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.

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.