.

People are emotional. Your computer doesn’t care if you snap at it, but your teammates do. A turret lathe won’t have a fight at home before coming to work. But pretty much everyone I know has had that experience. That’s how it is. Deal with it.

Machines can run all day, every day, for months. Buildings can last for decades with little maintenance. People are different. There’s a limit to how many hours most people can put in before productivity dwindles to almost nothing. For most of us, the top limit is somewhere between 50-55 hours a week. Overwork your people and their productivity will drop like a stone.

People need recovery time, too. After a long day, or after that big push to get a project done, people need to take time off. They need to hang out with their friends, play with their kids, go to a baseball game, or cook and consume a fine meal. Anything that’s not work-related. You interrupt that recovery time at your peril. Do it too often and people get resentful.

People thrive on good relationships. People want to work with other people they enjoy and that they can count on. Many a team has seen productivity decline because two team members couldn’t or wouldn’t get along. It’s your job to manage the work environment.

You’re A People, Too

You’re a person, too. You make mistakes. You have emotions. You have strengths and weaknesses. You want to make progress. Relationships matter a lot. You need breaks and recovery time.

One more thing. You set the example, whether or not you want to. It’s almost impossible to have a team that’s productive and happy if you’re a grumpy slacker. See to yourself first. Revel in your humanity. Draw strength from your relationships. Work hard, but get recovery time, too.

Image courtesy of Three Star Leadership