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.

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.

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.

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.

Fixing Our Broken Government–Optimism To Mitigate An Otherwise Sobering 4th

Earlier today I received an e-mail from Geoff Smart, Chairman and CEO of ghSMART & Company.  Geoff’s firm is a renowned management assessment firm for CEO’s and investors.  His wonderful book Who is a classic on hiring ‘A’ players—it became a NY Times best seller.    

Geoff was writing to announce his new book Leadocracy.  It was a pleasant surprise.  The book was written, in part, because of Geoff’s hope (in some small way) of ‘fixing’ our broken government.

I couldn’t help but think back to my own book The Power of Professionalism (which Geoff happened to have endorsed) which had as a sub-plot getting our country back on track.  In other words, Geoff and I shared a similar concern about the health of the country and had dedicated significant aspects of an otherwise traditional business book to the nation’s health.

Yes folks, the United States has some serious issues—and they’re pretty sobering. On the verge of July 4th, my hopes are still high for the nation.

The answer, in part, is to expect elected officials to be professionals who happen to be politicians, not professional politicians.

Happy 4th everyone!

 

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.