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.

The Election–It’s About Confidence Stupid

In two weeks the US goes to the polls to elect (among other things) the president. It’s a tight race. The election is dominated by concerns over the lackluster economy—which has clearly become the defining issue of the election.  Simply put, all other issues in this election are largely peripheral.  This election is about regaining confidence in the economy.

Founder James Madison wisely observed that “the circulation of confidence is better than the circulation of money.” To me the successful candidate will be the one who people have confidence in—confidence to turn the economy around.  It’s true that confidence can sometimes be misplaced.  Let’s hope that’s not the case in two weeks.

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.

Lessons From The Debates

The vice presidential debate is tonight here in the US.  Reports are that one of the participants has been sequestered for the past week—preparing. That’s a lot….but of course there’s a great deal on the line with the presidential election less than four weeks away.

The candidates are preparing so as to not get caught flat-footed.  That’s good thinking.  After all, when you know something threatening is likely headed your way…ducking doesn’t seem like such a great strategy.

Preparation is integral to Mind-Set #3—Professionals Know Things Get Better When They Get Better. Make no mistake, preparation isn’t sexy.  It’s rarely fun.  It requires discipline.  It’s subservient to high standards (mind-set #4) and a commitment to results (mind-Set #1).   Preparation usually extracts a personal sacrifice of some sort.  Yet, in the end, sacrifice makes people better.  And when important things are on the line, you want your people at their best.

Take, for example, what Starbucks does for their people.  Starbucks is in the people business serving coffee (think: exceptional customer service). Customers are demanding, sometimes even rude.  Anticipating this (and recognizing how inexperienced some of their newly-hired baristas are in dealing with sensitive people issues) Starbucks trains its people on the very situations that they’ll ultimately face when dealing with the ever-fickle public. The approach has proven to build confidence and develop greater self-discipline in their baristas. As importantly, it has enhanced Starbuck’s customer service.

Starbucks (like the vice presidential debate candidates) doesn’t want to get caught flat-footed.  For Starbucks, there’s a lot on the line—namely great customer service.  Starbucks is all-too-familiar with the types of situations that could really test their baristas patience, good will and people skills.  They’re doing something about it…they get prepared.  Starbucks is one amongst many that do this….it’s a really prudent approach.

People are at their best when they’re prepared—it’s just as important at Starbucks as it is in a vice presidential debate.

Part Two—Is A Moral Compass A Prerequisite To Being A Leader?

Consider:

***the director of an after- school program (think:  Boys and Girls Clubs) is consistently losing kids to a new, increasingly popular, gang in town.

***the senior executive whose ‘killer’ proposal for the company’s strategic direction loses favor amongst her colleagues to a peer whose own proposal is blatantly self-serving

***the forthright and well-intended politician consistently loses ground to a charismatic, but unprincipled, opponent whose policies will (among other things) break the bank

What’s common amongst these three examples?

1)      each leader had a compelling message

2)      each leader was losing ground to an arguably inferior ‘competitor’ and was surprised by it

3)      each leader had become dismissive of their counterpart

4)      each leader assumed that the ‘moral high ground’ they believed they held would count for more than it eventually did

5)      each leader failed to acknowledge their counterpart as a leader

The director, the executive, and the politician each saw their counterpart as unworthy—at least compared to themselves.  By default, none of their counterparts could measure up to the lofty standards they associated with being a leader.  Each leader felt contempt towards their counterpart.  They were dismissive of them—all the while feeling a little victimized.

Of course, all of this is misplaced energy.  Most importantly, each made the classic mistake of disrespecting a worthy opponent.  They didn’t make any of this of this public.  Rather, each kept their feelings and impressions private.

Each of these three were less diligent in advancing their point of view than they should have been. They didn’t work as hard as they needed to.  They assumed (among other things) that the moral high-ground they represented would be a great equalizer. Unfortunately for them, it didn’t work out that way.

The truth is, each leader was facing a formidable opponent—a formidable leader if you will. Their counterparts were people that were creating a new status quo; people who had influenced others thinking.  Yes their counterparts were indeed leaders—even though these people may have had a malfunctioning moral compass.

Being dismissive of one’s opponents (as leaders) because one considers them ‘unworthy’ is a mistake. It  sets in motion a set of psychological conditions that prove to be self-defeating.  For each of these three leaders, their counterparts were leaders –they just weren’t ones that these three had much respect for.

Making a judgment is one thing, but developing a sense of moral superiority is quite another.  And it was largely that sense of moral superiority that undermined these three leaders.  As we mentioned in Part One, leadership is an equal opportunity aspiration for saints and scoundrels alike.

Youth Is Served—The Power of Professionalism In Business Schools

***The owner of a chain of highly-successful Southern California restaurants sends his daughter (a recent law school grad) and niece (attending a prestigious professional school) copies of The Power of Professionalism.  He does so because he sees the book as foundational to their success.

***An executive from a Fortune 20 company shares with her pre-college son stories from The Power of Professionalism. Her high-potential son (wise beyond his years) is especially receptive to the book’s message. 

***A senior leasing agent in a prestigious commercial real estate firm regularly e-mails her daughter (a recent college grad) short excerpts from The Power of Professionalism. She does so because the book addresses many of the frustrations her daughter is experiencing in her new job.               

This phenomenon is repeated regularly….seasoned, caring professionals sharing The Power of Professionalism with the up-and-coming generation. 

To be clear, my firm’s target market is mid to large for-profit companies. Yet, we’ve also made the conscious decision to reach out to the younger generation—just as the aforementioned professionals have.  We believe the book’s principles are imperative for young people to learn early on.

Specifically, we’re doing outreach to business schools—as The Power of Professionalism is a natural for our future generation’s business leaders. The response has been terrific.  Professors are using the book as part of their course work, professional staff is using it with the student’s professional development needs, and student organizations are sharing quotes from the book through social media.  It’s exciting to see how the material has been embraced. 

We’d love to be introduced to people you may know in higher-education (e.g. Deans, Professors, Professional Staff and the like) that might be interested in learning more about the book and how our efforts might benefit them and their students.  Please drop me a line ( wiersmab@comcast.net ) with suggested names or ideas as to how we might advance this important effort even more. Thanks.   

 

 

Credibility Provides The Foundation For Change

Success sometimes extracts a price.  It had for a senior executive I was working with recently.

His problem—among other things—was time. Like most of us, he didn’t have enough of it.  He was the first one at the office in the morning, and the last one out in the evening. As a result, time with his young family suffered. The situation was becoming unacceptable.

In discussing the situation with him it became apparent that he was especially generous in making himself available to his staff (think: open door policy). Naturally, he was trying to do the right thing.        

The staff was appreciative and regularly sought out the executive.  His open door policy, however well-intended, had the unintended consequence of negatively impacting his personal life.  For the staff it had the unintended consequence of making them a bit too dependent on their boss.         

 I suggested (with one big caveat) the executive try limiting his availability to the staff.  In other words, create some dedicated time for himself wherein he could invest time on several longer-term initiatives that had been neglected. He’d be creating some pre-determined ‘quiet time’ when his staff knew not to interrupt him.  This would turn out to be quite a significant change as the open door policy had been something the staff had become quite accustomed to and really enjoyed.      

The tactic surrounding ‘quiet time’ was pretty straight-forward —it wasn’t rocket science and it normally works well.   To me, the most important aspect as to whether this was going to work was whether the executive had credibility with the staff? That was the big caveat.  If the executive had credibility, then I was confident the ‘quiet time’ change would work.  If he didn’t, I’d withdraw the suggestion.        

I became confident that the executive had already built the necessary credibility to pull this off.   And despite the change being somewhat unpopular, the staff supported it. 

The thing that made this work was the credibility the executive had built with the staff.  They trusted him.  They were confident that, as a professional, he had the organization’s best interests at heart.   

Whether it’s a smaller change like ‘quiet time’ or a major initiative like a productivity enhancement, they’re both highly dependent on the credibility of the leader advancing the change.  If the leader doesn’t have credibility, the odds are long against the ‘change’ effort succeeding.        

Turns out, the executive loves the new arrangement.  The staff is very accepting of it—more so than was originally anticipated.  It’s working.  Early on, it has proven to really improve the executive’s quality of life.

Lest you think the main point of this post is about the tactical suggestion I made around ‘quiet time’…it isn’t.  Tactical suggestions are easy.  The hard part is earning the credibility that, when combined with some common-sense tactic, makes the whole thing work. Hats off to this fine executive who had earned his people’s trust and had the courage of his convictions to act.  Bravo!         

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.