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

If you were sitting in Starbucks and heard the following from a man and a woman you couldn’t see, what would your reaction be?

If we can get every business in the world to adopt a global problem, get slightly smaller businesses to adopt a national problem, get smaller businesses still to adopt local problems, then we can get on top of pretty well every problem in the world.

Snicker at their naiveté? Wonder how they would monetize the idea? Drool a bit over the enormous trove of data they would have? Maybe give some thought on how you could get into the action?

Not that you would admit those thoughts in public.

But in the end, you would probably just shrug and write them off as a couple of idealistic dreamers who were unlikely to get anywhere with ideas like that.

Why?

Because they didn’t sound as if they had the passion, the drive, the pure grit, to pull off a truly world-changing idea.

All these scenarios are predicated on the assumption that the people talking were just people.

Would the fact that you were eavesdropping on Richard Branson and his daughter, Holly, cause you to change your assumptions?

Probably.

(Click to read more about Branson.)

Image credit: HikingArtist

 Today I conducted my quarterly Business Review with the leadership at my company and I can tell you I’m happy it’s over.

It’s not that I don’t enjoy them, it’s just that they can cause undue stress on everyone in the office for weeks on end.

You build your deck, rehearse your script and try to prepare as best you can for the unexpected questions. After it’s over you breath a sigh of relief.

As I went through my review today I was prepared and looking forward to it. I crave feedback and I don’t receive a ton of it from my manager, so this was an opportunity for me to receive some much needed responses.

At the end of it I discussed some initiatives that I wanted to pursue and they green lighted two of the three, not bad in my book.

After it was all done I realized that I would actually prefer to have these more often. I read that Goldman Sacks has continuous feedback and it helps associates see where they stand in real time. Maybe that’s a bit much, but more than once a quarter can be good as well.

How do you approach this exercise at work?

If the leadership is positive than I think it’s a good thing. I have seen it skew to the negative, though, when you have a demanding boss.

Are these events even needed? In sales I think so because you have a business to run. Does that apply elsewhere?

In a recent post, Mark Suster commented on about the latest sexcapade involving Les Moonves, CBS Chairman/CEO.

Leaders in all industries need to stand up and say that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated. Future emerging leaders in companies need to know that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated and a spotlight will be shined when it does.

I was going to comment, mentioning what happens when a power is toppled, but LaVonne Reimer (fourth comment) beat me to it.

She cited the story of Mike Cagney, who was fired from online lending company Social Finance last September after an investigation by the board of  over accusations of sexual misconduct and lying.

Powerful men getting fired for harassment and/or sexual misconduct is all too common these days, but that wasn’t Reimer’s or my point.

Our point is the aftermath — or total lack thereof.

Yet just months after Mr. Cagney departed SoFi, two venture capitalists who had been on the company’s board and knew many details of his actions invested $17 million in his new start-up, called Figure. Since then, Mr. Cagney has raised another $41 million from others for the lending start-up, which will open soon.

Suster’s idea that “Leaders in all industries need to stand up and say that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.” means nothing as long as there are no real consequences.

Obviously, losing their jobs did not equate to losing their power.

And it’s the power that matters, not the job — because there is always another job.

Therefore, no consequences.

Image credit: Hiking Artist

German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller wrote the following in response to Nazis actions in the 1930s.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

The poem speaks elegantly as to why the Nazis came so close to ruling the world.

It also speaks to what is wrong with Facebook as it pursues it’s course of “it’s not our responsibility.”

To Facebook, the world is not made up of individuals, but of connections between them. The billions of Facebook accounts belong not to “people” but to “users,” collections of data points connected to other collections of data points on a vast Social Network, to be targeted and monetized by computer programs.

(…)

There are certain things you do not in good conscience do to humans. To data, you can do whatever you like.

(…)

Facebook needs to learn to think for itself. Its own security officer, Alex Stamos, said as much in his departing memo, also acquired by BuzzFeed. “We need to be willing to pick sides when there are clear moral or humanitarian issues,” he writes. That is what Eichmann never did.

You might think I am overstating Facebook’s power, but make no mistake, kids are driven to suicide and lives are destroyed.

Hitler committed his atrocities in the name of racial purity.

Zukerberg allows his version in the name of capitalism.

Image credit: Wikipedia

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.

A comment left on this post said the Navy’s version is “Ship, Shipmate, Self” and I’m sure the sentiment can be found embedded in the cultures of many organizations.

Unfortunately, embedding doesn’t mean complying, especially in these days of overly robust egos

Read other Golden Oldies here.

Ever noticed how some things stay with you? Many years ago, while working as a recruiter, a client VP said,

“Great managers make their decisions first for the sake of their company, second for the sake of their group and third for the sake of themselves.”

That comment comes back every time I read about another business leader whose decisions and choices were made in the opposite order, but presented as being for the good of the company.

Many of them are in jail, but many more either got off or weren’t caught in the first place; they just moved on to another role and are likely still making their decisions the same way.

Most interesting is that many managers who in reality reversed the decision order (3-2-1) see themselves as making them 1-2-3. This ties back to previously cited research showing that most of us aren’t the best evaluators of our own actions.

Basically, the question is how you evaluate your decisions before you make them. What kind of internal yardstick can you create that will assure the most 1-2-3 decisions?

Based on feedback from dozens of 1-2-3 decision-makers the common thread seems to be strong EQ and empathy, combined a high degree of objectivity and self-awareness. So how do you become self-aware and objective?

Let’s start by defining awareness. The modern definition of awareness is “having knowledge,” but the archaic definition of “vigilant” and “watchful” is more applicable.

Raising your awareness is probably most difficult because it requires you to become more objective about yourself and your actions, i.e., learning to see yourself in the third person instead of the first (seeing yourself as others see you).

Most people have some objectivity, e.g., they are able to look at a thing—clothes, jewelry, painting, furniture, house, etc.—and appreciate its beauty without wanting to own it or even actually like it.

Self-awareness is the result of cultivating that kind of third person objectivity and then focusing it on your thoughts, feelings and decisions.

A good way to build your awareness is to start with things. The next time someone asks you if you like their new whatever, stop and think about what you’re really thinking.

Most people subconsciously think about whether they like, are ambivalent or hate it. But the person asking doesn’t want to know if you want to own/wear it, they’re asking about it in terms of themself, so think about it in terms of that person, instead of in terms of yourself—in other words, think about it objectively.

Consciously listen to yourself, hear what you say from the outside, instead absorbing the content from your thoughts. Hear what others say in the context of themselves, rather than your own context.

Be sure to develop your objective side without losing the subjective one and, most importantly, be aware of which is which.

The ability to listen objectively to your own thinking is awareness and it acts as an unconscious warning system, only kicking into action when needed, not editing every comment, every move, all the time.

Image credit: Preston Rhea

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

Have you ever wondered where all the bullshit business terms (BBT) came/come from, especially since their spread predates the Net and social media by decades?

A fascinating article in the Guardian traces the birth and rise of business bullshit that sprang from a 20th-century Russian mystic, was embraced by corporate leaders, inspired Scott Adams of Dilbert fame, and has been re-imagined and added to by consultants and pundits ever since.

It hasn’t always been this way. A certain amount of empty talk is unavoidable when humans gather together in large groups, but the kind of bullshit through which we all have to wade every day is a remarkably recent creation.

Founders and others in tech are especially fond of BBT as they go about changing the world.

There’s even an online generator that takes the effort out of remembering terms yourself.

Business bullshit always reminds me of a guy I worked with, who believed the more multi-syllabic words he used the smarter he would sound.

He didn’t and you won’t either.

The article is long, but well worth the reading time.

It might even help squelch your own penchant for using them.

Hat tip to CB Insights for pointing me to the article.

Image credit: Scott Adams

To set the record straight I have been married for a number of years now and am very happy with my wife. I have not dated in any way since our courtship and am quite frankly a poor judge of what the current scene looks like. The closest I get to dating at this point are interviews for new jobs and roles.

A lot of people equate interviewing jobs to a sales cycle. You need to qualify the opportunity, determine next steps, and get to a close.

I actually agree that interviewing is very much like a sales cycle. However I also view it as trying out a new relationship.

Work/life balance is more of a blend. You need to know if that job you take will be flexible when needed or support you in your goals. Do you see yourself settling down with them? Have they mistreated others in a similar role before?

Essentially, when we read review sites, ask around and conduct an interview we are trying to determine if it’s a right fit.

I was taught a good lesson recently that we need to show a company what we can bring to the table, not just what the company can do for us. I liked that statement a lot and it reminded me a bit of when President Kennedy spoke about what you could do for your country.

So as a happily married man, interviewing is the closest thing to dating that I can think of in corporate America. (And I am not naive to think dating doesn’t happen in a traditional sense, just not going down that road here).

What are your thoughts on all of this? Am I on the right path with my system or can it be refined?

Image credit: scott.fuhrman

Empowering people is something every good boss, from CEO to team leader, wants to do.

Sometimes that can be accomplished by making a small change that turns out to have a giant impact, as GM Chairman/CEO Mary Barra found when she became vice president of global human resources in 2009.

Barra wanted to change GM’s 10-page dress code to a simple, two-word one, ‘dress appropriately.’

Her staff didn’t agree.

But the HR department ironically posed my first hurdle. They started arguing with me, saying, it can be ‘dress appropriately’ on the surface, but in the employee manual it needs to be a lot more detailed. They put in specifics, like, ‘Don’t wear T-shirts that say inappropriate things, or statements that could be misinterpreted.’”

The kind of detailed instructions the hr staff wanted to add may not seem like that big a deal, but the underlying implication is that the company didn’t trust them. Remove the details and you have a radically different result.

“But if you let people own policies themselves—especially at the first level of people supervision—it helps develop them. It was an eye-opening experience, but I now know that these small little things changed our culture powerfully. They weren’t the only factor, but they contributed significantly.” (…)  By simply stating “dress appropriately,” Barra does exactly what she asks of other leaders: She avoids assumptions, instead choosing to trust her employees’ judgment—and has found the experience remarkably liberating.

Not to mention successful.

If that attitude works in a company with 180,000 employees it will probably work for you.

Image credit: Wikipedia

Yesterday I commented that too often the last place bosses, and people in general, look for the cause of a problem is in the mirror.

Along with that proclivity of externalizing the source of difficulties, both great and small, is their belief that reasons excuse most anything.

Not excuses, oh, no, but reasons.

There’s a difference, you see.

Reasons make it OK.

As long as there’s a reason it doesn’t seem to matter much what “it” is.

Excuses, you see, seek to lesson blame/responsibility, while a reason explains/justifies “it.”

They may sound similar, but excuses admit something was wrong, whereas if there’s a reason then nothing really happened.

But at the end of the day, neither negates “it” or makes “it” acceptable.

Image credit: ♥*.Holly.*♫

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.

This post dates from 2013, but it could have been any time in the previous centuries. And not just bosses, but people in general usually look externally for the source and solution to whatever is happening. However, they are both more often found within our own MAP, our own words and our own actions.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

Everything today is about innovation, creativity, productivity and how to increase them all.

Bosses at every level read books/blogs/social media, listen to management gurus and attend seminars looking for methods and approaches that will boost all three.

They look for solutions outside, but rarely look in the mirror.

Too few bosses, no matter what happens or what feedback they receive, recognize that it’s their MAP and their actions, not their people’s, at the bottom of their under-performing groups.

After all, if you

• • ask for input and ridicule those who offer it, why be surprised when you stop receiving it?
  • tell your people you want to solve problems while they’re still molehills and then kill the messengers who bring you molehill news you shouldn’t be surprised to find yourself grappling with mountainous problems requiring substantially more resources.
  • tell people their ideas are stupid, whether directly or circumspectly, or, worse, that they are for thinking of them, why should they offer themselves up for another smack with a verbal two-by-four?

I could list many more examples, but you get the idea.

Your team’s results are a direct reflection of you, so before you start ranting or whining about your group’s lack of initiative and innovation, try really listening to yourself, the feedback you receive and give, and then look in the mirror—chances are the real culprit will be looking straight back at you.

Image credit: Meeb Forman