SELLING YOUR SOUL

If you dance with the devil, do you really expect him not to lead?

I was reminded of this phrase (which I believe my cousin coined), when listening to the daily media barrage of political and corporate scandals. I don't believe that any of these folk went out and decided a path towards highly questionable and potentially criminal behaviour. 

As is often the case with unethical behaviour, one step into the grey, leads to the next, until the slippery slope has you diving head first into the quagmire of corruption.

If you dance with the devil, do you really expect him not to lead?

I have faced many situations within my career, where I could have taken this off-ramp. When you have had the positions which I have occupied, there will be pressure from on-high to possibly give business to a "friend", a "favourite" or the like, and I've refused. This refusal did in one instance cost me my job, but I was good with that. Because you can always get another job, but you can't get another reputation.

And I've seen others, who began that journey. A favour here, a "tweak" there, awarding business not to the best company, but because a) they've gotten pressure to do so; or b) they allowed themselves to become too close to their suppliers -- accepting boondoggles of various kinds. Some of these folk have been caught and others have actually done quite well in their corporations,  getting accolades and bonuses.

If you dance with the devil, do you really expect him not to lead?

If you are an ethical supplier, even if a large client or potential client asks you to do something unethical, do you say "Ok, just this once" or are your courageous and decide that no amount of revenue is worth it. Lots of pressure to do so, but will you?

I would say unfortunately in the corporate game of life, the former is probably the case more often than the latter.

But you know, that "just this time" or "Ok, don't tell anyone" or "If I don't somebody else will" or whatever phrase you can think of to somehow justify your behaviour, means you have sold your soul.

Because once you've traversed into that murky realm and don't get caught, or the heavens don't open and a lightning bolt is sent to smite you, you might rationalize that it was OK. The problem is by this time you've sold your soul and then it becomes routine to do "whatever it takes" and there you go, down the rabbit-hole.

How? Well, your boss, your client, your co-worker, whomever now owns you. They could easily let slip that you did this questionable thing. They definitely wouldn't let it be known that they were complicit, it would all totally rest on your shoulders. And if you are in the public eye? Once the media gets their hook into you, well, they just don't let go. 

If you dance with the devil, do you really expect him not to lead?

And for those who I see being "successful" who I know have traversed the river to the unethical land? Well, I do believe that what goes around, comes around. I've seen it happen too often not to.

So when faced with an ethical issue, either professionally or personally, think twice. The devil is always open to collecting more souls!

THE HAPPINESS FORMULA

Today posted on LinkedIN was Deepak Chopra's commencement address to this year's graduates from
a US college.

Deepak is always a pleasure to hear or read and it is no different with this address. The one thing from this speech that stood out for me was him discussing the "Happiness" formula, which is  H=S+C+V where

H stands for happiness

S stands for set point in the brain

C stands for conditions of living

V stands for voluntary choices

Here is an excerpt from his speech which I think is worth reflection:

"S" stands for the set point in the brain and refers to our mechanisms of perception. We all have a semi-fixed place on the happiness spectrum based on our outlook on life. Happier people see the opportunities, whereas unhappy people see problems. The set point for happiness can be upregulated, or shifted toward greater happiness, through self-reflection on limiting beliefs. The set point determines 50% of our happiness experience on a daily basis. The ‘C' in the formula is for conditions of living and refers mainly to material success and personal wealth. It determines about 12% of your daily happiness experience. If you win the lottery, you will be extremely happy for a few months, but after one year, you will return to your set point. Voluntary choices represent choices that we make on a daily basis. Choices for personal pleasure bring transient happiness, while selfless choices bring inner fulfillment through purpose and meaning, e.g. by making other people happy, meaningful relationships bring more permanent happiness. So to be happy, it's fine to have material comforts around you, but that will only account for 12% of your happiness. To really be happy you need to expand awareness and overcome your self-limiting beliefs and then choose selfless actions, or ways to be of service to others. This leads to true and lasting happiness and wisdom.

I have written before about focusing on material goods, which can limit your choices, your life and your legacy (read "About Stuff"), but I never knew there was a formula which provided some insights into it.

If you think about it, how much time do we spend in a year, working towards having money for more for material goods, at the expense of our relationships? How much time do we spend in a year working so that we can pay off the debts from the accumulation of material goods? And once we've accumulated all this stuff, well, we want to upgrade...get the bigger house, the better car, the fancy furniture, the fancy outfit...whatever it is, because with the material realm we are never satisfied. As Deepak notes, after a while we go to the "set-point" and again we want more.

If you spent even a portion of the time during which you are pursuing the material, focused on making other people happy, focused on your relationships (friends and family), on creating a lasting positive, loving legacy -- wouldn't this make you be happier? 

Now understand, I like stuff and I like living in a nice place and having a nice car. But earlier in my life a lot of focus was on constantly accumulating the material, because, quite honestly, that is society's expectation -- the higher you climb on the corporate ladder, the more you need to be able to show for it. And yes, I fell into that vortex, but it didn't make me any happier. Because as noted above, it was transient and without any deep meaning.

I haven't shucked the material (I still like my shoes :) but as I've grown older (and hopefully wiser), I have become less entranced with the latest shiny thing out there. 

So think about it. If you thought to yourself "I have enough" what would you do differently in your life?

Success is not the key to happiness. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what your are doing, you will be successful

.....Albert Schweitzer

CLIMB THAT MOUNTAIN -- AGE IS NOT AN EXCUSE

I was struck today by reading about Yuichiro Miura, who at 80 has become the oldest person to scale Mt. Everest. Not only that, but he did it after having 4 heart surgeries! Talk about not letting anything stand in your way of your dreams, goals and passion!

His record may however soon be eclipsed by a Nepalese climber, who is gearing up at 81, to reach the summit next week.

There are many examples of people starting new careers, achieving great success at what may considered advanced ages. Grandma Moses started painting at 75. Colonel Sanders began Kentucky Fired Chicken at 65. Peter Mark Roget, a medical doctor, after being forced to retire, wrote and  published Roget's Thesaurus.

And if you look at the divorce statistics, well in 1990 only 1 in 10 couples that got divorced were over 50, now it's 1 in 4! Shows that many "older" folk are not satisfied with just coasting for another 30 years!

So why do so many say "I can't/won't do that because I'm too old!" I feel like slapping these people upside the head to knock some sense into them. (note I am not a violent person...this is for illustration purposes only :)

I get it, there is a fear of changing the tried and true, because of thinking "how many years do I have left, and well this might not be exciting, but I guess I can live with it;" "Do I really want to upset the apple cart?" 


And of course there are all those other excuses you can pile-on to the age excuse by saying "well, you know, financially there could be issues"; "what would the kids/friends/neighbours think" etc. etc. 

But this is your life. Dependent on who is right about the greater cosmos, this is your one shot at a fulfilling, meaningful life. And the reality is, you have so many more years left on life's odometer -- the needle on where middle-age has truly moved. There is a lot of truth to the phrase "50 is the new 30."



My belief is that if you chose to settle, whether professionally or personally, you will get old -- not only chronologically, but in spirit. What keeps you young is passion, for what you do and with whom you are with. Sometimes people are lucky and they have both in their lives, but I would suggest to you that many more are going "it's comfortable."

Now I'm not advocating an en masse job quitting or divorcing amongst those who are post 50. But I do ask you to reflect on your life and say "is this going to be good enough for the next 30 or 40 years?" If the answer is an unequivocal "no," or even a "not sure", then I would suggest you decide what will ignite your passions and begin planning toward that end. 

Dylan Thomas is one of my favourite poets. I read him when I was in high school and his poem  Do Not Go Gentle into that Good Night struck a cord with me, even in my youth. The first stanza of the poem reads like this:

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Those who know me realize that I will never go gentle into that good night. I am constantly reviewing, reconsidering and reinventing myself. 

So, regardless of what age you are, think about how many lifetimes will you live during your time on this earth? I hope for many more in the next 30 to 40 years!

RUNNING AWAY FROM ISSUES IS NEVER A GOOD STRATEGY -- EVER!

It seems that some Canadian politicos have decided that running away from controversy is the strategy du jour.

But running away from a situation and wishing upon a star, even if you pick the biggest star in the galaxy, won't make an issue go away.


Most of you will know about the allegations of a video that shows a "crack-smoking" mayor of Toronto. Even the likes of Jon Stewart and Jimmy Kimmel are getting guffaws at the expense of this story. The strategy that the mayor is employing is akin to the myth of the ostrich burying its head in the sand to ward of predators -- if I pretend it doesn't exist then it won't.

The prime minister of Canada is approaching the scandal of entitlement and false expense claims in the Senate in almost the same fashion. Except that he, in a very controlled setting, did address the issue, indicated that he was upset about what happened and was putting more stringent measures to address the free-claiming ways of some of the senators. No accountability, no I should have done better as the prime minister. No other comments, no questions from the media, nothing. In fact, he ran away to Peru for some non-descript meetings, hoping, I'm sure that it will all have blown over by the time he returns.

But here's the thing -- if issues are not addressed, they fester and can become a virulent and potentially terminal disease. And yet, this is often what people chose to do -- not just politicians, but most of us, at some point in our ever day lives, hope that if we ignore the reality, things will just go back to the way they were before.

This was Hem's strategy in Who Moved My Cheese, and his little carcass is still somewhere in the maze (read about Who Moved My Cheese by clicking here )

So what are you avoiding, hoping the situation will change or the issue will go away?


Is it a problem with your workload? Are you sitting there hoping that your boss will notice how overworked you are?

Is it a relationship that is teetering on the edge and you try to ignore the inevitable, thinking that perhaps some magical intervention will occur and you'll wake up tomorrow and things will once more be as they were years ago?

Perhaps an employee isn't functioning at the level that you expect and you hope that the motivation fairies will visit him/her and the staffer will show up at work with a new revitalized version of themselves?

There are many ways to avoid dealing with issues and all of us have been guilty of it. But running away or ignoring the impending tsunami it not an effective strategy.

If we are to take any lesson from the mayor and the prime minister it is this -- confront the situation, tell the truth, and let the chips fall where they may.


I know we are talking potentially here about life changing issues and events, and sometimes not, but regardless you can run, but you can't hide. You'll wither away and die -- maybe not literally, but your soul and spirit will if you leave issues to fester.

The truth will always find you, and the truth will always set you free!

IN THE C-SUITE, SIZE DOES MATTER!

Yes, this is about the male of our species. And it is about an article in the most recent Harvard Business Review magazine. And the findings in some recent research has indicated that size does matter and it seems to be inextricably linked to a company's financial performance. 

But in this case of size mattering..it seems smaller is better! 

The researchers measured the signatures of over 600 CEOs and a decade worth of annual reports. The larger the signature of a CEO of an organization, the worse the sales and sales growth  was over a three to six year period compared to its industry peers. (read the article here).

It seems that a larger signature (as measured by drawing a box around the end points of the signature), points towards the individual having a narcissistic personality.

Now let's face it, all CEOs need to rate high on the self-esteem scale and should exude confidence. I think a wallflower CEO, would be equally if not more, damaging to a corporation. A CEO is the chief salesperson for a company, and it is his/her personality will often be the reason you would consider doing business with the firm. But it is not the flamboyance or grandiose gestures that create the bond, it is the trustworthiness of the CEO, which, at least for me, would translate into business.

I have met over my years in business many, many CEOs, some from extremely large global companies and others from mid-size and smaller concerns. Some certainly fell into the narcissistic realm, others psychopaths (you can read a previous blog of mine on that by clicking here), some that were OK, and only a few that were stellar. 

The stellar group, were/are articulate, confident, trustworthy and understand that creating a positive business environment is not about the sell...it is about the ongoing relationship, the ups and downs and working with the client to continuously communicate, resolve issues, and create a bond that a few cent savings will not destroy. Because let's face it, a business relationship is not that different from a personal one -- first you date, then you "go steady," then you get engaged, and then you marry. Now that doesn't mean that you can't end up in divorce court, but it would take numerous infractions to get you there.

But let's get back to signatures. Now, I don't know how big is big, nor how small is small (you can see some examples in the article by clicking in the article on "Smaller Signatures, Better Results). As noted earlier, only men were studied. I bet a lot of you are now looking at your signature and wondering, am I or aren't I? 

Further study here would be interesting.  And I'm thinking that it could also be used as a screening technique in dating!

Maybe you should be going to your senior male executive and asking them to sign something and then pay attention to the size. 

If their signature is quite large, just restrain yourself from saying "Whoa, you're big!" :)

WHEN I SAY NO I FEEL GUILTY

Back in the 1980's I was always game to read another pop psychology book. In 1985, the book "When I Say No I Feel Guilty"  was published. Over the years I have often referred to this book, or at least what I remember of it, and 25 years later it is still relevant.

The other day, I was chatting with a friend, who was trying to extricate himself from a group, that for him was no longer serving its purpose. When we were talking, he was mentioning about how this was going to be a really difficult discussion with his team mates and he was concerned about backlash, from people, who were, after many years, friends. He was trying to figure out what he would say when he was asked "Why?", and how to handle the anticipated barrage and disappointment.

Why should you say anything, I asked, beyond this being something that you need to do for yourself at this point in time. No other explanation required, regardless of someone's entreaties to the contrary. "I need to do this," period. That's it. That's all. Otherwise you can be driven down the rabbit-hole of justification, which can lead to a hostile discussion, and allow the other party to challenge you with every point that you make.

We are taught from very early on, that if we say no, we have to give multiple explanations, even for minor things. And if we don't, we do feel guilty. Somehow we haven't lived up to some mythical standard.  

We can end up going down this rabbit-hole even with simple things.

"Thanks for the invite but I don't want to go out tonight."

"Why? Come on, you'll have a good time."

"Thanks, but no."

"Come on, you have to give me a better reason than that."

And now the explanations, rationalizations, and lies  start....

"I have a headache" or "I have to wash my hair" or .....

We have to give ourselves permission, just to say no. We don't need to feel obligated to explain our decisions to others (well, Ok, if you are leaving a relationship or marriage, you can't just say "because", but that's a different situation).

So just think about things today, or tomorrow, or the next day, that you don't want to do, or a situation you need to extricate from, and think about the myriad of reasons you are baking up to offer to others. And then ask yourself why?

They don't need to know the whys. All they need to know this is something you need to do. And if they are truly interested in you, they won't press you. They will just accept your decision, because they trust you. And as a corollary, stop asking others the why of their decision as well.

Try saying no and stop. You will find it is truly liberating!

WHO AM I?

Remember when you were a kid and you played, Who Am I?, where you secretly took on an identity and then the other kids had to ask you multiple questions to figure out who you were? It was one of the games that I loved, because I used to take on identities of obscure characters, my favorite being King Moonracer, of the Land of the Misfit Toys (I had great empathy for him and the rest of the toys :)

In corporations, we are not allowed to guess identities and roles. Titles abound, some meaningful, others not so much. People get attached to titles and even though an individual may be offered another position in their or another company that does not have a comparable or higher title, and even though the role provides everything else, responsibility, pay, growth opportunities, they turn it down because, well "people" (and who knows who these people are) will think I've had a demotion.

Titles also result in senior executives separating themselves from the rest of the organization and the rest of the organization from the executive. In my last corporate iteration I remember when I walked around the warehouse and spoke to the workers (the ones that are truly the foundation of any organization), they were surprised that someone with my title would enjoy chatting, learning about them on a human level and letting them know about me. This was not the first time I encountered this attitude. Perhaps it is bred in the bone within hierarchical organizations.

So what would happen if we eliminated titles, just used our names, or perhaps even let our staff make up their own titles -- something meaningful to them?

Oh, I can see the color has drained out of your face! How would we ever figure out who has authority, responsibility and what area they work in? The whole system would crash and there would be anarchy!  And OMG, how could we develop an organization chart. Can't do it, just a crazy, crazy idea. Let me pull out my business card so I can see my title and feel like I'm in the real world!

Ok, so I ranted on your behalf. But think about it for a moment. Where do most aspects of organizational teamwork break down? It isn't about knowing who does what, because after a while everybody figures that out. It is about people thinking they need to follow a chain of command, rather that going to the individuals that can truly work with them to develop a new innovative approach to market, solve an issue, enhance a process etc. etc.. If you worked with the people that you need to, as opposed to those whom, because of their title, you think you need to -- as Louis Armstrong sang "What a Wonderful World" it would be.

In a session I was moderating today, one of the participants said "We don't have titles in our organization, and it works." It is a smaller group, but nonetheless, I think we could learn something from their experience.

Our comfort zone comes in labelling people, because then we can make assumptions about who they are. The problem is we are often wrong with those assumptions. I've been guilty of it, and quite honestly when I was younger, I was a little title hungry, because I thought it gave me status. I learned quickly that status means nothing. Success can be measured in the positive relationships you forge and how you work with people, how you inspire them. Because when you do these, the work usually exceeds expectations. My titles often became a hindrance as opposed to a benefit.

So think about how your organization would function without titles. I would offer the opinion that it would be better. Maybe you can then play the game Who Am I? and create a fluid, amoeba-like team, where everyone was working together for the common good of all stakeholders.

But if we need to have a title --Who am I? I think I'd like my title to be Inspirer of Possibilities. Who are you?