Sunday, June 10, 2012

All Good Things

It was three years ago this very week that The Job of Work, this labor of love and folly, was born.  Three years of late nights, interrupted sleep, second-guessing, rewrites, and doubt.  Three years of sitting in front of a blank screen and, later, obsessing over a sentence.  Three years of exploring matters significant and trivial, some germane to the workplace and others far afield.  Three years of stabbing at lunacy wherever it may reside.  Three years of outlining a personal point of view about how work and life can be, maybe should be.  Three years of pleading for change during this prolonged economic drought we're enduring.  And, along the way, developing a certain perverse personal sense of accomplishment for having provided for three full years nonstop what might have been inspiration to some but was probably largely drivel to you, my loyal, passionate, foolhardy and adored readers.

After all of that, after three years, it's time for a break.

Looking back, we've been through a lot together.  From that first blog about the lack of significant differences between the generations and how 'HR' and 'strategy' rarely go well together, to an innovative and elegant way to create world-class performers, to a discussion of hipness, to the need for a more tender approach at work (complete with an Otis Redding video), to an urging to choose happiness, to a 4-part series on a new way to approach organizational design, to your life's soundtrack, to soul, to spreading joy (with two terrific musical videos), to the value of laughter, to The Schnur Consulting Group's approach to true culture change and performance improvement, to the joy of living loud, to physical attraction and to the soul-crushing effects of the workplace, we've been there and done that.  And so much more.

We've watched as Chilean miners were saved and devastating earthquakes, tsunamis and tornadoes wreaked havoc, loss and despair.  We were helpless as the Gulf of Mexico filled with oil following a drilling disaster.  We buried personal heroes.  We elated as a certain baseball team from San Francisco won the World Series.  We've tried to live loud, as if each day was our first.

You were there, each step of the way.  Randy, the most soulful person on the planet.  Norene, my absolute favorite escapee from the snapping turtles of Pennsylvania.  Jon, is there a high-end retailer you have not helped?  Jorge, for selling more chocolate in Chile than there are people.  Ted, possibly the funniest, most provocative person I know.  And the many unnamed, faceless readers from around the globe who returned week after week.  Who are you?  Oh, how I wish I knew.

Thank you all for spending a few minutes with me each week.  Thank you for your emails.  Thank you for overlooking the foibles of this space and the shortcomings of its author.  Thank you for telling me I was full of it or, from time to time, that I had touched your heart.  Mostly, thank you -- whether you know it or not -- for pushing me, prodding me, driving me to try to be relevant.

This is not a 'good bye'.  Instead, consider this a 'see you soon', for this is only a break.  Please check back from time to time to see if we've picked up where we left off.  Because unlike Click & Clack (a.k.a., Ray and Tom Magliozzi of NPR's Car Talk), I will be back.

In the meantime, stay safe, sing out loud, make someone laugh hard, and tell your friends and family how much they mean to you.  And while you're at it, have fun at work.

See you soon.


Sunday, June 3, 2012

An Unexpected Visitor

Dark.  Horn-driven soul music plays quietly in background.  Fade in.  START ON back of head of Man sitting at computer.  PULL BACK to reveal cluttered desk covered in scattered papers, several baseballs, framed photos of children at various ages, family, friends.  Continue PULL BACK to show walls of what's obviously a study completely filled with snapshots of children, families, colleagues; autographed photos; tributes;  shelves overflowing with books, baseball paraphernalia, bobbleheads, iPod player.  Neatly stacked waist high piles of books fill a corner of the room.  Clearly a place Man spends a great deal of time in.  Man reaches for baseball bat that rests against desk.  Holding it like a cane, he swivels in his chair toward camera.  His shoulders sag as he gives an exasperated look.

MAN
This isn't hard enough as it is?  I've got to have you looking over my shoulder?  By the way, who the hell are you?  And who let you in?

VOICE OFF-CAMERA
 The door was open.  We thought you were expecting us.

CLOSE IN ON MAN'S
FACE AS HE STANDS

MAN
 What in the world gave you that impression?

 VOICE OFF-CAMERA
Your assistant did.  When we called to schedule the interview.

CUT TO MAN'S HANDS
TIGHTENING GRIP ON
BASEBALL BAT
MAN
Assistant?  What assistant?

VOICE OFF-CAMERA
Trudy.  Your assistant, Trudy.  Nice, friendly.  Laughs a lot.  Gives good phone.

CUT TO BAT BEING
LIFTED SLOWLY
FROM FLOOR

MAN
You're joking, right?  Not only do I not know a Trudy, I've never known a Trudy.  And I don't have an assistant.  Aside from Siri, that is.
 
VOICE OFF-CAMERA
Cute.  That's cute.  But isn't this 243 Millhorn Way?

CUT TO BAT PULLED
INTO POSITION TO
SWING.  CAMERA, BOOM
AND CREW NOW
VISIBLE IN REFLECTION
IN GLASS OF SEVERAL
FRAMED PHOTOS BEHIND
MAN OVER DESK.

MAN
Not...even...close.

VOICE OFF-CAMERA
You're kidding, right?

CUT TO CLOSE UP
OF MAN'S EYES

MAN
Do I have the look of someone who is kidding?

VOICE OFF-CAMERA
[After pause]  No, actually you don't.  Not at all.  I can usually tell when someone is kidding.  And you don't have that look.  [Another pause]  Unless this is an example of really dry humor.  Which I appreciate, by the way.  The drier the better, I always say.  [Asking the crew]  Don't I always say that?

PULL BACK TO
SHOW MAN'S
FACE

MAN
I'm thrilled for you.  I really am.  Now, think it might be time for you and your friends here to find 243 Millhorn?  Someone's probably expecting you.  But before you go, would you care for a nosh?

PULL BACK TO SHOW
MAN'S FULL FACE AND
RELAXED STANCE

VOICE OFF-CAMERA
That'd be great.  It's been a long day already.  [Pause]  Wait.  [Pause]  You're being funny.  That's dry humor, right?  You're not really inviting us to stay and have something to eat, are you?

MAN
You're on to me.  I can tell.

VOICE OFF-CAMERA
 I've been told that I have a good sense about people.  Does it show?

CUT TO MAN'S HANDS
TIGHTENING THEIR
GRIP ON THE BAT
 
MAN
Thoroughly.  You're amazing.  How do you do it?  [Holds hand palm-out to camera in 'stop' position.]  Don't answer.  It will be a mystery I'll simply have to find a way to live with.  While I do, now would be an ideal time to leave.  Before I find a good use for this bat.

VOICE OFF-CAMERA
You're probably right.  [To the crew]  Pack it up.  We're outta here.

SOUNDS OF CASES
BEING OPENED

CUT TO MAN'S FACE WITH
BAT IN POSITION TO SWING
FOR THE FENCES

MAN
I'm probably right?


VOICE OFF-CAMERA
We'll just show ourselves out.

CUT TO MAN'S EYES
MAN
You do that.

VOICE OFF-CAMERA
By the way, one question:  How do we get to Millhorn from here?

CUT TO BAT BEING
PULLED BACK INTO
SWINGING POSITION
 
MAN
Once you're safely in your car, should that happen, call Trudy.  I'm sure she can help.

VOICE OFF-CAMERA
 Good idea.  We've bothered you enough for one day.

CUT TO MAN'S HANDS
GRIPPING AND RELEASING
BAT AS IF IN BATTER'S
BOX
 
MAN
You think?

VOICE OFF-CAMERA
You're being funny again.  I like it.

PULL BACK TO REVEAL
MAN, WAIST UP, READY
TO SWING AT NEXT PITCH
 
MAN
I'm thrilled for you.  Really, I am.  Now go.  Please.  Before I'm forced to get my bat dirty.

VOICE OFF-CAMERA
Okay, okay.  We're gone.

CUT TO CAMERA TURNING
AWAY FROM MAN AND 
DOWN AS IT'S TAKEN FROM
SHOULDER AND TURNED OFF.
SCREEN GOES DARK
VOICE OFF-CAMERA
 Hope we didn't disturb you.  Have a goo-

REST OF SENTENCE CUT
OFF AS RECORDING DEVICE
IS POWERED DOWN

Sunday, May 27, 2012

Remembering Those Who Give It All

When work gets truly difficult, a saving grace is the comforting thought that no one's going to die.  No matter how taxing, how political, how frustrating, the vast majority of us know that a bad day at work won't result in anyone's death.

Not so for these folks.

On this Memorial Day, join us in honoring those who put it all on the line every day.  For their family, for country, for freedom, for us.


Happy Memorial Day.

Sunday, May 20, 2012

Dreamers

A confession:  I am oft accused of being a dreamer.  It's no doubt related to my strong belief that work and the workplace can and should be stimulating, rewarding and, all things considered, healthy.  A place where you can express yourself, where you can innovate.  A place where you can learn and teach.  A place you enjoy, possibly one that is even fun.  A place where you can truly make a difference.  Call me naive, which many do, but it is possible.  These places exist!  I've seen them up close and personal!  And over the years, enlightened managers have even engaged us to help them create this type of workplace in their organization.  We know it's possible, because we've seen the amazing transformation that occurs -- the enthusiasm and energy that are unleashed, the productivity that is gained -- when certain elegant steps are taken to create an organization built to run.

It all starts with a dream:  A compelling aspiration, a cherished ambition.  Big thinking uninhibited by barriers, politics and history.  A goal that causes excitement.  In our parlance, The Brass Ring.

Where are those dreamers?  Those managers, some might call them leaders, who know that their organization needs remodeling, retooling to become something special?  Have the economic events of the last few years scared them into hiding?  Are they hunkered down behind their desks waiting all too patiently for this economic climate to blow over?  Worse, have they stopped dreaming, accepting instead a compromised reality?

I say it's time to dream again.

Possibly like this guy.   An engineer believes that a version of Star Trek's U.S.S. Enterprise can be created in 30 years at a cost of roughly $1 trillion.  Regardless of whether you are a fan of the series or think $1 trillion is excessive for an vehicle without an integrated iPhone connection and one that doesn't park itself, the idea of building a spacecraft capable of exploring the universe is compelling, is it not?  Save for warp drive, much of the technology required to build such a vessel apparently already exists.  The remainder will require invention during the design and construction phases.  But don't let that deter you.  Velcro, Teflon, even Tang were products of our quest to land on the moon in the 1960s.  That was over 40 years ago.  Think of what we're now capable of and what might follow some of the Star Trek-inspired inventions already part of our reality.

The same can be said for the workplace.  Is it not the time to explore what steps can be taken to create a workplace that stimulates, excites and inspires people to perform their jobs brilliantly?  Is now not the time to develop an organization that operates with creativity, energy and high productivity?  Is now not the time to captivate the aspirations and ambitions of your people?  Is now not the time to travel by star ship rather than by bus (thanks, Jim Collins)? 

Now is the time.  Dump the bus.  Build a star ship.  It won't take 30 years or anywhere close to $1 trillion.  And we won't endanger the entire universe by attempting to create warp drive.

It is time to dream again.



Sunday, May 13, 2012

Enough With the Lists Already

Reader beware: It's rant week.

Those damn lists.  Have you had it about up to here with all of the seemingly millions of business- and lifestyle-related lists that seem to be everywhere?  One can't seem to get through Fortune, Forbes, Yahoo! or Entertainment Weekly these days without a barrage of dos and don'ts lists.  Ten things never to do in an interview.  Ten things always to do in an interview.  Five expressions never to use with your boss.  Seven behaviors of successful managers.  Five articles of clothing never to wear at work (beyond stripes with plaids).  Ten ways to make her happy.  Seven things that will make him totally furious.  Ten ideas never to think while riding a bike, especially a red one.  Five ways to ensure a happy marriage.  Nine things to never, ever forget.  Seven foods that cause insanity.

And that's just lists we've stumbled across in the last couple of weeks. 

Granted, some of the myriad lists have useful suggestions.  Yes, we know not to make racist, sexist and/or vulgar jokes during an interview.  Or ever.  They're not funny.  Yes, eating fatty foods will make us fat.  Yes, being honest is a good quality for the successful manager.  It's a good quality for everyone, for that matter.  Yes, a bathing suit at work is not likely a very good idea, even if you're ripped.  And, yes, banana creme pie does, without any doubt whatsoever, cause insanity.  (Look it up if you're skeptical.)  But, really, most of the guidance provided in these lists is vacuous at best.

And even if the lists contain a modicum of accuracy, how in the world are we supposed to remember all of the information in them?  We're talking hundreds if not thousands of dos and don'ts.  Impossible.  Overwhelming.  And no way to stay current.  Too much thinking; not enough doing.  It was so much easier when all we had to remember was to be a good bee.  (Romper Room?  Remember?)

I say enough with the lists already.   Save for this one.

Living life according to my Uncle Bill.  In a personal, seminal, whiskey-induced moment a number of years ago, my then-aging (and now long deceased) Uncle Bill laid out his approach to life.  Beginning with the insight that 'it took me getting old to finally figure it out', my uncle claimed that a wonderful life could be had by doing just a handful of things.  I present them here as a way to honor him and, just possibly, to undermine my argument above about lists.  This one might be worth remembering.

Imagine a gravel-voiced, 90-something New Yorker, pipe in mouth, glass of whiskey in hand, outlining the following:

1.  Be afraid of no one.  Not the authorities, not the police, no one at work.  Especially no one at work.  (This from a Jew who grew up among Nazis.)

2.  Make sure those you love know you love them.  Assume nothing.  Tell them.  You can't say it often enough.  You can't prove it enough.

3.  Always tell the truth.  Your honor is all you have.  Don't jeopardize it.  (His actual words were more graphic...) And the more you lie, the more stories you have to remember.  So why bother?

4.  If you like stuffed cabbage, eat stuffed cabbage.  Don't let anyone tell you how to live your life.  Aside from your wife.  It's her job.

5.  Grow old, but don't grow up.  Maturity makes people boring.  Don't be boring. 

I miss you, Bill.  I haven't forgotten.  And like I promised you, I'm trying.



Monday, May 7, 2012

Attraction

Thanks to the many of you who took the time to answer the two questions we posed last week.  If you recall (and who can, given that it was an entire week ago?), we asked:
  • All things equal (i.e., job, pay, benefits, commute, physical work space), what would attract you to an employer?  And,
  • All things equal (i.e., education, experience, skills, abilities), what would attract an employer to you?
In essence, we are interested in attraction, that curious power that draws us, pulls us, compels us to something or someone.

Much has been written about physical attraction.  The psychological research literature is littered with studies attempting to explain the peculiarities and vagaries  of human attractiveness.  Rather than asking you to read the many studies that have been conducted, let me, as a public service to you our cherished reader, sum up the entire body of literature on human attraction thusly:

1.  We are attracted to other humans we find attractive.  (I'm not kidding.)

2.  What we find physically attractive in others varies from person to person.  (This is a very important finding, as you'll soon see.)

3.  Certain emotions -- happiness, optimism -- can increase physical attraction while other emotions -- unhappiness, anger -- can decrease it.  (A key learning:  Smile!)

4.  We tend to be more attracted to those who wear clothing suitable ('flattering') to their body and who are clean.

5.  Familiarity breeds attractiveness.

6.  Our attraction for others tends to increase if they are attracted to us.

That's about it.  But before we move on, take a moment to review Findings #2 and #5 above.  These hold huge implications, as they clearly imply that:
  • Attractiveness takes many forms, yours being one of them; and, statistically speaking
  • Someone currently finds you attractive.
It's true.  I could walk you through the probability argument -- which would take some time and a good deal of space on a white board -- but suffice it to say that there is, without doubt, at least one person outside of your family you see regularly -- during your commute, at work, around town -- who finds you physically attractive.

Argue if you must, but it would be futile.  Data never lie.  Someone is physically attracted to you.  And the more people you see regularly, the more who are attracted to you.  Accept it.  Better yet, enjoy it.

But while there's been much examination of physical attraction -- for obvious reasons -- little thinking has been devoted to what attracts us to employers or what employers find attractive in us as workers.  That's where we come in -- and where your input has already been so very helpful.  For we are in the process of developing a research study to explore the two questions we posed last week.  The results we believe will hold important implications both for employers and individuals seeking work.  Stay tuned.

In the meantime, who do you think it is who finds you attractive?  That guy on the train?  The woman down the hall?  The man who makes your latte?  The woman at the gym?  Maybe the one you see in the elevator.  Yes, maybe.

Keep your eyes open.  It's going to be a good week.


Sunday, April 29, 2012

Choices

Imagine having 3 job offers.  (No, this is not an exercise in fantasy.  In the not-so-distant past, we're talking the late 90s and earlier this century, multiple job offers were a regularly occurrence.  Remember?)  The offers are identical in nearly every way.  The job is the same.  The money -- both base pay and bonus potential -- are identical across the 3 jobs.  Benefits are also the same in each job.  The commutes, while different, are virtually identical in terms of time, distance and degree of difficulty.  And while the job offers are from 3 different companies, the work place itself is nearly identical.  Same office, same work space, same physical environment, same coffee and tea.

So, how do you decide which job offer to accept?  More specifically, what is the first thing you'd want to know before making The Big Decision?  What would be the next most important piece of information you'd need?  What type of information would come third?

Take a moment to scribble your answers.  Be as honest as entirely possible.  Don't be shy to admit even the most potentially embarrassing things that might enter into your decision-making process.

[Insert musical interlude here.  And, no, not the Jeopardy theme music.  Something with soul.  I'm thinking Tower of Power's Knock Yourself Out.]

Now class, let's consider another scenario.  Imagine that you are a manager in a company.  You've been looking for the ideal candidate to fill an important job in your department.  This person will work directly for you.  You have 3 finalists for the job.  They are identical in nearly every way.  They have the same education, the same work experience and identical skills and abilities.  Their resumes are essentially identical.  Their references are all equally stellar.  They each present themselves with equal professionalism -- both in clothing and presence.  They each speak with equal eloquence.  As best as you can tell, they all have the same potential to do the job brilliantly.  You won't go wrong with any of the 3 candidates.

So, how do you decide which person to offer the job to?  More specifically, what is the first, most important thing you'd need to know before making The Big Decision?  What would be the next most important piece of information you'd need?  What type of information would come third?

Again, take a moment to scribble your answers.  Please be as honest as entirely possible.  Don't be shy to admit if age, gender, physical attractiveness, ethnicity, religion, politics or other factors are important to you.  We're looking for truth and, yes, we can handle it.

We ask one last favor:  Please send your answers to alan@schnurconsulting.com.   Your input will be invaluable as we finalize a research effort to study these two questions.

And, yes, we have a number of specific hypotheses that this research will help address.  Either proving us right -- brilliant, actually -- or, perhaps, completely out to lunch.  Or both.

Speaking of brilliant, we urge you to check out a marvelous new feature of Shazam:  LyricPlay.  Tag a song, which is already a near-miraculous capability, and then select 'LyricPlay'.  Shazam provides the lyrics, verse by verse, synchronized with the music.  Absolutely fantastic!  Yet another example of our technology being more advanced than on Star Trek (save for replicators, transporters and warp drive, that is).

If you don't have Shazam, get it.  Then use the app to identify any song you're listening to.  Press 'LyricPlay' and sing along.  When you do, be grateful for the marvelous age in which we live.


Sunday, April 22, 2012

The Season of Deliberate Acts of Kindness

Welcome to our favorite time of year: The 2012 Season of Deliberate Acts of Kindness.

What, you haven't heard of The Season of Deliberate Acts of Kindness (or, for us professionals, simply The Season)? Say it ain't so! How could this possibly be? Have you been living under a rock for the last six months? Been floating aimlessly on a raft in the middle of the ocean with no WiFi? (Horrors!)  Marathoning The Wire, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Weeds? Avoiding all opportunities to hear news of the world? (If so, you've missed a ton.) Been in a coma?

Regardless, you clearly missed the declaration that The Season of Deliberate Acts of Kindness began this year on April 22 at your sunrise. Which means, of course, that The Season has begun. Welcome!

What is The Season of Deliberate Acts of Kindness you ask? Our initial response: Must we explain everything? Our secondary response:  Best to go slow with certain people.

The Season is that time of the year when we are called upon to seek opportunities to demonstrate friendliness and generosity. Key concepts of The Season include:
  1. Finding opportunities to be friendly, generous and/or considerate
  2. Demonstrating friendliness, generosity and/or consideration for others, and
  3. Repeating steps 1 and 2 until the end of The Season.  And beyond, if you're truly cool.
The list of possible deliberate acts of kindness is endless. But since it's The Season, and we're in a helping mood, let us provide 20 useful ideas if only to stir your creative juices:
  • Holding doors for others (heard this from us before?)
  • Helping those less mobile cross the street
  • Thanking those who work with or for you for all they do
  • Reconnecting with a long-lost friend
  • Donating to a charity, any charity
  • Slowing down to allow someone to merge into traffic (If you're the recipient, remember to wave!)
  • Sending flowers to your mother (she'll love it)
  • Sending flowers to your father (he'll dig it)
  • Calling a member of your extended family just to say 'hi' (Call us old school -- we know you will -- but texting does NOT qualify here as an act of kindness!)
  • Giving your car and the Earth a break by taking public transportation or riding a bike a day or two each week
  • Planting anything
  • Bringing coffee or tea to a stressed co-worker or, yes, even your boss
  • Being polite to telemarketers (They're people too. Really, they are.)
  • Greeting people with a hug
  • Giving a buck to that guy you avoid eye contact with every day on the street
  • Calling or hugging your kid(s), just because
  • Joining a museum
  • Volunteering, even if only for an hour
  • Calling to offer support, even if only emotional, to that friend who you know needs help
  • Being polite to fans of opposing sports teams (Like telemarketers, they, too, are people.)
That's just 20 possibilities. Add your own flair, your own creativity. Find ways to help and support others, to make people around you feel better, to honor the contributions of those with whom you work, to add a bit more joy to the lives of friends, family and, given the season, strangers. Find ways to relieve the burden on the environment. Provide assistance -- time and/or money -- to organizations striving to feed, educate or inspire others. Be genuinely polite, even warm and appreciative, to those who have impossible jobs.

The season of Deliberate Acts of Kindness has begun! Start today to spread happiness with verve, determination, and passion. Remember, with any luck what goes around will come around.

One last and important point:  No end date for The Season 2012 has yet been set.  With any luck, it will continue straight through to the beginning of The Season 2013.  With any luck, that is.

Sunday, April 15, 2012

Questions

In honor of the just-ended Passover celebration during which four questions are asked to help understand the holiday (leave it to us Jews to need four questions to understand a holiday!), TJOW offers these pressing questions for your consideration and entertainment:

65. Why don't more companies -- especially those in competitive industries -- operate like successful sports teams? It's curious to us that while many organizations invoke sports analogies frequently, most fail to operationalize one of the most valuable lessons from successful teams: Top teams help all of their players achieve outstanding performance. That's every coach's job. On top teams, that's also a responsibility of every player. They don't wait while one of their players, or one of their colleagues, performs at a mediocre level, watching to see if he or she will magically improve. They don't provide veiled, nebulous 'feedback', hoping the individual will 'get it'. They don't wait for failure before acting. Winning requires that every player performs at a high level. Top teams simply can't afford a bell-shaped performance curve. Why do many companies think that they can?

66. Has Yahoo! become People magazine? Is The National Inquirer their aim? Just some of the topics recently headlining on Yahoo! (and we quote verbatim from the home page):
  • Adopted Boy's Sad Story
  • Pregnant Athlete in Olympics
  • Man Surprised With Dream Backyard
  • Niecy Nash Meets 47-year-old Virgin
  • Megan Fox's Body Art Mystery
  • $5 Million Elevator for RV
  • What Kate Beckinsale Reads Her Daughter, and, not to be missed
  • Pitt and Jolie Are Engaged.
We're not kidding. We're afraid that if we were to look harder we would find these choice stories:
  • Baby Born With Two Heads Accurately Predicts Future
  • Bathroom Makeovers of White Collar Criminals
  • Separated At Birth: A Kardashian Secret
  • From Truck Driver to Surgeon in Weeks
  • Aliens Visit Me Regularly and Block My Driveway
  • Ten Things Never to Say to the Pope, and
  • Planning for the End of the World.
With performance suffering at Yahoo!, we have a modest suggestion: Think content. Just one of a series of idea we have for turning the company around.

67. Speaking purely from an evolutionary standpoint, are we made for work?
And when we say 'work', we're thinking what most of us do: Getting up at a prescribed time, putting on clean clothes, going to a specific place of work, confining oneself for the better part of 9 hours (with breaks and lunch) to a carefully-designed and overly-controlled environment where one does a set of tasks usually defined and monitored by someone else, and then leaving at a prescribed time, taking the trek home and doing it all again the next day. Usually for insufficient reward.

Were we made for that? Hardly. We were made, at least the males among us, to do what most men have done from the very beginning: Hunt. That's what we know. That's what we're good at. Slice into our DNA (carefully, please) and you'll find that hunting is at our core. Because unlike our current concept of 'work', hunting allows one to wake up whenever, eat a hearty breakfast to last through the day, gather weapons, pack a lunch, pick up your buddies and set out for a day far away from the rest of the community, away from the reproachful eyes of others. Yes, way back when we had to produce food or everyone died. There's that. But in all other respects (save for the actual killing of animals, that is), it's nearly perfect. And you wonder why guys, to this day, feel 'right' when they're hanging with their buddies, drinking, trolling bars, talking sports and acting like fools. It's who we are. [Tongue somewhat in cheek.]

68. Why don't more companies trust their people to do what's right? A cynical question? Possibly. But we would argue that the true sign of trust is the absence of rules at work regulating behavior. That is, an organization that truly trusts its people to do what's right is an organization without rules mandating what's right. Show us a company without a lengthy employee handbook defining just about every aspect of workplace behavior and we'll show you a company that puts full faith in its people to do the work well. One such company: Netflix. We cite them because the company has no policy regarding paid time off. Shocking but true, Netflix does not track vacation time. Their approach: Take it when you want and take as much as you need. Their belief: Our people will do what's right because they're smart, responsible and care about the company. We find that refreshing. We also believe that's good business.

Question 67 and 68. Take that, Chicago.

Sunday, April 8, 2012

Divorce, Corporate Style

An article in Sunday's New York Times discussed the many and varied behaviors cited as cause for divorce in the U.K. The 'malicious and repeated serving of tuna casserole' was one. Insisting that a wife dress as a Klingon and speak in Klingon was another.

Let's be clear: In many places tuna casserole itself is a capital offense. Serving it maliciously and repeatedly is a crime of such unthinkably heinous proportions that divorce is just the first logical outcome. Banishment from civilization is no doubt the next. (Not to worry, Mom. You never served it maliciously. Repeatedly, yes. Maliciously, no.) The Klingon thing, on the other hand, actually seems reasonable. Unless, of course, the wife was of Romulan descent. Then we're talking trouble.

Tuna casserole and the Klingon empire not withstanding, our interest in divorce this week is not specific to the matters of the heart in personal relationships, but instead in the matters of the heart between an individual and her or his employer. We know all too well that for the vast majority of us a strong, emotional bond is created with the company in which we work. It's not unlike love, though HR folks typically refer to it as 'commitment'. This bond, this love if you will, can be an intense one, causing us to commit enormous energy and passion to our company. It causes us to do things we wouldn't consider doing under other circumstances. Like working late into the night, coming in on weekends, seeking creative solutions to the most nagging problems, obsessing about ways to make our work perfect.

And not because we're told to act this way. Because we want to. Because we care. Because we love what we do and love for whom we do it.

This is the stuff money can't buy. Too bad, then, that a company would do anything to jeopardize this bond, much less do things that might break it. Because once broken, the next step is Divorce, corporate style: The departure of often terrific talent.

This week, let's focus on those in the Tuna Casserole category:

Isolating and/or alienating those with a 'different' leadership style. This is a particularly insidious form of conformity-seeking behavior that squelches creativity, limits individual differences (so much for diversity), and undermines performance. We've seen this happen to inspired individuals, often in the mid-management ranks, who have achieved outstanding performance through their people -- precisely how we define 'leadership'. We can spend hours bemoaning the need for conformity at work or why conformity becomes mandatory. (Think difficult economic times.) Suffice it to say that when conformity is mandated -- especially when it hadn't been mandated before -- passion and commitment are damaged. Divorce, corporate style, often follows. Because who wants to stay in a relationship where freedom and creativity are constrained?

Tightening of the approval process. Another common outcome of a challenging economic climate, and one occurring in many organizations, is the dreaded tightening of the approval process. And when we say 'approval process', we're talking about anything requiring money: Travel, new equipment (even when it's essential to the job), and, among others, hiring. Not that limiting spending is inappropriate, mind you. It's the reduction of authority that accompanies approval tightening that's the culprit. Because when one's authority is reduced -- or perceived to be reduced -- the natural reaction is to wonder if trust from above is also diminishing. And when trust is thought to erode, you're in for trouble. Or more accurately: Divorce, corporate style. Especially among those who you can least afford to lose: Your most committed, passionate, talented staff.

Our strong suggestion: Avoid both of these practices at all costs. They'll suck the passion right out of your best people. They'll undermine performance. They'll quell the commitment, the love. And the result will be the eventual departure of top talent. Divorce, corporate style. It's like serving tuna casserole maliciously, only worse.

Sunday, April 1, 2012

Stuff We Learned At Work

Bring together a group of people who have been working for a number of years and ask them what they have learned on the job. Once you get past the standard on-the-job skills training many receive, you're bound to hear some frightening things. We certainly did. Here's a sampling of verbatim quotes:
"Where I work it's been made clear that we're to keep our heads down, do our job, and not bother even thinking about new ways to do things."
"Take no risks! Where I work, failure is a fire-able offense."

"No one says it directly, but we know that thinking outside the box is for people above our pay grade. If them."

"The only answer that's acceptable where I work is 'Yes'."

"New ideas are seen as criticism. You definitely don't want to be critical where I work."

"No one knows what 'outstanding performance' looks like. We think they [management] want it that way because they can control who gets the highest ratings."

"See a problem? Where I work, it's better to ignore it."

"Working long hours is much more important then getting the job done quickly."

"Trust no one. There's no value in it."
And, no, these aren't disgruntled workers. These people were randomly selected to describe their experiences at work as part of a larger research effort. All have worked for their present employer for at least 5 years and claim no immediate desire to leave. Even so, it is clear that these people -- like the vast majority of management and non-management workers throughout this country -- have been taught behaviors that inhibit or even prohibit top performance at work.

So, what are these performance-inhibiting behaviors that many companies teach their people, whether overtly or otherwise? Our data, supported by other applied research, indicate that a majority of workers learn over time that:
  • Creative, elegant solutions are really not desired
  • Failure is bad and to be avoided at all cost
  • It's far better to agree than to disagree, especially with a superior
  • Effort (long hours) is valued far more than efficiency (getting the job done quickly)
  • Speaking your mind can be quite risky and potentially fatal, and
  • Receiving the highest performance rating is almost impossible. So why try?

It's no wonder, then, that when companies decide to attack long-standing business issues they often have to create completely separate teams and isolate them -- shield them, actually -- from the rest of the organization. Apart and far from the maddening crowd, so to speak. Where the old rules don't apply. A skunkworks project, as one good example, is one in which a small, loosely- or non-structured group of people come together to seek sometimes radical innovation. Not surprisingly, the first thing that's required when such a team is formed is to convince the players that:

1. Open communication is acceptable. Really.

2. Leadership does seek creative solutions. That's why we're here.

3. There is a strong possibility that leadership will, indeed, act on the ideas that emerge from the group.

Said another way, members of skunkworks projects -- we call them Design Teams -- have to unlearn what they've been taught at work and accept that there's a different way of doing business. Especially if innovation and performance improvement are the goals. This unlearning process often takes weeks. Reorienting people's thinking to include the possibility that leadership just might be interested in new ways of doing things can be quite difficult. That's a tribute, in a truly perverse way, to how effective the company's teachings have been.

It's sad, but true. If you need validation, ask your people. Maybe they'll tell you.

The behaviors companies teach their people typically prove costly. Greater efficiencies go undiscovered, chronic problems remain unsolved, worthy ideas are jettisoned without consideration, performance plateaus, initiative is squelched. Along the way, souls are damaged if not fully crushed, especially among those who are passionate about helping their employers succeed.

We can't imagine that this is part of a company's business model. You think any company anywhere makes the conscious decision to pay millions of dollars in payroll, benefits, and fringe benefits with hopes of reaping only a portion of that investment? We doubt it. Even so, our data estimate that, on average, upwards of 15 - 20% of potential, tangible, real-deal bottom-line performance gains are never realized. Our guess -- like those of their employees -- is that companies simply aren't interested in excelling. Their performance and the economic times being so good, of course.

Ah, but it does not have to be this way. Behaviors can be unlearned. Companies can teach new, more enlightened ways to lead, inspire and involve their people. Innovation can become the norm, not the exception. Continuous, profitable growth can be achieved and sustained.

And what's exciting about this is that your people hold the answers. They are eager to show you a new path forward. We can show you how to unleash those ideas. You, your customers, your share- and stakeholders -- and your people -- will be thrilled you did.

Sunday, March 25, 2012

(Not So) Random Thoughts

For this week we have a number of observations. Beware: Some border on rants.

'Managing change slowly' is a misnomer -- and a mistake. There are many things to manage. A bank account, a production facility, a vineyard, a budget. Change isn't one of them. Change you lead. Whether it be the need for new required behaviors because of the introduction of a computer system, culture change due to increased competition, or, as another example, the dramatic change following a merger or acquisition, effective, long-lasting change that enhances performance is something that must be led. With energy, passion, excitement and urgency. And here's the kicker: The faster the better. Like your life -- or the life of your company -- depended on it. Contrary to popular belief, companies are not huge ocean-going vessels powered by oars, only capable of painfully slow change. Don't buy the antiquated concept that change must happen in a laborious step-wise fashion. Your people don't buy it, your customers don't buy it, why should you? The best change is led, and led quickly. We have the data to prove it. And a process to drive it.

No such thing as bad publicity, eh? Just ask United Airlines. Have you had the wonderful experience of trying to determine the number of frequent flyer miles you have on United Airlines or talk recently with a reservation agent by phone at the new United? The United that just completed the acquisition of Continental Airlines? The United that can't quite add your Continental Airlines miles to your UA miles? The United that mysteriously changed your frequent flyer number? The United that just added somewhere in the neighborhood of 600 reservation agents -- and still hasn't gotten it right? The airline that greets you with a recording asking you, get this, 'to please call back in 72 hours' due to high call volume? Maybe because their systems can't add your miles correctly and assigned you a new frequent flyer number and many are freaking? Note that call-back-in-72 hours tape is what you hear when you use a special phone number for elite frequent flyers? (Not that I'd consider myself elite, mind you.) 72 hours? To make an airline reservation? Are they kidding? We're not making this up. But if we were, just image:
Thanks for calling United Airlines. Your business is very important to us. Please hold for the next available Reservation Agent. Your wait time is currently [silence while computer computes]...72 hours. We can't believe it either. Kick back and get comfortable. We'll be with you in a few days. Or not.
Looks for all the world like a company trying desperately to manage change. And probably a company that spent millions on consulting firms to help them do so. So much for the friendly skies.

The non-response is the new corporate 'no'.
I'm old enough to remember when people in business actually responded to queries, requests, and proposals. You'd of course be contacted if there was an approval in your future. And get this kids, you were also contacted if the answer was 'no'. These were commonly referred to as 'courtesy calls', as in we'll give you the courtesy of knowing that we have not approved your request or that you didn't get the job. During such a call, you'd also be informed as to why you had been denied. Really! It's true! Way back when, you'd apply for something -- often in the form of a formal proposal that might have taken weeks and thousands of hard and soft dollars to prepare -- knowing that someone would eventually get back to you with an answer. Ah, those were the days! When there were manners. But no longer. The modern (read: rude, unprofessional) approach is to respond only when the answer is 'yes'. I guess many in business believe that there is no need to get back to anyone if all you've got is bad news. To all of those people I have only one wish: That you obsess over a proposal, devote countless hours to its preparation, spend real money flying a team to a presentation, and then never being informed of the outcome. If that sounds like sour grapes, so be it. Harumph.

Speaking of a different era, we offer a warm welcome back to our friends at Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce. Seventeen months is quite an extensive recess, don't you think? It's far too long a time to be forced to drink alone. Thank goodness you're back. We've missed you.


Sunday, March 18, 2012

The Soul Crush, Revisited

It's been a very interesting week in our financial community.

First, we had Greg Smith's op-ed piece in the New York Times last Wednesday outlining his decision to leave Goldman Sachs. If you haven't read it, you should. Take a minute now to do so. We'll wait.

The fallout from Greg's letter has been fascinating. From James Gorman, CEO of Morgan Stanley, instructing his people not to take advantage of the situation, to J.P. Morgan Chase's CEO Jamie Dimon telling his operating committee to avoid going after GS clients, stating that 'It's not the way we do business.', to Mean Street's Evan Newmark calling Smith 'naive', to United Technologies stating publicly that they are standing by GS despite having 'a love-hate relationship' with the investment banking firm, to, what, about a zillion comments online. Not surprisingly, most missed the real point of Greg's very public resignation letter. More on that later.

Then we had Matt Taibbi's latest article about Bank of America, "Too Crooked to Fail", in Rolling Stone. You probably haven't seen it, but you should. As you read it, consider that the bank described in the article is a new and different one than the bank founded in 1904 by A.P. Giannini. Indeed, Bank of America, originally called the Bank of Italy, was founded in San Francisco with the primary objective of serving immigrants and farmers, two significantly under-served communities at the turn of the century. The bank provided loans to San Franciscans within days of the 1906 earthquake and fire that devastated the city, with Giannini using a plank of wood on the sidewalk as his makeshift branch. A signature and handshake were all he needed to secure a loan. Had it not been for BofA, San Francisco might not have been rebuilt following the earthquake and the Central Valley of California might not be the provider of fruit and vegetables for much of the country, nor Napa Valley the home of world-class wine. As thousands of current and former employees will attest, BofA was one of the best, most ethical places to work in the state. I know this first-hand, having been an employee of the bank in the '80s.

What Taibbi outlines is a gradual and significant change in BofA's corporate culture. What was once a culture focused exclusively and passionately on serving customers and communities is now, apparently, a culture driven predominantly by a motive for profit at the expense of the customer. Without doubt, this is not A.P. Giannini's bank, nor is it the bank that thousands of former employees remember nor, critically, the bank the vast majority of currently employees signed up for.

Starting to see a parallel between Greg Smith's Goldman Sachs and Matt Taibbi's depiction of BofA? Beyond, of course the alleged unscrupulous practices of two enormous financial services institutions?

What's common about GS and BofA is, of course, a radical change in corporate culture. From one defined by a customer-centric business model, high moral standards, pride in community service, one anchored deeply in a belief in the value and honor of banking, to a culture defined by profits at all cost. That was BofA. And according to Smith, that was Goldman Sachs.

If 'corporate culture' is defined loosely as 'how we do business here' and includes commonly demonstrated behaviors, morals and ethics, consider the impact on employees of a dramatic change in that culture. It can be significant, especially if the original 'employer-employee contract', so to speak, has been violated or, worse, broken. This occurs whenever morals and ethics are compromised. Said another way, you've got trouble when stated values do not match widely observed behaviors.

The potential outcome? The Soul Crush. (See our blog of February 19, 'The SCQ'.)

That's what we see in Smith's letter. It's also what we see happening at BofA. Souls being crushed or, at least, damaged as their company, the organization thousands have invested so deeply in emotionally, changes from something worthy of their pride to something far, far less. Smith is getting out. Others have preceded him; others will follow. Our bet is that many at GS and at BofA want to leave, but can't. Not yet, anyway. But watch as the economy continues to strengthen.

Goldman Sachs and Bank of America are not alone. The cultures of many organizations are changing significantly, some for the worse. We urge severe caution. Corporate culture defines an enterprise as clearly as does its logo. It's your brand. Treat it with great care, for once it deteriorates, it's a very long road back to respectability. Now is the time to ensure that your company's culture is strong, vibrant, and absolutely consistent with your stated values. Anything less is a bet against the long-term retention of your best people. Anything less is a bet against your organization's future.

Just ask Greg Smith.

Sunday, March 11, 2012

This Thing Called Trust, Part II

So, maybe our observation that trust might be an issue in the workplace was a slight underestimate. Given the volume of mail we received during the week -- an all time TJOW record -- it appears that we struck quite a nerve. A frayed, exposed, raw, incredibly sensitive nerve. One we poked, as one writer described it, with a fully-charged cattle prod.

That's our job and we're proud to do it.

Based on input we've been receiving from employees in client organizations throughout the country, we thought trust was a problem in many places. We didn't realize, though, that the issue was so widespread. Or so painful. And if those who wrote to us are at all representative of the greater population, the volume of workers who are at this very minute seriously considering leaving their company for another due to a lack of trust is massive. Shockingly so.

Ironically, for years employers feared that retirement would gut their company of critical skills. After all, those damn Baby Boomers, who form the foundation of most organizations, were fast approaching the magic age of 65. But the economic downturn took care of that impending problem. With compensation fixed or in decline, pensions gutted and stock prices crushed, who could possibly afford to retire?

Thank you, bad economy. In your own sad way, you've stabilized the workforce of many companies.

But, as the economy turns upward -- at long last -- and as jobs become more readily available, it seems that trust is the issue leadership should be concerned about. Actually, 'concern' is putting it mildly. 'Fear' might be more a more apt descriptor. Only, of course, if retaining top people is important. Only that.

So, what's to be done?

Plenty, and fast.

Before outlining the approach we typically take to improve trust at work, let's be clear how we define trust. For us,

Trust = (Commitments + Perceived Intentions)/(Observed + Unobserved Behaviors)

Where:

Commitments = promises

Perceived Intentions = promises thought to be made

Observed Behavior = behaviors actually seen

Unobserved Behaviors = behaviors thought to occur

Thus, trust is high when commitments and perceived intentions are consistent with observed and unobserved behaviors. Said another way, trust is strong when promises are kept and appropriate actions follow stated intentions. Conversely, trust is weak when behavior, whether observed or unobserved, is not believed to be consistent with commitments or intentions. Like when you're told top performance will be rewarded, but then is not.

So, how best to ensure that behavior is consistent with stated intent? That is a far more tangible problem to solve, but one that will, indeed, address weak trust.

Here's how we approach it:

First, evaluate the situation. In a shameless plug for our firm, The Schnur Consulting Group has developed and validated a survey-based tool to assess trust. (See, Ma, those years studying personality assessment at Berkeley have not gone for naught.) The 18-item SCG Trust Index survey provides a highly accurate, statistically-sound predictor of trust's impact on employee retention at the group and individual level. The tool also helps define a road map to bolster trust and, in the process, reduce the potential debilitating effect posed by lack of trust on company performance. Interviews and focus groups provide valuable data to clarify the findings of the SCG Trust Index.

Following assessment, identify a short list of behaviors essential to the organization's success. Critically, the behaviors must be tangible and observable and linked to company performance. No intentions allowed. Intentions are nice but, for the most part, meaningless. Intending to do something is entirely different from actually doing something. Here we're only concerned with what's seen. The list must also be short, with no more than 10-12 behaviors. The key, of course, is selecting the correct behaviors. The SCG Trust Index and our experience improving performance should be your guides.

Next, communicate these behaviors aggressively throughout the company. How is the question, especially since everyone in the company will be required to demonstrate these behaviors on a regular basis. Again, the SCG Trust Index will define how best to position the behaviors appropriately and to educate people about their value to the organization.

Within a month after communicating the behaviors essential to company success, begin the personal assessment process. This step, to be repeated quarterly or semi-annually depending on the results of the SCG Trust Index, enables everyone in the company -- from front-line employees to the CEO -- to receive feedback on the frequency with which the individual was seen to demonstrate each behavior. We're not concerned with quality; instead we're intent on quickly creating habits. To do so, our approach focuses on encouraging people to demonstrate key behaviors often. Do so and you'll quickly have a higher functioning organization. (And, yes, SCG has a streamlined, cost-efficient way to collect and report these data and to facilitate behavior change even in the most incorrigible.)

Finally, track progress. Monitor data collected by the personal assessment process. Move those unable to score satisfactorily out of the organization. Conduct the SCG Trust Index annually. Interviews and focus groups at the 6-, 12- and 18-month marks are also recommended.

It's not quite this simple. But it is this straightforward. Call us and we'll walk you through the process.

But do not delay. There is nothing quite so insidious, nothing quite so destructive as lack of trust. Simply put, it's a killer.

Sunday, March 4, 2012

This Thing Called Trust, Part I

Trust is a curious thing. On one hand, trust is an amazingly resilient belief capable of surviving the most horrific attacks. It can be bent, stretched, twisted, and pushed to often unreasonable limits. Yet it recovers and regains strength repeatedly. When strong, trust enables us to overlook the flaws and foibles of others, especially our employer. It helps us remain steadfast in our views of work, our coworkers, those above us, those below us, and the very company within which we spend the majority of our day. It fuels our drive to perform. It enables us to defend the energy, determination and commitment we give to our employer. It protects us. It provides hope.

On the other hand, trust is a remarkably delicate thing, prone to destruction with just one perfectly placed remark or action. That same multifaceted, complex cognition that can withstand a ferocious onslaught is also fully capable of shattering fatally into thousands of tiny pieces, never again to be rebuilt. Once destroyed, it forever changes our beliefs of work, the workplace, and especially the company for which we toil. And not in a good way. For the loss of trust undermines our resolve, our dedication, our willingness to do all that it takes to perform at an outstanding level. Lack of trust has a nasty way of causing us to question the very purpose of our effort at work. It undermines our desire to expend the additional, discretionary effort most jobs require. You know trust is an issue when you or others ask, "What's the point?" and/or "What am I doing here?" Worse still, the loss of trust kills passion.

Resilient, yet delicate. Strong, yet prone to destruction. Ethereal yet concrete. And the kicker? Trust is an absolutely essential element of success at work.

You'd think company leadership would be more concerned about it, given trust's central role in strong bottom-line performance. And while leadership may be interested in maintaining if not bolstering trust in their people, the actions of many suggest otherwise. Here it's not about intention. It's about behavior -- specific, observable acts that affect one's level of trust.

Sadly, as employees throughout the country will tell you, there's been plenty of bad behavior to go around over the last few years, including:
  • Communicating without full honesty about the company's true state of affairs (even if the intention was to 'protect' employees from the truth)
  • Layoffs that cut to and into the bone
  • Reductions in hours, pay and/or benefits
  • Budget cuts that curtail training or other career development opportunities
  • Job restructurings that increase responsibilities without a commensurate increase in pay
  • Loss of merit increases and/or bonuses
  • Promises made but not kept (often about promotions)
  • Anything that hints at or actually says, "You should feel lucky to have your job."
  • Record profits (largely due to significant budget cuts) without a return of at least some of the recent takeaways
And that's just some of the myriad actions that have reduced or killed trust and, in turn, significantly reduced the potential for companies to perform brilliantly. Sit with people at work as we do daily and the stories will curl your hair. Also striking is the sheer volume of people who claim to have at least one foot out the door. Without doubt, souls are being crushed and many are looking to leave. (For some background on the crushing of souls in the workplace, see our blog of February 19, 2012, The SCQ.)

So, what's to be done? A terrific question, one every company should be asking now that the economy is on the mend and the job market is reemerging. Any company filled with people should be concerned with this thing called trust. Any company interested in keeping its top talent and performing well in the market, that is. And we think the answer may surprise you.

Come back next week. We'll talk.

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Doubt

The brain is a mysterious, exceedingly complex thing. That it controls our every movement, enables us to think -- a marvel unto itself -- and creates our every emotion makes it among the most astonishing devices known. (Yes, even more amazing than the iPhone and Siri combined.) It is, without exaggeration, an awe-inspiring organ, one we likely take for granted all too often.

And yet, we have a bone to pick with it.

One common product of our brain is doubt, that feeling of uncertainty, that dread that often leads to self-questioning and, in turn, inaction. All in all, an uncomfortable emotion, one that has the power to undermine our self-concept and in the process weaken the very foundation of our identity. (Sorry if that sounded excessively psychological. It's the training. Given the years spent in graduate school, I've got to let it out of the bag every so often. I'll try not to let it happen again anytime soon.)

Said another way, doubt messes with your head, and not in a good way.

So, what is this thing called doubt and what good does it do? If you subscribe to the belief that evolution exists and that evolutionary processes have refined the human animal to increase its odds of survival, doubt must play an important role in our ongoing ability to withstand forces that might otherwise have taken us down. (You might want to reread that sentence; it's a mouthful.)

Like any emotion, doubt has its upsides and downsides. On the upside, doubt may have been a significant contributor to many of us still being alive, or at least being able to walk. To wit:
  • Should I try to jump from the top of this building to the next one? After all, I'm only 10 stories up.
  • Can I ski down this quadruple black diamond run? Looks like there's only one cliff to traverse.
  • I wonder if I should eat this wild mushroom I just found in the forest? It looks okay.
  • Hey, if he can do a backwards flip on his bike, shouldn't I be able to?
  • Think she'll like a clock radio for her birthday?
If doubt made you think twice, question your sanity, protect you from physical danger, and/or cause you to choose another course of action -- and you lived to tell about it -- there's something good to be said for the emotion. There's also something good to be said for doubt if it kicked up your game and helped you perform to or beyond your capabilities. Either way, give doubt appropriate props if it contributed in any way to you still being alive and in full control of your bodily functions.

On the downside, doubt has an insidious way of causing uncertainty at our very core. And not in a good way. Often after receiving 'feedback' at work, or from a friend or from a family member, resulting in some potentially foundation-weakening thoughts:
  • I thought I was doing this job well. Why doesn't my boss think so?
  • Aren't I smart enough to understand what's needed?
  • I used to be successful. What happened?
  • Is there something wrong with me?
  • I thought I had what it takes. Now, I'm not so sure.

While we applaud questioning and believe self-reflection to be a very good thing, the idea that doubt can cause you to undermine your self-concept, your sense of purpose -- change who you are -- is that bone we have to pick with the brain. Question, yes. Self-reflect, sure. But we urge you not to allow doubt to lessen your belief in yourself. There's nothing like a diminished sense of self to ruin your whole day or, for that matter, the rest of your life.

There's an effective way to combat doubt, especially that caused by negative feedback. Consider this 3-step approach:

1. First seek understanding. Why did the person provide that feedback? What can I learn from it? What can I do to improve? And, importantly, did I show appreciation to the person for having the courage to share the information with me?

2. Seek to grow. Take the most useful input to heart. Attempt to modify your behavior to demonstrate a capacity to learn and to honor the person who provided the feedback. Try to adapt. Despite the old adage, you are never too old to learn new tricks. Remember, evolution is an on-going process, something the dinosaurs didn't understand.

3. Then seek more feedback. After you've attempted to incorporate the feedback, ask the person who provided it: How am I doing? Have you seen improvement? Have any suggestions to help me improve further?

By doing these things, you'll have eliminated the nasty side of doubt, demonstrated the capacity to learn, likely improved yourself, and gained or bolstered the respect of others. You'll have also elevated yourself above the vast majority of those who would have reacted with scorn and resentment upon receiving negative feedback.

All in all, a very good day. Don't doubt it.