What Each Of Us Can Learn From Lance’s Disclosure

Full disclosure: I didn’t watch Oprah’s interview with Lance Armstrong, nor did I seek out articles regarding such.  My exposure to the subject was limited to one article I accidentally happened on through my ISP.

This article points out that Armstrong finally comes clean with his oldest son Luke about his indiscretions after he witnessed his son defending him in front of others.  In other words, Armstrong made an arguably tough decision after seeing the adverse impact on Luke.

As we’ve learned through Stanford Professor James March’s research on decision making, these types of tough choices are most strongly influenced by either one of two factors: 1) the consequences one is subject to—what I get versus what it costs OR  2) the choice is influenced by an especially important aspect of one’s identity.   The former is quite calculated, the latter is quite intuitive.

In Armstrong’s case it appears he finally fessed up to Luke because of the  identity he held of himself as Dad.   As the article points out, Armstrong became the most emotional when the subject of his son came up….this contrasted against the subject of all the sponsorships (and money) he had lost.

In his role as Dad, Armstrong no doubt had certain expectations of himself—to do right by his kids, to protect them, to teach them properly, etc. For those of us who are parents, our identity of ourselves (as either mom or dad) is one our most powerful.  Thus, we shouldn’t find it too surprising that Armstrong told Luke after he saw the damage the situation was having on him.

That’s the power that identity had on Armstrong—as it does for each of us. Our best decisions–especially the tough ones–are by-products of situations when we’ve been willing to be influenced by our identity.

Is it any wonder then that within The Power of Professionalism  we put such emphasis on being a professional—the ultimate workplace identity?

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Shanahan–What’s Behind Your Question?

Ask any major league starting pitcher with a high pitch count how he feels in the late innings of a game, and 99 percent of the time he’ll tell you that he feels great. In fact, he probably doesn’t feel great. He’s probably trashed. The pitcher responds the way he thinks he’s supposed to.  After all, he’s a warrior!

This was essentially what Mike Shanahan (football coach of the Washington Redskins) did with quarterback RG3 (rookie phenom Robert Griffin III) on Jan 6th in a playoff game against the Seattle Seahawks. RG3 was clearly hobbled—barely able to defend himself. He was gimping around on the same leg (knee really) that he had severely injured earlier in the year.

‘You OK?'” Shanahan asked.  “And he [RG3] said, `I’m fine.'”   This exchange was late in the game.  At that point, even a grade school kid could tell RG3 wasn’t right. RG3’s response was no surprise—he was responding the way he was expected to. After all, even as a rookie, he was the face of the franchise and its unquestioned leader.

RG3 stayed in the game.  Minutes later he mangled his knee trying to recover a botched snap from center. RG3 was not only out of the game but possibly next season as well due to, among other things, a torn ACL.

Shanahan tempted fate.  He lost.

Shanahan’s assertions that he left RG3 in the game because RG3 said he was fine are ridiculous.  Shanahan has been coaching for—what—a gazillion years? He knew better. He knew that RG3 would say just about anything that would keep him in the game. In other words, RG3 responds the way he thinks he’s supposed to.

Even if the question came to mind, it should have never left Shanahan’s lips. In the end, however, RG3’s answer to Shanahan’s question proved to be the justification Shanahan used to keep RG3 in the game.

Let’s call this what it is, a lapse in judgment—a very costly one.  RG3 shouldn’t have been on the field—even if he’s our best player in the year’s most important game.

The lesson:  We’ll learn far more about ourselves as a result of asking this type of self-validating question than anything the person ever tells us in return.

The Key Mind-Set That Translates To Better Sales Performance

Professionals realize (and act like) they’re part of something bigger than themselves (mind-set two)

Mindset #2 often has the biggest impact on results.

An underdeveloped mindset #2 plays havoc on an organization’s culture—and the results that emanate from that culture.

Consider:

***An executive team that is littered with people who have messiah complexes and regularly back-stab each other.

***A department head whose self-aggrandizing style puts the organizations needs secondary to their own.

***A front-line clerk who believes they have a job—but not responsibilities.

For those familiar with The Power of Professionalism, these examples remind us of the debilitating impacts that the lack of mind-set #2 has on an organizations performance. And sometimes when we think culture, we think inside the organization. Yet culture naturally impacts an organization’s outside world as well.

Take the sales function for instance.  An underdeveloped mind-set #2 clearly hurts sales. Sales leadership expert Lisa Earle McLeod’s research has shown that quota- driven sales people sold substantially less than those sales people who wanted to make a real difference with their customers.  The latter group held mind-set #2 in spades, the former group far less so.

McLeod refers to the ‘difference makers’ as ‘selling with noble purpose’.  Her latest book—Selling With Noble Purpose–outlines the specifics.  McLeod’s research turns on its head the belief that money is the primary motivator for top sales performers.  The irony, of course, is that those whose primary motivation  was on making  a real difference with customers made far more money than those whose primary motivation was money.

For sales people the lesson is clear: put the client’s needs first and the money will follow—you needn’t have to choose between the two.  Isn’t that what you’d expect from a professional?

Trouble is “average reps are usually thinking about themselves and closing the deal”…this according to McLeod.  Whatever attention the average rep pays to the client, it isn’t their full attention.  Many of these reps can’t ‘get beyond themselves’. This doesn’t suggest they’re bad people, but it does suggest they’re subject to the whims of human nature—as we all are. Plus, the fact that most sales managers focus almost exclusively on ‘the numbers’ (at the expense of truly understanding—let alone appreciating– customer needs) no doubt contributes to this problem.

These average reps (and often their managers) simply haven’t yet developed a full appreciation of mind-set #2.  Unfortunately results suffer as a result.  It’s just as true with customers as it is inside the walls of the company.

Monday’s Pleasant Surprise

Trust Across America is an organization dedicated to improving the level of trust within the business sector.  Founder Barbara Kimmel has done a tremendous job growing the influence of the organization.

Earlier today Trust Across America published their top thought leaders for 2013. I’m pleased (and humbled) to have been included. The list has many notable (and impressive) people.

I can only hope this honor helps advance the important work we’re doing here at Wiersma and Associates.

.

 

 

Are You Comfortable In Your Own Skin?

One of the important characteristics that is almost always found in a ‘true professional’ is the degree to which they are ‘comfortable in their own skin’.

In other words, they know who they are and aren’t inappropriately fearful of a new market entrant or feel threatened by the success of others….things like that.

Seth Godin recently published a blog post entitled True Professionals Don’t Fear Amateurs. That post nicely captures a number of important points that are consistent with the premise of being comfortable in one’s own skin. Enjoy.

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.

Even The Elite Aren’t Immune

Many in the United States feel that, in varying degrees, there’s an inherent bias in the media. It’s hard to argue with a straight-face that there isn’t.  Most of us expect the media to be neutral when it comes to political matters—that’s what most of us feel a professional journalist is supposed to do.  They’re supposed to be objectively reporting the news, not making it.

The media in Mexico makes bias in the US look pale–at least if you believe a recent article in Fortune.  In Televisa vs.The People Mexico’s broadcast monopoly is accused of helping a candidate win the presidency.  The article is an eye-opener…check it out. Unlike the US, there’s been outrage in Mexico.  In July nearly 100,000 people protested…yes, you read correctly—100,000 !  The specifics are outlined in the article.

Ironically, Televisa’s brand appears to have been tarnished—along with hurting its business interests.

How interesting…even when you’re part of the elite and ‘in the tank’ for your nation’s president and you violate professional ideals, you ultimately pay a price. That’s encouraging…and an important lesson each of us should remember.

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.