Seven Signs An ‘Expert’ Is Slipping

1) they tend to be impatient with ‘mere mortals’

2) they tend to reinforce what they already believe or trust they know

3) they get overly defensive when others challenge them

4) their listening skills have tended to atrophy

5) new ideas are often seen as a threat or source of discomfort for them

6) frequently they tend to hang around with people of similar stature

7) they have become over-reliant on the approach that enabled them to become an expert in the first place

If these signs are prevalent, it portends an expert in decline.

The (Sometimes Maddening) Need For Precision

A manager is presenting in an important meeting.  He is in the process of making a critical point, yet goes blank as he has forgotten the date he last met with the Chief Marketing Officer (CMO).  The CMO is someone who had played an integral role in the breakthrough the manager is reporting on.  “Let’s see I think I met with the CMO last Wednesday”.  Backpedaling, he painstakingly recants, “no it was Thursday”.   After confusion ensues amongst the group, he changes course once again.  “Wait, it was probably Tuesday”.

The manager has taken nearly a minute attempting to sort this out. That’s an eternity for someone who has been allocated only 15 minutes on the agenda—with five of those minutes committed to Q&A.  The manager seems oblivious to the side-show he has created.  Yet he’s especially pleased with himself when he finally figures out that it was indeed Wednesday when he met with the CMO.  He’s a man who has a high need for precision–someone who (among other things) prides themselves in getting the facts 100% right every time.  To him it’s a badge of honor.

Here’s the problem with people’s need for precision: too often in group settings (think: meetings, teachers instructing, etc) it detracts more than it helps.  This gentleman, for example, ultimately got his fact right but in the process lost his audience.  Plus, the group ultimately lost its momentum after the manager had trouble regaining his mojo.

The irony is that the meeting date with the CMO was inconsequential to the point the manager was attempting to make.  It simply didn’t matter.  Yet the manager seemingly had more invested energy in identifying that arcane fact than his all-important proposition.  The manager got lost in the weeds.  The culprit?  His own need for precision.

Precision, as important as it is, is essential only when it has direct bearing on a desired outcome you’re trying to achieve.  Otherwise, it’s noise.  There are exceptions, but not many.

The opposite also occurs.  How frequently do you see this happen?

A manager is attempting to share an inspiring story about Judy —the company’s promising new COO.  Early on in the manager’s comments to the assembled group of front-line supervisors the manager says,  “Judy was a supervising engineer for only two years before she was promoted to Director.”   Dan, a seasoned front-line supervisor, interrupts, “…actually, it was three years.”

Turns out, Dan was right—but his point added no value to the manager’s insightful perspective about Judy.

A human resources director is reporting on the results from the annual employee satisfaction survey to the company’s top officers.  She is pointing out the implications from the unmistakable downward trend in employee confidence across the entire enterprise.  Arthur, the company’s newest officer, unexpectedly chimes in.  “Yes, but look at the high level of confidence amongst the officer corps.”

Turns out, Arthur was right—but the high level of confidence amongst the officers was clearly an anomaly when contrasted against each and every other group in the company.  Arthur’s comment unfortunately distracted his fellow officer’s focus away from the all-important need for them to understand the dramatic decline in employee confidence.

Brett, a twenty nine year old chemist, makes a recommendation to his GM about how to remove the unwelcome deposits on the company’s boiler tubes. Betty, a twenty four year veteran of the steam generation department, asks Brett during an important group meeting: “what makes you think, after a short six months with this company, that you are in a position to recommend on such an important  issue?”

Turns out Betty was right—Brett was a short-timer, someone who was seemingly ill-equipped to make  such a recommendation.  But Brett had experience.  Turns out, he had helped solve a very similar problem with his last employer.

Each of these latter three examples are variations on people’s need for precision: the first is always representing the facts correctly, the second is never letting an exception go unnoticed, and the third is being unforgiving to those attempting to lead (i.e. expecting perfection).

All three of these are admirable and (usually) well-intended. Yet, it’s not helpful for the group when someone shares an arcane fact that adds no value.  It’s not helpful for the group when someone’s clever observation (think: exception) sidetracks the group from weightier matters.  And it’s especially not helpful for the group when those that attempt lead it come under constant cross-examination as a means of passing someone’s self-appointed credibility test.

Precision is a good thing—it enabled Man to send astronauts to the Moon and return them safely.  Yet, precision isn’t always our friend…no more so than when it becomes maddening to our colleagues!

 

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?

 

 

 

 

 

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.

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.

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.

Professionalism ≠ The Absence of Conflict

Consider:

***your client is six months past due on a $68,000 invoice

***your colleague consistently fails to meet important deadlines on your important project

***your supplier has regularly provided irregular sizes of your most popular women’s dresses

You’ve really tried to show up as a professional would, but unfortunately others around you haven’t. Your client, colleague, and supplier need to get their act together.  It happens.

Being a professional doesn’t mean smoothing over important issues.  It doesn’t mean glad-handing people who should be ‘upping their game’.  Most importantly, it doesn’t mean the absence of conflict.

Professionals get results (Mind-Set #1).  That means getting the invoice paid, helping get your colleague back on track, and having your supplier dramatically improve their quality control.

Sometimes these types of situations require confronting people or handling situations that aren’t a lot of fun.  Sometimes that creates conflict.  Doing so doesn’t make you unprofessional.

For most of us, getting results usually involves having crucial conversations that involve conflict.  It comes with the territory.  It’s OK, as long as the conflict is handled professionally.  Respect is the key.  Conflict, when it’s handled respectfully, is rarely experienced as unprofessional.

Sometimes it’s tricky to maintain professional decorum when the individual is someone who hasn’t necessarily earned your respect—like the three people illustrated in the examples at the beginning of this post.

It’s easy to be respectful to someone who has earned your respect. Not so, for someone who hasn’t.  Yet, it’s still important to be respecting.  The key to creating and maintaining professional decorum is to be respecting when it’s difficult to be respectful.  To learn more about the difference between the two, see chapter eleven in The Power of Professionalism.

Bottom line:  professionalism shouldn’t be characterized (in whole or in part) by the absence of conflict; rather professionalism often gets defined by how conflict (inevitable as it is) gets handled.

The Passing Of Stephen Covey

Stephen Covey passed away today. He’ll be missed.

Covey was the author of The 7 Habits of Highly-Effective People—which sold over 20 million copies. Over the years, I bought over 50 copies for my staff and my friends. Interestingly, Covey shopped the original manuscript for 7 Habits to an endless number of traditional publishers.  Initially no one was interested. Eventually the book was picked up.     

His was the first ‘personal growth’ book of its type I ever paid any attention to. His approach helped millions–me included. His books inspired my writing.  His philosophies influenced my thinking. Covey’s legacy is rich indeed.

Stephen was one of the good guys. R.I.P. Stephen.

Example Three–“I Know”–From ‘Do You Know The Code?’

Have you ever…

***shared with your teenager your concerns about the perils of under-age drinking and driving?

***expressed your outrage to the check-out clerk about the skyrocketing cost of groceries?

***complained to your neighbor about how the country is going to hell?

And how many times have you gotten “I know” as a response?

“I know” is often code for ‘I don’t want to hear it.’ It’s largely a polite response, but one that doesn’t necessarily imply agreement.   Maybe the person is uncomfortable with the subject or maybe they’re tired of your rants or maybe their response has been triggered by something else entirely.

The person isn’t saying ‘shut up’…isn’t telling you to ‘go away!’ — but sometimes that’s what they’re thinking.  The person wants to change the subject or change their circumstance (e.g. like ditching you).

Of course this plays out in the workplace too.

***Your boss says “I know” the moment you open your mouth about why project XX should be an organizational priority.

***Your colleague says “I know” at the end of your explanation for the rational you used in hiring the  non-traditional candidate who turned out to be an all-star.

***Your assistant says “I know” as you recite some arcane of piece of information you gleaned off the internet earlier that morning.

Each of these people is basically saying, “let’s move on…what you’re saying isn’t registering.”

Your boss is already convinced about the need for project XX, she wants to talk about ‘how’ the project moves forward.  Your colleague is annoyed by your self-aggrandizement after hearing you tell the same hiring story (along with the implication of how clever you were) far too many times to count.  And your assistant is basically telling you, “tell me something meaningful  I don’t know”.

“I know” is code.  It’s important to know the code!

What can we learn from this?  When you hear “I know” it should tell you that you’re probably not getting through to the other person.   In other words, you’re probably not having an impact with them.

To regain your interpersonal footing (and often credibility), you’ll need to shift gears.  That might mean  tuning in to the unspoken needs of the other party.  Other times it means turning down our own rhetoric or asking more questions or just being a better listener.   Or a million other things….

It’s true that an “I know” response may be prompted by the other person’s ‘stuff’  (i.e. their boredom, their impatience, their uneasiness, their sense of superiority, or a host of other factors).   In the end, it doesn’t matter…because, regardless of the reason, you’re still not having an impact. 

That said, if you’re on the receiving end of an “I know” response too often, you’re likely doing something that’s prompting it. The desire to change that situation starts with mind-set #3 (things get better when I do).  From there, you’ve got to figure out what it is you need to change to get a different response.  Our next post will share some helps.