Hard Unemployment Truths About ‘Soft’ Skills

A recent article by Nick Schulz of the American Enterprise Institute in the Wall Street Journal reveals some inconvenient truths about the difficulty the manufacturing sector currently faces in filling jobs.  There’s a lot of jobs that need filling, the problem is finding qualified people.

In many instances the difficulty stems around the lack of ‘soft’ skills—not necessarily the technical stuff. It’s skills that employers not-so-long-ago took for granted:  being on time for work, properly answering the telephone,  passing the drug test.

Others sectors have reported similar findings.  The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) has reported ‘that “professionalism” or “work ethic” is the top “applied” skill that younger workers lack’.

This probably doesn’t come as a surprise to many of you. Here’s the full article—Hard Unemployment Truths About ‘Soft’ Skills.

To me the skill-gap that Schulz has identified is really not a skill at all, it’s the lack of a professional’s mind-set.  Yet, let’s look beyond the semantics for now.  The problem Schulz is illuminating is symptomatic of a declining culture…one that hits the business community smack upside the head!

Grandpa’s Well Intended Faux Pas—The Doing/Being Transposition—Part One

It’s a holiday scene seemingly as old as time, family gatherings with relatives traveling great distances to be with their loved ones. Grandparents (especially) can’t wait to get reacquainted with their young  grandchildren.  At some point, one of the grandparents (often the grandfather) asks their young grandchild, ‘so what do you want to be when you grow up?”

Teacher, firefighter, musician, forest ranger, nurse, ball player, lawyer are just a few of the responses that the youngster might give.  The grandparent, no doubt, is pleased—sensing their grandchild has given this important question some thought.  Of course, this is all in spite of their young age and the likelihood that they’ll incessantly change their mind.

Yet, the grandparent has unknowingly perpetuated a misconception on the part of the grandchild. The problem started with the question the grandparent asked. Notice that the youngster actually answered a different question than the one posed by the grandparent.

The question the youngster answered was “what do you want to do when you grow up?” In other words, the youngster likely told their grandparent what interested them and how they envisioned earning a living (e.g. firefighter, teacher, forest ranger, etc) pursuing that interest.

The grandparent didn’t catch (or didn’t appreciate) the subtle, but important, distinction between being and doing— let alone point it out to the youngster.  How one earns a living is one thing, but it isn’t who they are—it doesn’t reveal what kind of person they are. Young people would be well served to understand that distinction.

Unfortunately, the experience with the grandparent subtly reinforces to the grandchild that what they do for a living largely defines who they are.  Of course, grandparents have a lot of company when it comes to this phenomenon….it’s no wonder, with all the emphasis on ‘career-mania’ in this country.

The fact that the youngster didn’t ‘get it’ is understandable, predictable really—given their young age.

All together now (in unison)—“what we do for a living, doesn’t define who we are.”  ‘Doing’ and ‘being’ are different!

For all the sacrifice parents (and some grandparents) make to ensure a first-rate education for their children; for all the blood-sweat-and–tears on the part of the diligent student; for all the prestige society puts in performing certain types of work…being is equally important (if not more so) than doing.   

Part two, which will be posted in a little over two weeks, will illustrate how one Southern California school has brought this important point to life.

Don’t Be Mr. Wonderful

This post is not intended to turn people to the dark side; it has no designs of transforming saints into sinners; no nefarious aims of having sensible, good-natured people suddenly worship at the altar of Darth Vader.

That disclosure aside, it bears repeating….don’t be Mr. Wonderful.

You might think that this admonition is a little out of character coming from a guy who has written extensively in The Power of Professionalism about people being their ‘best self’.  Allow me to clarify.

Who, you ask, is Mr. Wonderful?  He is Kevin O’Leary –a self-made Canadian gazillionaire who is one of the five well-heeled judges who star on the mega-hit television show Shark Tank.  For those unfamiliar with Shark Tank, up-and-coming entrepreneurs pitch deals to the judges—hoping to raise desperately-needed capital for their fledgling companies.

Calling them ‘judges’ is really a misnomer—because their primary role is that of ‘potential investor’. They’re really looking to do a deal—that’s why they refer to each other as sharks.  They hold the term  as a badge of honor.  If a shark likes what they hear and the parties come to terms, the shark’s equity stake is secured by writing a big check. They play for keeps; they’re investing their own money.

Naturally, both the sharks and entrepreneurs alike try to get the best deal they can.  Each is trying to get the most out of their investment.  Occasionally the sharks will compete strenuously amongst themselves when the entrepreneur has developed something ‘special’—an extraordinary product or service that the sharks’ sense will have extraordinary potential in the marketplace.          

You can learn a tremendous amount about the sharks as they ‘wheel-and-deal’ and interact with each other.  It’s interesting to see what the sharks ‘bite on’ and what causes them to ‘walk’.  Most sharks are discerning about the deals they enter into, others less so.

With O’Leary, money borders on being an obsession.  O’Leary, who has no shortage opinions when it comes to politics, said he’d run for office but there wasn’t any money in it. From his point-of-view, money is ‘the only thing that matters’.  ‘Pursuing wealth and being an entrepreneur are the most noble endeavors on Earth’ according to O’Leary.

Certainly the other sharks enjoy making money too, but, when compared with O’Leary, they have limits.  They exhibit self-imposed boundaries.  Not so much with O’Leary.  If he thinks the deal will make him money, he’s all over it.

“You’re dead to me” is a common retort O’Leary gives to entrepreneurs who rebuff his advances.  His interrogations are relentless. The cold hard truth not only aptly describes how O’Leary deals with others but is the title of his 2011 book.

His aggressive, unrelenting nature, along with his brutal honesty, earned O’Leary the title ‘Mr. Wonderful’.   The title originated from an off-handed, sarcastic comment born out of disgust from a fellow-shark who despised O’Leary’s approach.   The title, one of derision, was one O’Leary liked—it stuck.

Consider:

1) it is common for an entrepreneur to reveal that, going in, they aspired to do a deal with a certain shark.  Rarely, if ever, is Kevin’s name mentioned.

2) when Kevin is going head-to-head with a fellow shark for a deal, he loses far more than he wins.  Simply put, entrepreneurs don’t pick him much.

3) of the deals where the sharks partner together, Kevin is treated regularly by his colleagues as the ‘shark of last resort’.  In other words, his colleagues aren’t clamoring to partner with him.

These last three points are based solely on my observations as a regular viewer. In spite of the lack of statistically-based evidence, I believe these observations are fair representations.

I repeat….don’t be Mr. Wonderful.

In business, at the end of the day, it’s all about people. In the ‘Tank’, people have shown a reluctance to want to work with Kevin. Why?

***it appears that people are a means to an end with Kevin.  Money is the end and people are the means.  This dynamic typically ends badly.

***most people will have a serious values mismatch with someone like Kevin. For most, money is not ‘the only thing that matters’.   NOTE:  it is guys like O’Leary that give entrepreneurs a bad name.

***most people view nobility (and wealth creation) in a very different light than O’Leary. For most, nobility has far more to do with what one does with their money than merely accumulating it.  Again, the potential for a serious values mismatch exists.

***most people can’t help but take O’Leary’s approach personally. It’s no fun going to work dreading how your business partner will ‘get to you’ today.

People have and will continue to work with Kevin—-but it appears they do so out of need, rather than desire.  While business isn’t about winning popularity contests, it’s also important to point out the obvious—business is a lot more enjoyable, and frequently more profitable, when we’re working with someone we like and whose values we share.  Everything else being equal, who would you rather work with—someone you enjoy working with or someone who ‘gets to you’?

For all I know O’Leary has a different (better?) persona and approach outside of the Shark Tank. If so, good for him. For now, what I do know is that when the key players on the show see Kevin coming they’re all-too-frequently  putting on their shark repellant–hoping he will keep his distance.

My take:  be someone whom people want to work with.  Be disciplined, be tough, be demanding—just don’t be Mr. Wonderful.

The Unpaid Invoice

Last night I was teaching about The Power of Professionalism at one of our local Universities.  An enterprising woman raised an illuminating question about how to best handle—professionally—dealing with a client who had failed to pay her bill. Turns out, the woman was holding some inappropriate assumptions that professionals should somehow avoid conflict.

I dissuaded her of that notion.  This topic was actually something we had covered in an earlier post.

The woman’s assumptions had impacted the types about tactical approaches she was considering using with her client—none of which would likely prove satisfactory in the long run.

I suggested a different approach. Namely, to get the conversation on a higher plane—a professional plane, if you will.

Here’s one way to start that conversation—with someone we’re calling Judy.

“Judy, I trust you’ve sensed my frustration recently with the circumstances surrounding the unpaid invoice. Please know that I enjoy working with you and want you to succeed.  I’ve found that my most impactful (and enjoyable) consulting experiences have been when I’ve had a truly professional relationship with my client.  As a fellow professional, I’d appreciate understanding from your point of view what it means to have that type of professional relationship….one that really works.”

From here, do a lot of listening.  Understand Judy’s perspectives.  You’ll learn a lot….more than you might imagine.

The key here isn’t the well-scripted words that comprise the conversation’s prelude—the words that (hopefully) ‘warm up’ Judy.  This isn’t a script, so don’t treat it as such.  What you’re trying to do is invoke Judy’s identity of herself as a professional—therein lies the key.   Do that and you’ve got half the battle already won.

Discovering Meaning, Unleashing Motivation

In The Power of Professionalism we advocate that being a part of something bigger than yourself has (among other things) an especially motivating aspect. Of course, ‘being a part of something bigger than yourself’ is integral to how a professional thinks.  It’s the second of the seven mind-sets that defines professionals.

When people discover meaning, they blossom.  Being a part of an organization that shares that meaning becomes a big deal.  Believing that the world is incomplete without whatever you’re working on often becomes more important (from a motivation point of view) than self-interest (e.g. stock options, cushy office, etc).

A terrific article by Peter Guber —The Secret To Attracting The ‘A’ Team— illustrates  this in an especially compelling way. Enjoy.

100 and Counting

This is the 100th post on this blog.  I started the blog reluctantly.  Whatever concerns I initially had are now gone. Truth be told, I enjoy writing the blog.  I hope people enjoy reading it—although I’d rather know than just speculate what people’s impressions are.

It’s time for a reality-check, time for some feedback.  Tell me what you think.  Be honest.

What aspects of the blog do you like?  What’s the very best aspect of the blog? What types of posts do you learn the most from?   What types of posts interest you the most?

Anything about the blog you’d change?   Any complaints?  Anything you’d like to see more of?  Less of? Are there best practices from other blogs you’d suggest we add/modify?

Let’s make the next 100 posts even better than the first 100.  Thanks, in advance, for weighing in.

More About ‘The Code’

When people use code they’re being less than forthright.  Consider:

The potential recruit who says, “I’m interested” when asked about their impressions of the position they’re interviewing for.  ‘Interested’ in this instance is code for, “it’s true I’d consider your position, but I’m really considering a number of options.” To assume the recruit is actually committed would be a mistake.

The senior officer who says, “here at ACME we’re always looking out for your success” when speaking with a new analyst in her department.  It’s a much weaker thing to say that the company (e.g. ACME) is looking out for the analyst’s success than for the senior officer to personally commit to the analyst’s success.  In this instance, ‘we’re’ is code for the senior officer to hide behind ACME (an oft-time nebulous, faceless organization) and avoid making a personal commitment to the analyst.

The hiring manager who says “we’re looking for fresh perspectives” to the 55 year old job applicant.    That’s code for “we’re looking for younger workers”.  The applicant shouldn’t be mislead, there is a snow ball’s chance in a very hot place they’ll be hired.

Authenticity is the anti-thesis to code.  Most organizations would be well served by increasing authenticity and decreasing code….largely because code is less-than-forthright, it can mislead, it breeds cynicism…and, most importantly, it undermines trust.  Until authenticity increases, know the code.

Is A Moral Compass A Prerequisite To Being A Leader?

I’ve heard it argued by some pretty smart folks that people like Joseph Stalin (a revolutionary who, by conservative estimates, was responsible for the deaths of over 20,000,000 people) or “Chainsaw” Al Dunlap (the infamous ‘profit-at-any-price’ CEO) weren’t really leaders because they lacked a moral compass.  I suspect their thinking was influenced by the philosophy, “managers do things right; while leaders do the right thing.”   

Allow me to share a different point-of-view.

A leader is someone who:

***creates a new status-quo (they’re not focused on making the current status-quo more efficient)

***has followers (sufficient enough, and who are emotionally engaged enough, to create the desired momentum the leader seeks to drive change)

*** creates a step-change in people’s thinking

Simply put, a leader is someone who takes people from today’s current state to a new state.  Some go willingly, others not.  The leader is introducing change—typically a significant one.  The individual may or may not have a formal title.  Certainly more could be written on this—but, to me, this is the gist of it.

One last thing: no moral litmus test is required to take people from one state to another. Leadership is an equal opportunity aspiration for saints and scoundrels alike.

Whether the new state is the right thing (i.e. whether it’s valuable or good) is entirely a matter of interpretation. In other words, whether someone is a good leader or not is ultimately a value judgment—one that is driven by the ‘fruits’ brought forth by the individual.  Good leaders are those that are trusted.  The fact that we find an individual’s actions reprehensible—or even if we consider the individual to be amoral–doesn’t not make them a leader. They’re a leader all right—one we’re not inclined to follow.

The word ‘leader’ generally carries with it a positive connotation, largely because trust is assumed.  But trust, as I outlined in The Power of Professionalism, is personal—very personal.  Let’s face it, there are  plenty of bad leaders out there.  And the primary reason they’re bad is because people don’t trust them.

Reasonable people can differ on whether someone measures up as a good leader or not.  But to dismiss someone out-of-hand as a leader simply because we consider them unworthy (or because we disagree with them) is to ignore the very real impact they’re having. Unfortunately, this happens a lot.  It’s a form of moral superiority—one that often shoots us in the foot.

Part Two, in two weeks, will explain why.

Not Now

I recently suggested to a colleague that we begin work on a new initiative we had considered undertaking.   His two word response—‘not now’—-was emphatic.

He wasn’t initiating a power struggle.

He wasn’t dismissing the suggestion out-of-hand.

He wasn’t being belligerent.

He was exercising great judgment.  Turns out, he was right.  The timing for the new initiative wasn’t right—we already had plenty on our plate.

It is great working with people you trust.  Judgment is one leg of trust’s three-legged stool (character and competence being the other two).   See page 80 in The Power of Professionalism for an extensive discussion on this subject.

With heaping ‘to-do’ lists, with demands brought on by the incessant speed-of-change,  with ambiguity being the norm—judgement has never been so critical.  It’s great to work with people who have it.