When Sacrifice Isn’t

A wide receiver throws a great block, springing his running back teammate around the corner for a 15 yard gain. The announcer in the booth (a former wide receiver himself) sings the wide-out’s praises–finally paying him the ultimate compliment by commending him for how he ‘sacrificed himself’.

Huh?  Last time I checked football was a team sport.  Suggesting that the wide receiver (a ‘skill’ player) was ‘sacrificing himself’ by performing a skill with less prestige (blocking)…or by suggesting that he did it begrudgingly (because he dislikes it)…or by suggesting it’s especially admirable because it’s out of his comfort zone is myopic. It’s a team sport. People are expected to do what’s required to achieve the desired result. He’s not sacrificing himself, he’s attempting to help his team win!

I’ve noticed that managers are sometimes like the announcer…they think that when one of their ‘skill players’ performs a ‘lesser skill’ (something ‘beneath them’) they consider the ‘skill player’ to be making a sacrifice. Regretfully, these managers haven’t caught the vision of mind-set #2 – being a part of something bigger than yourself.

Consider:

  • the busy rainmaker at the law firm who takes their precious time and shares their considerable influence to open an important door for a colleague.
  • the mechanical foreman who takes 20 minutes out their day to provide encouragement and technical advice to a second-year apprentice who has run into a particularly vexing problem.
  • the theme park GM who– one day a month–works ‘the front lines’.
  • the Marketing VP who willingly gives up 5% of their departmental budget to R&D as a result of an unexpected new research breakthrough.

Neither the rainmaker, the foreman, the GM, nor the VP, consider themselves to be ‘sacrificing’. They, like the wide-receiver, realize they’re a part of something bigger than themselves. They’re a part of a team – they do what is required for the team to succeed.

People on winning teams constantly do things that may be out of the norm or that stretches them but they are rarely seen as a ‘sacrifice’. It’s just not how they see things.

Should I Say What I Know?

That’s a question that some of us constantly ask ourselves.

Most of us wouldn’t:

  • tell our friends how the new blockbuster movie ends.
  • speak up in a meeting on an arcane point if we believed doing so would derail the meeting.
  • share an innocent, but little-known, fact about a colleague that, when revealed, might be used against them.

Sometimes knowing when (and when not) to speak up is a matter of judgment. In other instances, it’s a matter of character. Either way, the fact that we’re asking ourselves the question as to whether to speak up or not is evidence that we should tread carefully.

I once had a manager who always ran in the right circles.  He hung out with the ‘big dogs’—the ‘A’ list crowd. He was always “in the know”.  And he couldn’t wait to demonstrate that he was “in the know”.  Initially, it was just awkward…the information he’d tell me about.  I initially suspected he was revealing information he shouldn’t.  After awhile it was obvious that was exactly what he was doing. It seemed he just couldn’t help himself—revealing confidences that is.

It’s really tempting to be ‘in the know’….tempting to say what we know. In most business cultures,  the more information we possess, the greater our standing in the eyes of others. For some being ‘in the know’ is a (self) validation of one’s own self-importance.  Being ‘in the know’ can be intoxicating, because with knowledge comes a form of power–perceived or otherwise.

It also means that someone has taken us into their confidence…they’ve extended trust. That’s the trouble…my manager was violating confidences.  He had broken the trust that had been extended to him.

When this happens it’s typical:

  • for people to share only the information that’s absolutely essential with the offender (especially if that person is higher up in the food chain than we are).
  • that the offender develops a reputation for having ‘loose lips’ …which translates to a blemish on their character – eventually undermining their own effectiveness.
  • for the offender to lose the respect of others – the polar opposite of the enhanced ‘standing’ they may have originally hoped for.

So when you’re tempted to say what you know…remember, discretion is the better part of valor.

This Place Is Great!

Last week we pointed out how people become disgusted with their organization (and especially with their organization’s leadership) when professional ideals are either ignored or abandoned. The consequences are significant. Morale goes in the tank. Good people leave….and when they do it costs about 1.5 times a professional’s annual salary to replace them!

On the other hand, when an organization earns the reputation that it’s a great place to work…that it’s run by professionals…that professional ideals are a given…you see people taking pride in the organization….you notice that people care about how they conduct themselves. When that happens, it’s not unusual to see:

  • people willing to take less money or even put up with a longer commute for the opportunity to work there.
  • people giving management the benefit of the doubt when a needed, but controversial, policy is issued.
  • people recruiting ‘A’ list players within their network to work there –without having been asked to do so.

When people feel their organization is a great place to work they’ll do these types of things–and more!

I see it all the time…two sales offices…two call centers…two warehouse operations…all part of the same company. They have identical business purposes and job functions.  Invariably, I’ll notice differences….frequently BIG differences. You see the differences in the people…in their demeanor, in their focus, in their commitment. The reason for the differences?  One organization is run by professionals, the other isn’t.

John Bogle (founder of the financial services giant The Vanguard Group and one of the contributors to The Power of Professionalism) noted that the most important things in life were the most difficult to measure. How true. Yet all-important things like trust and pride are easy to spot in an organization run by professionals.

This Place Is A Joke

One of the helpful by-products of people reading The Power of Professionalism is raising their hopes and expectations for their own organization in becoming more professional. They raise the bar, I don’t. But when things fall short, don’t be surprised when people express disappointment—or worse.

Case in point: the title of this blog comes from the subject line of an e-mail someone recently sent me. Here’s a partial list of some of things people have shared with me — experiences that they not only find unprofessional, but truly disturbing.

A.   A supervisor asked one of their employees to upload the supervisor’s resume to a competitor’s website for potential employment purposes.

B.    A busy-body assistant spills the beans on someone’s salary—which is higher than most other employees. Worse yet, the employee was new to the organization. So right out of the gate the new employee is ostracized– creating animosity across the entire organization.

C.   The organization’s value of meritocracy is compromised when a vice president promotes his best friend—someone whose performance (let alone capabilities) were hardly worthy of promotion. The promotion is viewed as a blatant act of cronyism on the part of the vice president.

You, no doubt, have your own examples. Let’s face it, no organization is perfect. Yet most people (top performers especially) expect their organization to strive in adhering to professional ideals.

It isn’t criminal for people NOT to take pride in their organization. But feeling your organization is a joke is sad…really sad. Each of the individuals who shared their experiences with me was (at some level) was thinking of leaving. These are precisely the types of people that organizations can least afford to lose. And even if they don’t leave, their disgust leaves a wake of cynicism in its place.

It’s a price that few organizations can afford….no joke!

Next week, the other side of the story…

An Abundance of Professionals ≠ A Professional Organization

To what degree does ‘professional’ describe your organization?

That’s a question that I frequently ask of senior leaders. Naturally, they’ll bend into a pretzel to answer in the affirmative.  After all, the answer reflects on them—for better or worse.

Most of the senior leaders justify their affirmative responses by the nature of the service or product that the organization provides (or attempts to provide).  In other words, the senior leader considers their organization ‘professional’ because, at the end of the day, it delivers an innovative technology or sage business counsel.  You know, these are organizations with big-brain scientists, highly-trained marketers, time-tested engineers, etc as a core part of their staff. Some are considered experts. In other words, the senior leaders justify their affirmative answer because of what the organization ultimately produces (e.g. a serum, sophisticated advice, a bridge).  It’s true that specialized expertise was required to produce each—specifically technical expertise.

But what’s not so obvious was that the serum was late to market (beaten out by a competitor who was first to market by six months). This development ultimately undermined the serum’s competitive advantage in the marketplace. The bridge was 30% over budget and took twice as many internal resources as once thought. Heads rolled as a result of the cost over-runs and client dissatisfaction.

Let’s look at it from the trenches.  If people inside the organization…

  • Don’t know what the organization’s priorities are (e.g. ever-changing or unclear priorities)
  • Can’t count on internal resource commitments to be honored (e.g. downward pressure on budgets become commonplace…decision surrounding budgets become capricious)
  • Have lost confidence in the organization’s ability to meet production deadlines (e.g.  the unwillingness of management to stick with commitments is often the culprit here)
  • Have become accustomed to whimsical decision-making on management’s part (e.g. “Just hold tight.  Wait five minutes, things will change.” )
  • Don’t know what’s going on in the greater organization (e.g. inadequate or ineffective communication)
  • Don’t understand what business they’re in (e.g. yes, this really happens!)
  • Haven’t fully bought-in to the current initiatives advanced by management (e.g.  the case for why these initiatives warrant special attention and support has been ineffective by management.)
  • Realize that customers/clients are being disadvantaged (e.g. the bill gets maximized, client value doesn’t.)
  • Don’t see their management defending the organization’s professional ideals (e.g. explicit or implicit)
  • Don’t feel connected to their colleagues (e.g. they may as well be strangers in the night)

…few will say that the word ‘professional’ describes their organization…even if their organization delivers sophisticated products or services…even if they employ ‘big-brained’ people who have advanced training….even if their individual specialists exude superior technical proficiency.

This may seem counter-intuitive and even painful to hear. But consider David Maister’s experience. David, now retired, was once the world’s leading authority on the management of professional services firms.  He observed, “I rarely meet individual professionals who believe their firm, as an institution, is built on such [professional] principles.”

Most people define an organization (white collar or not) as ‘professional’ not by what the organization delivers (technical stuff developed by really smart people) but by how they go about their business. This is outlined in great detail in Chapter Two of The Power of Professionalism. And make no mistake, how they go about their business is a by-product of their mind-sets.

In the end it’s about confidence and trust. So when I hear senior leaders say, especially in the face of great chasms of trust, that the word ‘professional’ describes their organization I realize we’ve still got a ways to go.

Professional or Classy?

How do you describe someone who…

  • keeps quiet about a rare indiscretion that, if revealed, would have tarnished someone’s otherwise stellar (and deserved) reputation
  • resists the temptation to tell someone they were wrong (when they clearly were).  Instead, they offer a different point-of-view–one that lets the person down softly.
  • jumps in and deflects attention away from a colleague who has unexpectedly embarrassed themselves in front of 80 ‘A’ list attendees during a workshop at your industry’s annual conference

Which description fits—professional or classy?  Not surprisingly, it’s usually both.

Real Artists Ship

Today’s post was inspired by a colleague friend of mine–Sally Helgesen–a gifted author and management consultant.

Sally was reminiscing that her favorite Steve Jobs quote was “ Real Artists Ship”.   I can’t help but relate this quote to Mind-Set #1–Professionals Have A Bias For Results.

By ‘ship’, Jobs means produce…get your stuff to market….get people to try your stuff, weigh-in on it…all the while taking a risk.  Of course, your stuff may well be a product, but also could be a service–doesn’t matter.

Big ideas are fine…partially-designed  products on a drawing board may temporarily inspire…but until you ‘ship’, it’s all theory.  Results begin with ‘shipping’.

Do it and you’ll show the world why you matter–just as Jobs did!

Hiring Professionals

During a recent Soundview webinar that was highlighting The Power of Professionalism, I was asked by a caller “what are some questions one might ask during the new hire process that might reveal someone’s level of professionalism?”  I indicated I’d respond in greater detail in a subsequent blog.  Here goes….

Certainly the question is a good one…and is an important piece of the puzzle in determining whether you’re dealing with someone who would ‘show up’ as a professional would.

When people think ‘professionalism’, they often equate it almost exclusively with character or by how the individual deals with other people. Fair enough…as that’s where so many people fall short on the ‘professionalism test’.  But don’t forget that both competence (does the person know what they’re doing?) and judgment (can the person separate the essential from the trivial?) are critical too.  Chapter four (page 73) in The Power of Professionalism outlines this in great detail.

Also keep in mind your (and others) experience with the candidate during the pre-employment process will naturally tell you a lot about how professional the candidate is.  Did they keep their commitments?  Were they on time? Were they forthcoming to questions they were asked? How personable were they? How respectful to others?  How did they treat people who couldn’t do anything for them?  Were their mind-sets consistent with the organization’s culture?  Were their mind-sets something that might improve the organization’s culture?

Questions for the candidate during the formal interview process that help reveal how they handle disagreements (or interpersonal conflict) are often revealing.  Consider asking questions like:

“Tell me about a time in which you had a disagreement with your boss. How did you handle it?  Specifically, what did you do?”

“Tell me about the person that raised your blood pressure the most in your last organization.  Why did that person raise your blood pressure so? Specifically, what did you do to work effectively with that person?”

“Amongst your own personal values…which ones, when violated, ‘tick you off’ the most?”

”What attributes do you bring to the table that will help make us be an even more professional organization?  How have you demonstrated those attributes in the past? Be specific.”

“What’s worse: to be considered unprofessional or be considered incompetent?  Why?”

These are just a few possible examples.  Lastly, you can consider asking the candidate to rate themselves on a scale of 1 (low) to ten (high) on each of the seven mind-sets.  Before the candidate actually rates themselves, let them know that you’ll be asking their references (preferably their prior bosses) the exact same question.  In other words, you’ll be asking the candidate’s references to rate the candidate on each of the seven mind-sets as well.  You’ll want to see 8’s, 9’s and 10’s come from this process.  Consider 7’s neutral….anything less is bad news. (NOTE: this numeric assessment process is based on the cutting-edge work of Geoff Smart and Randy Street, authors of Who:The  A Method For Hiring. Smart and Street use this same numeric process for assessing the candidate’s capabilities, strengths and weaknesses–not for their level of professionalism, per se.)

Remember, any of us can be fooled by a candidate.  After all, the candidate is going to tend to tell us what they think we want to hear.  That’s why doing reference checks is so important.  It’s just a great reality check….and part of one’s process in the due diligence of hiring someone.  Don’t hire without doing reference checks.

Point being:  don’t base the decision on a new hire exclusively on the results from the interview with the candidate. It’s a data point…hopefully, one of several.  You’ll find more professionals that way.