Way back, when I was a recruiter, I coined a term for an attitude that impacted people from senior ranks down through support staff and production workers.

I called it ego-merge and it happened when people so entwined their identity with their company’s that they took personal responsibility for its successes and failures.

Last week we looked at companies with perks designed to keep people on site, so that the company becomes their life.

Both situations are highly addictive.

Even companies with benefits designed to foster better work-life integration/balance can be considered addictive, since they are difficult to leave.

Most addictive of all are great managers, even when special perks and over-the-top benefits are missing.

Sadly, abusive companies/managers are also addictive, just as abusive homes/partners/relatives are.

So what do you do if both good and bad can be addictive?

Know yourself.

Know what’s really important to you, not to your friends or what looks cool on social media.

Make a list.

Know what holds your company has on you.

Make a list.

Compare the lists.

Revisit each list at least once a year, more often if something major happens in your life or company.

Edit them based on who you/company are, not who you/company were.

Image credit: David Prasad

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.

There are two lessons in this post.

The first is that managing at any level requires you to be present, conscious, and focused on your people — not on your social media, where you’re having dinner, or the work being done on your home.

The second, is that if you are one of the truly bad ones, who messes with your people’s heads and inflicts intentional hurt on them, you will get yours, because eventually what goes around does come around — no matter how long it takes.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

“Is there a single devastating thing I may do unconsciously that messes my people up the most and, if so, what are the effects?”

I’ve heard variations of this question from many managers over the years.

The answer is yes, there sure is and if you aren’t doing it unconsciously then you’re one of the really bad guys and I can only hope that your turnover soars and your reputation spreads.

The action is inconsistency and the primary effect is fear. Secondary effects include intimidation and insecurity.

The end results in the business world are distrust, low productivity, less innovation, abysmal retention and, on a more personal level, poor reviews, fewer promotions and less opportunity.

It doesn’t matter that the inconsistency is unintentional, arbitrary or whimsical the results are the same.

It’s not knowing that really gets to people—even more than expected abuse.

Think about it. It’s one thing to have someone who constantly criticizes (unconstructively) or disparages you, because you can learn how to turn a deaf ear if, for some reason, you can’t get out of earshot.

But when a zinger comes out of nowhere in what’s normally constructive, or at least neutral, feedback you’re caught unaware, thrown off balance and it really gets to you.

Actually, the more infrequent it is the worse it is when it does happen. And after it happens a few times people find themselves waiting for it, wondering when it’ll happen again and almost holding their breath to see if this is the time the other shoe will drop.

That fear grows exponentially once it takes root and distrust typically increases at the same rate.

Can you think of a worse scenario for people to labor under?

But when it’s unconscious, how do you know?

If you actually focus on the person with whom you’re talking, instead of checking your phone or thinking about something else, you’ll see the zinger hit and you should be able to identify what it was. If you can’t, then ask! Acknowledge the reaction, state that you know it was something you said, but you’re not sure what. Be gentle if you expect the person to open up, but you stand a better chance if you ask immediately, while they’re still in shock.

But if you did it on purpose, to enjoy the show and then get them to open up so you can twist the knife, I sincerely hope that all your teeth and hair fall out and Zeus’ thunderbolt strikes you where you stand and chars you into tiny little bits.

Image credit: sxc.hu

Some of the worst management advice I’ve heard/read recently comes from Anthony Middleton, former Special Forces Operator and co-author of “SAS: Who Dares Wins.”

He said; “How do I earn the respect of a group that I don’t know? That’s pretty simple. I go in with a voice of authority. I go in and I show them exactly why I’m their leader. When I give my first set of orders, I’m actually going to get involved with those first set of orders, I’m going to get in there, get my hands dirty.”

On handling people with big egos, the Former SBS Operator says: “I play to their egos, sometimes the best thing to do is let them learn from their mistakes. What I do is I slowly let them trip up, I’ll slowly let them stumble, and then I’ll take hold of them, break them down and build them back up to where they need to be.”

In other words, set them up to fail.

As to building them up, who decides on “where they need to be?”

Given today’s workforce, the only positive thing I can see managers who take this advice accomplishing is to improve their hiring skills.

Sadly, I’ve worked with many people who, for whatever reason, were broken, but not built back up. (I’ve always believed there is a special circle in the Inferno for bosses who intentionally damage their people.)

Knowing how opinionated (prejudiced) I am on this subject, I asked KG, who is a Boomer, and Ryan, who is a Millennial, what they thought. (In case you’re wondering, I’m on the cusp between the Silent Generation and the Boomers.)

From KG Charles-Harris.

The special forces is like investment banking; highly trained and motivated individuals, strong egos, high impact consequences. When dealing with millions of dollars or serious life & death situations (include surgeons in this — my brother is one) with small time considerations, the need for decisiveness and people following orders escalates. There is little latitude for more collaborative or iterative decision making.

While often necessary in the circumstances described above (btw, this wasn’t an exhaustive list of professions), in most organizations and groups the command and control type of leadership would produce worse results. In fact, in the special forces, surgery and investment banking there are deep postmortems and other tools that are utilized to foster organizational learning.

From Ryan Pew.

The advice he is giving is something I have heard time and time again in a military setting where hierarchy is clearly defined and respected. I won’t say it doesn’t hold water in non-military settings but you have to adapt it when dealing with folks who are not as rigid.

In the first bold phrase, I guess I would assume that he is stepping into a new group already defined as the leader. In this case, it can make sense to have a voice of authority, be confident and I like that he backs it up by saying he will do the work with them rather than dictate from afar. However, that can be taken too far if it sounds like a dictatorial tone of voice, that won’t fly long term.

The second phrase is something I have seen during my time in the Marines. Senior Marines will allow junior Marines to make mistakes early on to learn from them. Typically this is done in a controlled environment before combat operations. The expectation that once we get into combat those rookie mistakes will no longer be there. It helps to build confidence in the young Marine and instill in them a strong work ethic. The breaking down aspect is something also done in a controlled environment.

BUT I WANT TO SAY RIGHT NOW THAT THIS IS INSANITY IF YOU THINK IT WORKS IN CIVILIAN LIFE.

I shouted that to be sure we are all clear here. In the military, you need to be a unified group lacking individuality. This builds cohesion and a willingness to follow orders immediately, even when you know they may kill you. The advantage is obvious, you have a superior fighting unit and ensure that weakness is pounded out.

That will not work at the office. If you have a boss who starts breaking people down emotionally or mentally only to so-called build them back up in the preferred image you will have a lawsuit or worse. Besides, offices do not need a singular mindset, they need creativity and individuality to thrive.

This boss would be a psychopath and it sounds like this guy is just saying stuff to sell books without utilizing it in real-world settings.

So simple answer, this works in the military, not real life.

So. Three generations, raised in substantially different worlds, but all agreeing that if you choose to follow Middleton’s advice you do so at your own peril.

Image credit: Robert Payne

It’s amazing to me, but looking back over more than a decade of writing I find posts that still impress, with information that is as useful now as when it was written.

Golden Oldies is a collection of what I consider some of the best posts during that time.

I hate bullies. The biggest changes in the decade since I wrote this post are that there are more bullies, many using the anonymity of the internet to morph into trolls, more hand-wringing, that accomplishes nothing, and a rising tide less willing to be bullied that responds loudly and displays its disgust actively with its wit and its feet. Hopefully that tide will turn into a tsunami.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

Does your newspaper carry The Born Loser by Chip Sansom? Actually, I don’t find Brutus, the main character, to be a loser—just a slightly naive guy who works for an arrogant bully who constantly belittles him.

In the July 26 panel the dialog is as follows:

Boss: I am looking for a unique spin to put on our new ad campaign—do you have any ideas?

Brutus: Gee, Chief, I’m not sure—are there any ideas you think I should think of?

Boss: Brutus Thornapple, master of thinking inside the box.

It reminded me of managers I’ve known, who, no matter what happened or what feedback they received, never could understand that it was their MAP and their actions, not their people’s, that was the root cause 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 input;
• claim that you want to solve problems while they’re still molehills, yet kill the messengers who bring the news, you should expect to grapple 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 the verbal two-by-four?

So, before you start ranting or whining about your group’s lack of initiative and innovation, try really listening to yourself and the feedback you get and then look in the mirror—chances are the real culprit will be looking straight back at you.

Everybody is talking about the NY Times article detailing little-known aspects and actions of Amazon’s culture.

There is a plethora of discussion, commentary, vehement agreement/disagreement on the information presented in the article and I don’t plan to add more.

What is important is knowing when your workplace crosses the line from tough to toxic.

While the fluidity of the line is a function of the individual, that is only true when there is choice.

And fear, whether real (no new job prospects), instilled (abuse resulting in an “it’s my fault” mentality) or imagined, precludes choice.

Without choice it’s toxic.

Flickr image credit: eek the cat

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

Not trying to insult you, but do you truly innovate or are you basically a third-party idea extension?

There are thousands of start-ups on these sites and in press releases, most with some level of funding, that are variations on Uber, Twitter, Facebook, Vine, Tinder, Snapchat, Craigslist, Airbnb, Pinterest and a “for” for any other half-successful start-up out there.

Silicon Valley and its clones are following in Hollywood’s footsteps as it continues its sequels, prequels and remakes.

It’s not that some of them won’t succeed and even turn into significant businesses.

And some actually do address real pain (as opposed to inconvenience), but that doesn’t make them truly innovative.

While you have to sell your “innovation” to investors and include it in your vision to excite your employees, at least be honest when you are alone with yourself.

Honest as to its originality and honest regarding the need.

I seriously doubt that providing yet another way to have meaningless sex compares with creating jobs out of poop.

Image credit: HikingArtist

Innovation is hot. You hear it everywhere; I even heard a pastor talking about how he “innovates his sermons.”

In 2007 I wrote that the word “leader” was being badly abused; five years later I added “entrepreneur” to the abuse list and today I’m officially adding “innovation.”

It has lost its meaning.

There was a time it was used sparingly and when it was used it referred to stuff like the printing press; steam engine, penicillin, transistor, computer, Internet.

Things that rocked our world.

These days innovation refers more to brand extensions and iterations.

New versions of old stuff are termed innovation to a ridiculous degree—Kellogg CEO John Bryant used the i-word when talking about the company’s new Pop-Tart flavor.

I’m not saying the i-word shouldn’t be used more broadly, since it also signals both a goal and a special type of MAP. 

Let’s just agree to limit its use to the appropriate, as opposed to the ludicrous.

Image credit: sign generator

I just read an article about hurricane employees; referring to employees who “destroy the social fabric of the organization by creating friction, drama, tension and hostility among other employees.”

It’s an excellent article, but what struck me is how often good team players turn toxic during the holidays.

I’ve always said that people aren’t water faucets, i.e., there is no way they can spend 8-12 hours daily in a toxic culture or with an abusive boss and not have it affect their relationships and non-work actions.

By the same token, what happens outside of work affects attitudes and actions at work and what happens during the holidays is quite different from the rest of the year.

The holidays, starting at Thanksgiving, often include exposure to hurricane family members and excessive and/or unrealistic expectations that overwhelm normal coping capability.

That greater stress can disrupt mental equilibrium and negatively impact attitude.

The take-away here, whether you are the boss or not, is that if a team member becomes disruptive or has a sudden personality change talk with them and see what you can do to help.

Flickr image credit: Ducklover Bonnie

An AlwaysOn post explaining How to Get Yelled AT caught my attention and should catch yours.

Verbally it had the typical male orientation, but there is plenty for women who are just as likely to be alpha males as guys, so ignore the gender stuff.

Supposedly, those who yell in the military and sports do so because they care, which is true only when the words yelled aren’t abusive (as they so recently have been).

Outside of those two areas, with the caveat mentioned, I don’t believe there is any reason to yell, since yelling rarely accomplishes anything positive.

This is especially true when bosses are yelling at staff (or parents at kids).

Often when I call startup bosses for yelling at their people they respond by saying something to the effect that if it was good enough for Steve Jobs it’s good enough for them—forgetting that from a management prospective Jobs is a lousy role model.

Generally, yelling is the fastest way to make sure that folks tune out and disengage.

So what do you do when something happens and you are justifiably angry?

Use the process I described way back in 2006; a lot may have changed, but it still works.

Flickr image credit: AlishaV