Yesterday I shared emails from a reader who, at the end of the day, realized that he was over-reacting, his boss was insanely busy and nothing was wrong.
Today I want to share another story with you, only this one happened shortly after I entered the workforce.
There were seven of us in the office, everyone pulled their weight and we were a very congenial group often going out together for lunch or a drink after work.
One day “Jenny” didn’t come in and the next day she was late. Over the next few months she became cranky and very touchy. Her work slipped and the rest of us found ourselves picking up the slack. People started grumbling and, as they always do, the grumbles got back to our boss.
Fortunately, we had a very smart, proactive boss. He called a brief meeting on a morning that Jenny was absent and explained to us that her mother had been diagnosed with cancer; she was getting treatment, but in the meantime Jenny had to fill in for her.
We all knew that Jen had two younger sisters and that her dad had been out of the picture for years, so suddenly the dark circles, grouchiness, and missed days all started making sense. He told us that Jenny hadn’t said anything because she wasn’t looking for pity and the best thing we could do was to wait until she told us herself. In the meantime, he would appreciate it if we would desist from the grumbling and not-so-subtle comments.
That episode taught me a great lesson.
From then on, when someone didn’t do as expected or let me down in some way, my memory would flash to Jenny and I would take a deep breath and stomp on my reaction, because I didn’t know what was going on in their world.
I’d love to say that I always did this, but that would be a lie. But the older I got the more successful I was and I never regretted it. If the behavior continued I look for reasons and more often than not I found them.
Sure, there were times nothing was wrong and the person was just taking advantage of me and others, but more often they were under the gun, whether a derringer or a bazooka, and I was glad I didn’t make it worse.
So the next time someone lets you down, think about Jenny and cut them some slack; you’ll be glad you did.
“The past is the present, isn’t it? It’s the future, too.” Long Day’s Journey Into Night, Eugene O’Neill
I recently ran across this quote; it’s been years since I read the play, but that poignant line, with its message that what has been is and irrevocably will be has always left me feeling depressed and angry.
Depressed because it revokes hope.
Angry because it’s the antithesis of everything I believe.
It proclaims that we, whether individuals, organizations or countries, can’t change; that we are locked on our trajectory with no rudder and an endless supply of fuel.
That thought represents a type of MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™) I’ve constantly rejected, while embracing the belief that anyone can change if they choose to make the effort.
Not that it’s simple or that it’s easy, but that it can be done.
I’ve done it and am in the process of doing it again.
You’ve done it and can choose to do it again.
Whether you choose an opportunity or pass it by, each one changes the present and alters the future, because your MAP changes with each decision.
Not necessarily large changes, but changes none the less and those changes will impact your next decision and so on throughout life.
But you can avoid changes by embracing a rigid ideology that eliminates decisions by turning a blind eye of all divergent opportunities or by allowing someone else to decide for you in the name of followership.
For all the talk about bullying, one dirty little secret is just starting to see the light of day.
Bullies are split 60/40 (men/women), but while men are equal opportunity bullies—they stomp on anyone— women are more likely to bully other women “more than 70 percent of the time.”
That doesn’t surprise me, all my life I’ve always gotten more mentoring and support from men than I have from women.
I’ve seen too many women crushed because whatever was done to them was done by another woman, so there was a major betrayal factor added to whatever else was involved.
I never bought into the whole sisterhood thing. It just never made any sense to me to that 50% of the population could be trusted because we all had the same plumbing and the other 50% were enemies because theirs was different.
No more sense than assuming that other external differences, such as race, religion or sexual orientation, guarantee a trustworthy ally.
Bullies pick on those they see as weaker and less likely to fight back, so while I was never bullied I was targeted for more sabotage because I was perceived as a threat—or maybe sabotage qualifies as bullying.
Thinking back, most of the people termed bullies and chauvinists were weak, petty and insecure, so I pretty much ignored them.
I’ve always tended to look beyond surface appearance, probably in the hope that my attitude would be reciprocated.
Last week I described way to use an innovation wiki to juice creativity and garner ideas from all parts of the company. In the comments Jennifer Brown said, “…[is a] platform across the entire enterprise wherein the innovation “conversation” occurs – not just team by team/vertical by vertical, but across verticals that typically don’t talk to each other (hence leading to silos) or collaborate. …harness the power of the workforce, break the silo’d thinking of functional structures, and revolutionize business models.”
I agree, but done with a small innovative twist an innovation wiki will break down not only departmental silos, but also the insidious horizontal silos that are based on position and education.
Personally, I loathe horizontal silos and consider them second only to politics on the corporate stupidity index.
More times than I can count I’ve seen the ideas of an engineer 1 or 2 discounted or ignored by the 3s and senior engineers—of course, that’s better than stealing them, although that happens, too.
The attitude seems to be one of ‘your brain is incapable of any creative thinking until you are at least at my pay grade’, which is idiotic.
People’s brains work differently; some see what is, others see possible improvements and a few see around corners, but that sight has little to do with position. Steve Jobs saw around the corner of the personal computer market before there was a personal computer market and certainly before he had any credibility what so ever.
Nor is it always about training and education. 20 odd years ago I redesigned two street intersection where I lived in San Francisco, but I didn’t suggest the solutions to the traffic engineers—I knew they wouldn’t listen because I have no training. Instead, I sneaked both ideas in through someone I know who was ‘accepted’ and both are still in effect today.
Silos are built of egos, which is why, vertical or horizontal, they’re so difficult to break down.
The best solution is for the CEO to build a culture that values everybody’s ideas equally, but technology offers a leg up on this.
When building your innovation wiki assign a random ID to each suggestion—sort of like match.com. They must be completely random so that level, grade and even department are totally obscured. Each idea has a different ID, so that when a person’s idea is used the next one is still anonymous; limit access of the actual name to a few top executives.
That anonymity truly levels the playing field and means that each idea is considered strictly on its merits, not on the merits of the person who thought of it. It also encourages people to way outside-the-box thinking and to post ideas without worrying about appearing silly, pushy or arrogant for offering ideas outside of their personal expertise.
Just be sure that the contributors of ideas that are used, whether all, in part or as a springboard to something else, receive plenty of public acknowledgement, kudos and anything else you’re in a position to do.
A few days ago Kiva left this comment on a post talking about diversity of thought as opposed to visual diversity, “My office engages in some diversity of sex and skin color, but they’re stuck at only truly valuing rank and position. Any way to get them beyond that when they don’t seem to even see others?”
I felt that the subject would be of interest to many of you and said I would respond this week in a full post.
There’s no simple one-size-fits-all answer to this because the cause depends on the circumstances and people involved.
So let’s look at four basic scenarios of what may be going on and what you can do.
Scenario 1: The most common assumption is that the TD (top dog) from whom the company/department/team’s culture flows is a jerk. This is also the cause that many people prefer, since it takes all responsibility off their shoulders, leaves them free to complain, solicit sympathy from friends or wallow in self-pity.
It’s not the most common cause, but if you’re absolutely sure of your appraisal the solution is simple—polish your resume and get out. Until you can leave do the best work you’re capable of doing, learn everything possible and cultivate senior colleagues who can serve as references in the future.
Scenario 2: The TD doesn’t realize it’s happening. Actually, it’s easier than you think for this attitude to invade a culture and grow into something that is highly demotivating for “the rest.” Discuss your perceptions with an ‘insider’ whom you trust to consider it openly and speak honestly with you.
I’ve found that a conscious effort by some of those in the ‘in-group’ to seek out and publicly laud unrecognized talent based on pure achievement can wake up an oblivious TD. Of course, high turnover of those outside the magic circle will do the same thing, but it’s a tougher road. Just don’t be upset if you’re not one of those recognized.
This brings us to the next two scenarios, both of which respond to the same corrective measures
Scenario 3: The problem is one of perception (yours) as opposed to more objective fact. This frequently happens when workers feel they are contributing at same level and quality as those being recognized.
Scenario 4: An enormous number of Millennials were raised on praise. When employees look for recognition for doing what they were hired to do adequately as opposed to doing more or doing it better they can be disappointed.
For both three and four, start with a non-partisan discussion with someone knowledgeable of the situation who will be objective can tell you if you need to rethink your own actions and/or attitudes, since
None of this is very comfortable, but the second two are actually easier to correct than the first two, since you have far more control over yourself than you do over others.
Have you faced similar situations? How did you handle them?
I hope you’ll take a moment to share your experiences with the rest of us.
Are there any basic attitudes that you can build into your company’s culture that will encourage, let alone mandate, ethical/moral behavior in the decision making process when ‘moral’ equates to risk?
“…moral dilemmas, the decision to tell the truth or to bury it entails a huge amount of risk and soul-searching. Viewed in that way, what we call “ethics” is really a set of decisions about which risk is easier to sleep with at night: opening up about an uncertain situation or trying to hide the worst of it from yourself and everyone else.”
There are three traits that must be deeply embedded in your culture are
Consciousness. This is also known as ingrained awareness of the ramifications of collective action.
Discipline. Neuroscience research over the last decade has demonstrated that continual, intensive focus changes the pattern of neurons within the human brain.
Empathy. When a company is truly empathetic, the recognition of the value of employees is just a starting point.
The quote above is from an article based on the video below; the speech was given this past January at a Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs seminar entitled “Top Risks and Ethical Decisions.”
For full details read the entire transcript as well as the article, they’re well worth your time.
Are you as disgusted as I am? There is no shame and it’s unlikely to change.
If you can grab it do so and screw everyone else, they don’t matter. Only you matter.
AIG received 170 billion in taxpayer money and they plan to pay about $165 million in bonuses by Sunday.
According to Edward M. Liddy, the government-appointed chairman, “We cannot attract and retain the best and the brightest talent to lead and staff the A.I.G. businesses — which are now being operated principally on behalf of American taxpayers — if employees believe their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury.”
The bonuses go to the “leaders” in the financial products division which is the same business unit that brought the company to the brink of collapse last year.
AIG says that the bonuses are contractual.
In the brave new world of the Twenty-first Century ethics are defined by law and morality is old fashioned unless it’s about someone else.
As a wise man once said, “An ethical man knows he shouldn’t cheat on his wife. A moral man wouldn’t.”
If these executives are the “best and brightest” we’re in bigger trouble than I thought.
The contract doesn’t mean squat anyway since the recipients could turn the bonuses down just as a number of CEOs have recently.
Just think, if they did perhaps some of their colleagues wouldn’t be laid off.
And if you think this is an isolated incident of the “Thain mindset” take a look at the ad that Visa is running once again. I saw it once in Business Week last year and found it in terrible taste, but then it disappeared.
I thought the company had realized that their timing for a new status card was atrocious, but I guess I was wrong. This full-page ad appeared in the March 16, 2009 issue.
Perhaps the card is targeted at the recipients of that $165 million.
“The percentage of girls who say they believe that today both men and women have an equal chance of getting a leadership position has declined from 35 percent to 24 percent between 2007 and 2008.”
And the guys still seem to have problems if women “get tough” (like them), especially in male-dominated fields.
“Speak lowly and slowly, but smile frequently…This advice…was based on my observation that women must adhere to a narrow band of behavior in order to be effective in mostly male settings.”
WSJ Online republished an article from 2005 looking at the difference between how most women relate to numbers vs. most men and its effect on earnings. Sadly, it hasn’t really changed.
“Female M.B.A.s have a bias to nurturing and team building and male M.B.A.s to a more analytically driven focus on success and independence. My advice is that both should develop more well-rounded skills.”
“Studies show that in almost all measures of executive performance women are equal to or outperform men, with one exception: vision. Ibarra’s review of the 360 degree reviews of nearly 3,000 women revealed that, in general, they were seen as less visionary.”
McKinsey, however, presents a trenchant case (requires free registration) on why women are important, not in terms of political correctness, but to the bottom line.
“The gender gap isn’t just an image problem: our research suggests that it can have real implications for company performance. Some companies have taken effective steps to achieve greater parity.”
But the world turns and times change. When the ruling class screws up big time, people often embrace the opposition.
“Icelandic women, however, are more likely to be studying the financial news than the recipes – and more likely to be thinking about how to put right the mess their men have made of the banking system than about cooking them comfort food. … But for a generation of fortysomething women, the havoc is translating into an opportunity to step into the positions vacated by the men blamed for the crisis, and to play a leading role in creating a more balanced economy, which, they argue, should incorporate overtly feminine values.”
“John Coates, a researcher at Cambridge University concluded that traders made the highest profits when they had the highest levels of testosterone in their spit. The downside, he said, was that elevated testosterone also led to riskier behavior, a formula for disaster as well as profit.”
What do you think? Would the bankers have played derivative Russian roulette if there had been more women in the in the halls of Wall Street power?
Do words really make a difference? Can just one word change people’s perception of a person or event?
I’ve read several items lately on the importance of influence in leadership. Several even make the point that it’s the ability to influence that marks a person as a leader.
Personally, other than socially acceptable definitions, I don’t see a lot of difference between influence and manipulation.
Both influence and manipulation seek to produce an effect without any apparent exertion of force or direct exercise of command.
But if you say someone has a lot of influence it’s a compliment; call the same person a master manipulator and you’d better duck.
It’s a good example of the real power that words have to inspire or crush even if their meaning is the same.
And it’s important to remember that words come with baggage that goes well beyond their actual definition.
That baggage was one of the main reasons corporate marketing departments made so many mistakes when moving from one culture to another.
Braniff translated its slogan relating to seat upholstery, “Fly in leather” to Spanish; only it came out as “Fly naked.”
Coors slogan, “Turn it loose,” means “Suffer from diarrhea” in Spanish.
Clairol, introduced a curling iron called the “Mist Stick” in Germany and learned the hard way that mist is slang for manure.
Gerber started selling baby food in Africa using US packaging with the baby on the label until they found out that in Africa the picture on the label indicates what’s inside since most people can’t read.
There are hundreds of similar mishaps. They made marketing departments a laughing stock, forced companies to hire locally, helped change the headquarters mindset and encourage global companies to be truly global.
The point of all this is to encourage you to take a few extra minutes to think through not only what you want to say, but also what your audience will hear when you say it.
That effort can make the difference between going up like a rocket or down like a falling star.
Entrepreneurs face difficulties that are hard for most people to imagine, let alone understand. You can find anonymous help and connections that do understand at 7 cups of tea.
Crises never end.
$10 really does make a difference and you’ll never miss it,
(And a special link to 
Yesterday I shared emails from a reader who, at the end of the day, realized that he was over-reacting, his boss was insanely busy and nothing was wrong.
Not that it’s simple or that it’s easy, but that it can be done.
I never bought into the whole sisterhood thing. It just never made any sense to me to that 50% of the population could be trusted because we all had the same plumbing and the other 50% were enemies because theirs was different.
I agree, but done with a small innovative twist an innovation wiki will break down not only departmental silos, but also the insidious horizontal silos that are based on position and education.
I felt that the subject would be of interest to many of you and said I would respond this week in a full post.
Are there any basic attitudes that you can build into your company’s culture that will encourage, let alone mandate, ethical/moral behavior in the decision making process when ‘moral’ equates to risk?
Last year I wrote about the 
