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.

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.

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.

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.

The SCQ

If you ever want to see a brilliant example of Corporate Speak, take a look at nearly any job description.

[A quick time out for a glossary of terms:

'Corporate Speak' refers to a style of communicating which purports to tell nothing but the truth about things at work but often fails miserably to impart anything of importance, including the truth.

'Job description' a document that contains ostensibly all essential information about a specific job, including: Duties, responsibilities, requirements (e.g., education, experience, skills, etc.) and, possibly, pay.

Now back to our program, already in progress.]

When reviewing a job description, what you'll find, at best, is an approximation of the true job. Sure, you'll learn from the description if 'a strong customer service orientation', project planning, basic Microsoft Office skills, a fluency in a second language, 15 years of hands-on management experience, or, say, a working knowledge of neurosurgery are required. (By the way, what is 'a strong customer service orientation' and how might one demonstrate or assess it?) You'll also know what licenses, certificates, and/or level of education are needed or desired. The job description may tell you where the job is located, what type of technical skills 'the successful candidate' (love that expression!) will need, and just possibly, what the job pays -- beyond the notorious and completely amorphous 'Pay commensurate with skills and experience' promise.

When all is said and done, you might have a sense of what the job actually is and how qualified for it you might be. This from a document that is intended to provide a true description of the job. I wonder how the authors of those job descriptions would describe a 'red barn'. (A topic of a future blog, to be sure.) Never accuse HR of not having a sense of humor. They should be writing for Saturday Night Live.

But what the job description will never tell you -- and why would it? -- is the one thing every job applicant should and must know. That one piece of information so vital, indeed, so critical to every job seeker, even the most desperate. Possibly the most valuable job-related data point of them all. Even more important than, yes, work hours, attire or pay.

That critical piece of information? The speed and extent to which the job will crush your soul.

At TJOW, we call that The Soul Crush. It has an official name because every job in every workplace has the potential to crush a part or all of your soul. The only questions are these: How much of your soul will be crushed and how fast will it happen?

[Another quick time out. As cynical as that last paragraph might be, it is, unfortunately, accurate. Every job in every workplace has, without doubt, the potential to crush your soul. It's the potential that varies, along with the percentage of your soul that might be crushed. Tell us we're wrong.]

Lest you think we've gone all metaphysical on you or are delving unduly into religion, we consider 'soul' to be that part of you that keeps you alive, provides drive and hope, balances you, adds depth and complexity, and helps fuel a belief that you're a strong, capable, worthy person. In short, your sense of identity. Who you are.

The problem is, most jobs in most organizations have the capacity to damage the soul, to undermine your sense of self. How, you ask? Let us count (some of) the ways:

• Micro-managing, second-guessing managers, who cause you to question the very expertise the company is paying you for
  
• Workplace rules and regulations that suggest that you are less than an adult and, worse, one not to be trusted
• Being, for whatever reason, excluded from discussions related to your job duties and responsibilities
  
• Strictly defined job boundaries designed to confine you and, in the process, define you within a category or label
  
• Performance appraisal processes that artificially define most workers as 'average' -- regardless of level of performance or contribution
• Promises made regarding, say, bonus or promotion, that are not fulfilled
  
• Hierarchies preventing lower-level workers from involvement in processes to improve performance or, worse, fully precluding them from offering ideas at all
• An excessive amount of Corporate Speak
  

And those are just some of the many dynamics in the workplace that can and do damage the soul. Each in its own diabolical way has the potential to cause you to question your skills and abilities and, in turn, your sense of self-worth. It is that questioning that often damages the soul.

As a public service, then, and to provide truly valuable information to job applicants everywhere, we propose that all job descriptions contain a Soul Crush Quotient (SCQ). Using the Nigel 'Turn it up to 11' Tufnel scale, an SCQ of 0 indicates the job will likely have no negative impact on your soul. This is good. In contrast, an SCQ of 11 screams of severe danger and that the job may place your entire soul in serious jeopardy. This is bad. (There is the possibility of a negative SCQ, though it is exceedingly rare. Such a score would suggest that the job actually nourishes the soul. Negative SCQs are typically found in volunteer work -- especially those involving children or animals -- and most often in jobs without supervision, internal politics, excessive rules or performance reviews.)

What influence does money have on the SCQ, you ask? Little. Research indicates that money has an inverse relationship with time when it comes to The Soul Crush. The higher the salary the lower the speed of any soul crushing. Although slower, any negative impact on the soul provided by the job is inevitable and as powerful. The pain is as strong. It just takes longer to get there.

So, as informative and useful as the SCQ might be, don't expect it to come to a job description near you anytime soon. It's simply too revealing.

It Can Get Better

We have two things for you this week. And, no, one of them is not a Valentine's Day reminder. You're on your own there. Another is not the Clint Eastwood-Chrysler Super Bowl halftime commercial. We loved it. Just something else that separates us from Karl Rove.

This week, we have an appeal for involving employees in the economic recovery and a salute to, of all organizations, the San Francisco Police Department.


Accelerating the Recovery

As the economy continues to improve, we thought it an ideal time to poll 50 randomly-selected non-management workers from throughout the country in a variety of industries to collect their views of their company's future. Their observations?

1. Our company is on the mend, but we're missing opportunities to improve.

2. Let us help!

Yes, it was only 50 people. And, yes, it's hardly a representative sample. Even so, our bet is that we could talk with 50,000 people and get about the same results. Because, as we've written so often, most workers are proud of where they work and are eager to help their organization thrive.

The problem: Only a small minority of companies allow their employees to get involved in a meaningful way. Show up on time and do your job. Help? Nah, we've got that covered.

Too bad, too, since not enlisting workers in the pursuit of performance improvements has two critical costs:

1. Significant opportunities for immediate and on-going improvement are missed. Indeed, data we've collected over more than 20 years of consulting from thousands of employees clearly indicate that much of the low-hanging fruit, so to speak, is left untouched. Broader, even more potentially powerful gains are also unrealized. Talk about those proverbial dollars that might drop directly to the bottom line -- but don't! Your employees hear a great deal about those mythical dollars. Why not let them help you find them? Why not, indeed.

2. Employee commitment is weakened. Electing not to involve employees in fixing the organization sends the message, whether intended or not, that they're not truly an important, valued part of the enterprise. And once this message is communicated, again whether purposefully or not, it's a long road back for any employer concerned about employee engagement and retaining key contributors, high potential individuals, or anyone else they'd hate to lose. Our suggestion: Do not, under any circumstances, send this message. It will cost you. (Actually, it probably already is.)

We agree with the 50 we spoke with last week: Let them help! And here's how.

The Schnur Consulting Group has developed a controlled, skillfully-facilitated, employee-driven process that unleashes creative ideas and leads to the development of bold recommendations to achieve dramatic and sustainable bottom-line gains.

A process we call FUSION.

FUSION taps the knowledge, insight and expertise that exist within every organization. It is a contained, step-wise reaction requiring an exacting process and expert facilitation. A quantum leap from typical OD processes, FUSION demands unparalleled objectivity, authenticity and a keen understanding of business processes only a very few can bring. (Remember, after all, that we're licensed professionals.)

And the challenges our clients' FUSION teams have tackled -- and achieved? Amazing ones:

• Growing revenue by 20% to $1.0 billion within 2 years while reducing costs by $2.5 million
• Reducing time to market by 25%
• Improving customer service ratings by 20%
• Eliminating two weeks from the year-end books closing process
• Reducing voluntary turnover among top performers and high potential employees by 25%
• Increasing market share by 15% in 2 years
• Decreasing the time required to fill job vacancies successfully by 50%
• Decreasing the learning curve among new hires by 50%
• Becoming a Fortune Top 100 Places to Work company within 2 years

As some might say, not too shabby. Not too shabby, indeed.

There's more. FUSION not only has the power to improve performance substantially, it also has the power -- by design -- to change an organization's culture, its very fabric, in profound and sustainable ways. For FUSION creates a climate where on-going performance enhancement is expected. A continual search for new ideas and new ways to do things to help the organization win becomes what we do here, how we operate. Thus, once in place, FUSION continues to pay back the organization for years.

We hope our enthusiasm for this process shows. It's exciting. It's a game-changer. And it produces dazzling results. Give us a call and we'll show you how FUSION might be able to help your company find those dollars just waiting to fall to the bottom line. And restore your employees' belief that your organization is the place to be.


A Shout-out to the San Francisco Police Department

Following in the footsteps of the San Francisco Giants, the first professional sports team to produce and air an anti-bullying public service announcement for the It Gets Better Project, the San Francisco Police Department has created one of its own. The SFPD is, notably the first law enforcement agency in the country to do so. In many ways, it's an amazing public service announcement and worth, at the very least, a few minutes to review. And as you do, consider that the spokespeople are police. As appropriate, consider forwarding it to anyone in need, regardless of sexual orientation. The Giants' PSA is also included. Both provide support to our steadfast belief that, given the opportunity, people will and do step up to help those in need around them. Cops and ball players included.

Makes one proud to live in the San Francisco Bay Area. More importantly, makes life wonderful, no?



One last thing: Pitchers and Catchers report this week. The long wait is nearly over.

Four Questions

This week we ask you, our dear, loyal readers, for guidance. We have questions without answers. Help us by clarifying what we can't seem to grasp.

1. Who are the 'Anyone But Obama' people? We've met them. We've talked with them. We've tried our very best to understand them. Really, we have. And yet we fail to see beyond their stubborn belief that President Obama is an evil, a true evil, requiring eradication. The primary concern -- at least the one they'll admit to -- is that Obama is unequipped to deal with the economy. To that we ask:

• Did anyone have successful, hands-on experience resurrecting an economy that was in the state of ours when Obama was elected? The economy he inherited was, arguably, the second-worst economy in our nation's history and it took World War II to improve the #1 most horrible economy our country has ever faced. Thus, we argue that no one has ever had to address the economic issues of this magnitude -- and live to tell about it.
  

• We now have five -- count 'em, 5 -- months of consecutive declines in unemployment. Might this be a trend? And, if so, how many months of declines will it take for his detractors to admit that Obama may be on the right path? Six? Sixteen?

But, of course, actual evidence of economic improvement means nothing to those who choose to be blind, deaf and dumb. Because it's not about nation healing or getting people back to work. It is, instead, about getting that Muslim, non-American, Socialist out of office. Right?

And while this may sound pro-Obama, it is not intended to be. It is, instead, about understanding those who can't see beyond their own predispositions.

Please, help us understand.

2. Why do we close so many doors? Why is it that we spend much of our lives closing doors, eliminating possibilities? Children -- us, years ago -- saw endless possibilities. We could aspire to become a rock 'n roller, a doctor, an astronaut, a firefighter, a ball player -- all in the course of a week. (Okay, we were stupid, but that's beside the point.) As we grew, we systematically nixed options, citing a lack of desire, questionable talent, the need to live in Houston (to be an astronaut). All reasonable and reality-based. Yet, we wonder why closing doors seems so much easier than opening doors. Are we, as a species, predisposed to a fear of failure? Are we excessively unadventurous? Do we prefer to dream rather than do? Are we more concerned about how we might look rather than how we might feel? Do we listen too closely to those who tell us not to try, not to reach, not to climb? Is it somehow dangerous to explore? Are we simply lazy?

Help us, for we do not understand.

3. What's up with promises made, promises not kept? What is it about executives who make clear, public commitments to their employees and then either do not follow-through or, worse, renege -- and then are baffled when performance of their company suffers? Who are these people? Don't they know that the very essence of leadership is trust? That trust is a requirement of a strong, vibrant company (assuming, of course, that the company is filled with humans as opposed, say, to machines). That employees make choices every day about how they perform their jobs and that those choices are based on their views of leadership? That trust in leadership can either strength or weaken one's emotional commitment to work? That lack of trust kills companies?

Unfortunately, this is a more commonplace occurrence than one might think. Sad, but true. Just ask your friends and family who work in other companies.

Help us, for we do not understand.

4. JC Penney? For those who find these things fascinating, JC Penney, the once venerable, all-but-done, stuck-woefully-in-the-60's, wouldn't-be-caught-dead-in chain is working hard -- and creatively -- to change its image and, in the process, claim a piece of our heart.

Quietly, JC Penney has become jcp. They are 'praising fresh air', as in their own need for. Especially after 110 years. They're promoting treating people 'fair and square'. They claim to 'keep dreaming up new ways to make you love shopping again'. Why? Because 'we want to be your favorite store'.

Wait, there's more.

Their latest Sunday newspaper advertisement insert was, according to those in the know, hip and, shockingly, cool. Yes, cool. Their merchandise -- and how they present it -- is fun, remarkably current. The text is engaging. The font and print colors are inviting. The models are a cross between Gap, Banana Republic and United Colors of Benetton (but in a good way). As one acclaimed shopper noted, 'They're out-Targeting Target.' Apparently, high praise indeed.

And that astute shopper is right. The new image jcp is attempting to create is that of a cool, hip, young, honest friend. Somebody you can trust. Someone who is dedicated to being your good friend. Someone who will always treat you fairly. To whit: jcp is telling anyone who will listen that they have only 3 price categories: 'Everyday prices (great prices everyday)', 'month-long values (best stuff of the month on sale for the entire month)', and 'best prices (discounts every 1st and 3rd Friday)'.

[Full disclosure: The Job of Work has no professional relationship with JC Penney. TJOW or The Schnur Consulting Group -- which has absolutely no legal connection to this blog, nor approves of or even claims awareness of, the ideas, concepts or points of view of this blog -- is currently not engaged with or has any contracts pending with the JC Penney Company. Not that we wouldn't like to, but largely because we haven't been asked.]

Might jcp replace Gap? Might it out-Target Target? First things first, though. Might jcp get even a few more people to walk through those wouldn't'-be-caught-dead-in doors?

It's a story worth watching.

(We know, that last question wasn't really a question. Deal with it.)

Have a good week.