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.

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.

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.

Success Breeds Self-Importance Amongst MBA’s

Several years ago I was asked to assist with the much-anticipated kick-off of the Eller Business School’s program orientation for incoming MBA’s at the University of Arizona.  The incoming MBA’s were (as my mother would say) ‘bright-eyed and bushy-tailed’—eagerly looking forward to the coursework, special projects, and overseas study abroad opportunities that their forthcoming educational experience promised.

The beginning of the school year hadn’t even officially started yet, but the MBA’s had already been assigned a group project and numerous case-studies to read in anticipation of the program’s kick-off.  The group project was to develop a business plan for a phantom new company that the students would devise.  Six project teams competed during the kick-off.  I was a judge.

Each teams’ presentation was impressive.  I quickly concluded that the students, indeed, were amongst the best and the brightest.  As judges we were hard pressed to determine a clear winner of the competition—as each team did such an outstanding job.

During the competitions debrief I asked each team member the following question, “what percentage of the team’s overall success would you attribute to your own personal contribution?”  Each team member anonymously marked a number of their choosing on an index card and returned the cards to me.  In theory, one might expect that the percentage total from each team would approximate 100% plus or minus (maybe) 15 or 20%.

As part of my hour-long keynote later that afternoon I gave the students the results.  The average percentage total from the six teams was 165%.  The low was 120%, the high was 230%.  More than a couple individuals rated their personal contribution at over 50%.  (And they were working within a team of six people!)

What can we conclude from this?

It means that virtually every team member had over-stated their own importance—a few by a little, most by a lot!  Surprised?  You shouldn’t be! As my colleague friend Marshall Goldsmith has noted, “We have a strong bias to remember events in a light most favorable to us.”  I’ve conducted this same exercise with senior execs and blue collar workers alike and the results closely mirror the MBA’s.

When we over-state our own importance, what we’re really saying is, “you’re really lucky to have me”. However subtle that’s conveyed, it’s an unattractive message.  Even if the group is performing adequately, it typically shows that people’s focus is on “me”, not “we”.

Confidence is an attractive trait, but excessive self-importance isn’t.  You’ll know that the situation is improving when people speak more of “we” experiences, instead of “me” experiences.  That’s true for senior execs as well as starry-eyed MBA students.

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.

 

 

 

Can We Tolerate Working With You?

In 1999 Whirlpool began a quest to go from one-product, one-customer manufacturer of washing machines to being the global leader of marketing and manufacturing major household appliances, with revenues over $10 billion. Today the Whirlpool brand is the top-selling appliance brand in the world.

Many contributed to Whirlpool’s remarkable success story—but arguably none more than Chief Innovative Officer—Nancy Snyder.   Nancy was the chief architect of this remarkable transformation.  She tells the complete story in her 2009 book Unleashing Innovation.

Nancy would be the first to tell you that there was an endless array of people who deserve credit for this remarkable transformation.  That said, amongst those that were closest to the work itself, there’s an especially important group.  Nancy calls them iHeros.   Without the efforts of the iHeros many of the remarkable commercial innovation successes would have never come to fruition.  In addition, these people were the catalysts that enabled the organization to institutionalize (culturally) innovation at Whirlpool.

These are people who took out-of-the-ordinary personal risks, made personal sacrifices, and constantly ‘took one for the team’.  In the end, their ‘reputational capital’ was off-the-charts. It goes without saying that they were respected—but people also liked them.  They were iHeros because their peers recognized them as such—not because the organization issued them an award.

There were those within Whirlpool that were almost singularly responsible for some remarkable commercial innovation successes at Whirlpool.  Yet, they weren’t recognized as iHeros by their peers. Why?  Because they were perceived to be more about ‘me’ than ‘we’.

Whereas iHeros weren’t self-glorifying, these individuals tended to be. General Richard Myers once told me that self-aggrandizement was just about the worst character trait one could have in the military.  Turns out, it’s one of the worst at Whirlpool too—although fortunately they don’t seem to have much of it!

Recall in The Power of Professionalism I advocated that professionals are defined by how, not by what they do.  Here’s yet another example of that at Whirlpool.    

‘Can we tolerate working with you?” This is one of only three key questions that several respected executive recruiters tell us need be asked in hiring interviews.  (The other two are:  ‘can you do the job?’ and ‘will you love the job?’)  While it’s more important to be respected than liked, the Whirlpool experience reinforces how important it is to be liked as well.  Ask yourself, everything else being equal, who would I rather work with—someone I like or someone I just tolerate?   Kind of a no-brainer, huh?

How Old Are Your Stories?

Great communicators are, in large part, storytellers.  There’s nothing like a great personal story to make an important point memorable—cementing it into our hearts and minds.  While repetition is important, it’s less-so when people share their personal stories until they are thread-bare.  In other words, repeatedly telling stories about experiences you had 5 – 10 years ago can date you.

Managers and leaders can fall into this trap.  To be clear, there may be nothing wrong with the individual’s story.  But when I hear a leader repeatedly tell a story that’s 10 years old, it makes me wonder if they aren’t lacking any new experiences that, when converted into stories, would have help them make the same point.  Stale stories can make it appear that you’re not in ‘the game’…relying too much on what can feel like ancient history.

Leaders are most effective when they’re acting in the ‘here-and-now’.  Stale stories don’t cut it. If you need better (more relevant) stories, create some new experiences!  Both you and your people will be better off for it.