Last year I shared a couple of pretty good Rules at the start of the holiday season.

This year I have another that may ease some of your holiday stress.

Ethel Watts Mumford said, “God gave us our relatives; thank God we can choose our friends.”

The first part is the root of stress for those people who believe that family should be a constant source of all things good. They twist themselves into pretzels to effect that outcome and tear apart their psyches when it doesn’t materialize.

Worse, they completely ignore the second part of the quote, thus losing the sweet solace of good friendships.

Hugh Kingsmill, a contemporary of Mumford, provided the corollary that many need to let go of the stress of missed expectations and embrace the solution.

Friends are God’s apology for relatives.

Enjoy your friends this holiday season and all year ‘round and, if you are lucky, those relatives who also qualify as friends.

Image credit: briiiiiiiiin

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

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

A response on Quora offers a key good insight for human interaction. It’s especially applicable when leading/managing a team, whether you’re a CEO or just-promoted supervisor.

A knight on his weary horse pulling up to house of a peasant. “Peasant, water for my horse and food and ale for me.”

Whilst eating and drinking, he says to the peasant “I am heading for the next town, what are the people like there?”
The peasant inquires “What we the people like in the last town you visited?”

The knight thinks and says, “The towns’ people were dishonest, unfriendly thieves, I was glad to leave the place.”

The peasant replied “Sadly, I think you will find the people in the next town the same.”

One week later another knight pulls up to the same peasant on his weary horse and says, “Excuse my look, but my horse and I have traveled far. If you have some food and water for my horse and also for myself, I would be grateful.”

The peasant feeds them both, with ale for the knight also, when the knight asks, “We are heading for the next town, what are the people like there?”

“What were they like in the last town you left?” asks the peasant.

“They were the most wonderful, generous people I have ever met. I was sad to leave them,” answered the knight.

“Do not worry,” said the peasant, “they are are the same in the next town.”

In other words, people rise to your level of expectations.

Not only do they rise, but they also sink when expectations are low. This is most obvious when considering the difference between schools and teachers.

Although more subtle, it applies just as accurately to the workplace.

If you want your people to trust you — trust them first.

If you want respect — offer it first.

While the list of wants is endless, the recipe for achieving them remains the same.

To get what you want, give it first.

Flickr image credit: Chuck Black

Last January I wrote about how trivial so-called innovation has become citing comments from Matt Rosoff, Peter Thiel and a study from Accenture.

More recently, RMT (Riva-Melissa Tez,CEO @ Permutation AI and an active investor) wrote a superb post on Medium noting that Silicon Valley has lost its perspective on the difference between a ‘problem’ and an ‘obstacle’

— any obstacle that restricts our standard of living — is now framed as a problem. (…)  Recognizing these obstacles or inconveniences and being able to avoid them are privileges — a special right enjoyed as a result of one’s socioeconomic position. They are perks…

Or, as one commenter called them, “problems of privilege.“

It’s not that the multiple on demand services that eliminate these obstacles or the apps and games that entertain us are bad.

But they will only change the world of the relatively few who can afford them and pitching them as such is, simply put, a lie.

In another comment, Annie Feighery, founder of mWater, makes a good point.

Most of SV has made its success from vertical approaches to issues with little complexity. The few SV approaches to humanitarian causes are failing badly for repeating that simplicity.

Starting a company that is a solid, sustainable, revenue-producing business, even one that won’t change the world, but that rewards its investors, will always be funded.

So, if that is what your startup is, then say so.

Not just to your investors, but also to your team.

It’s called “honesty”

Flickr image credit: BK

Gallup regularly polls workers around the world to find out. Its survey last year found that almost 90 percent of workers were either “not engaged” with or “actively disengaged” from their jobs. Think about that: Nine out of 10 workers spend half their waking lives doing things they don’t really want to do in places they don’t particularly want to be.

Pretty sad, but what happened to bring us to this sorry state?

Not what, but who.

Disengagement was born in 1776 with Adam Smith wrote Wealth of Nations, became the father of industrial capitalism, and gave birth to the belief that “people were naturally lazy and would work only for pay.”

The more that philosophy was embraced over the centuries the more it became a self-fulfilling prophecy — in other words, people live up or down to expectations.

An excellent essay by Barry Schwartzauga, professor of psychology at Swarthmore College, provides great insight to how much damage has been done by this one assumption.

When money is made the measure of all things, it becomes the measure of all things.

To be sure, people should be adequately compensated for their work. (…) But in securing such victories for working people, we should not lose sight of the aspiration to make work the kind of activity people embrace, rather than the kind of activity they shun.

For decades, study after study and survey after survey have placed money (assuming a living wage) around number five on what’s important to workers.

How can we do this? By giving employees more of a say in how they do their jobs. By making sure we offer them opportunities to learn and grow. And by encouraging them to suggest improvements to the work process and listening to what they say.

Work that is adequately compensated is an important social good. But so is work that is worth doing. Half of our waking lives is a terrible thing to waste.

Autonomy. Challenge. Learning and growth. The chance to make a difference. Compensation.

If you want your people engaged then provide them reasons to engage.

If not, just pay them and don’t complain.

Flickr image credit: Airwolfhound

The other day I was asked the same question by two different managers, one Gen X and the other a leading edge Gen Y.

The subject was improving and strengthening weaknesses.

They both wanted to know if/when enough is enough.

That’s a question I found an answer to a long time ago, so I shared it, with the caveat that just because it worked for me didn’t mean it was right for them.

The short version I shared is that I stop a specific self-improvement effort when the ROI is too low for the energy (mental, physical, psychical) expended; in other words, there is no viable payoff.

Of course, “viable payoff” is strictly subjective, but any self-improvement effort includes certain expectations (your own, not other people’s) that should include a minimum.

Minimum not met means no viable payoff.

That isn’t to say that I fall back on the tired “that’s the way I am;” instead, I always found ways to off-set whatever action or attitude I’d spent energy changing as far as made sense.

Part of this comes from measuring ROI, but it also comes from intelligent prioritizing, which requires the recognition that time is finite and one needs to pick one’s battles.

Perhaps that’s what life, both personally and at work, is really all about—much like the saying that the journey is the best part.

In fact, I hope that when I’m gone those who knew me will say, “From self improvement to self acceptance. A good trip.”

Image credit: JJChandler.com

Anna Freud, daughter of Sigmund, followed in her father’s footsteps only her focus was children. Her insights, however, apply to people of all ages.

She reminds us to look first to ourselves, instead of others, when the going gets tough, “I was always looking outside myself for strength and confidence but it comes from within. It is there all the time.”

She warns that while dreaming is enticing, it lacks substance and will not sustain us, “In our dreams we can have our eggs cooked exactly how we want them, but we can’t eat them.”

She teaches no matter how well we plan, we shouldn’t ignore the things outside it, “Sometimes the most beautiful thing is precisely the one that comes unexpectedly and unearned.”

She chides us for our outlandish expectations, “If some longing goes unmet, don’t be astonished. We call that Life.”

And, finally, she provides hope, “Creative minds have always been known to survive any kind of bad training.”

Flickr image credit: Carla216

Ken Olsen, who, in 1986, Fortune magazine called “America’s most successful entrepreneur” has died.

That won’t mean much to many of you. In fact, many won’t recognize the name of his company, Digital Equipment Corporation, better known as DEC, or the minicomputer it built.

54 years ago Olsen used $70,000 seed money and built a company second only to IBM, with 120,000 employees working in 95 countries.

Ken Olsen may have been an autocratic manager, but his approach to people differed greatly from the norm of the time.

In Digital’s often confusing management structure, Mr. Olsen was the dominant figure who hired smart people, gave them responsibility and expected them “to perform as adults,” said Edgar Schein, who taught organizational behavior at M.I.T. and consulted with Mr. Olsen for 25 years. “Lo and behold,” he said, “they performed magnificently.”

What happened?

Olsen and DEC were brought down by the same attitude that almost killed IBM and is best summed up in Olsen’s own words.

“The personal computer will fall flat on its face in business.”

It is a lesson that entrepreneurs should learn: no matter how successful your company holding on to the present and ignoring or minimizing the changes in your markets can be a death sentence.

Olsen was ousted by his board because of that refusal to change after 35 years of success; six years later DEC was sold to Compaq (long before Compaq was acquired by HP).

There are many lessons to be learned from Olsen’s story, but one of the most important is found in his attitude towards people. Olsen always hired the smartest people possible, told them what he wanted and then got out of their way. He unequivocally believed that

“Our employees are our greatest asset.”

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

“When we aren’t clear and specific about our expectations, upfront, we get what we get, and we don’t get upset.”

Isn’t that a great line? I recently read it in a Social Q’S column, but it should be a management mantra, with the emphasis on the first part.

Better yet, teach it to every human from kindergarten on; embed it so deeply in the thought process that it becomes second nature.

Wouldn’t you love to work for and with people who really were clear about what they expected of you?

People who took responsibility for fuzzy expectations that only hinted at what they wanted and left the interpretation of their expectations to you.

People who didn’t get upset when your interpretation didn’t match their poorly communicated thoughts.

Just think of how different your romantic relationship and friendships, not to mention the interactions with your children, would be if expectations were clearly stated.

But all that pales in comparison to the difference clearly stated expectations would make to the stress levels of your professional life.

Think how exciting and motivating it would be if you knew exactly what was expected of you on your next assignment; not only what, but why and when it was expected.

Ambiguous expectations are rarely intentional, so how do you know if you are guilty of them?

By the results over time; frequent misunderstandings are a sure sign that you need to be clearer when stating your expectations.

Another good check is to ask people to describe your expectations in their own words, but don’t be surprised if what they heard and what you thought you said bare little-to-no resemblance to each other.

Flickr image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zedbee/103147140/