TOTALLY LIST-AVERSE

From the time we are toddlers, we are taught about numbers. We begin to look at numbers with a level of fascination and get accolades when we are finally able to count to 100! When I was five, my kindergarten teacher gave us these blue ribbons which said "I counted to 100!" I loved that ribbon.

I believe it is because of that early training that many people like lists. And furthermore, they like numbered lists. I will tell you right now, I don't. I am not a list person. Do I write things down? I sure do, but there is a difference between listing things 1,2,3 and having randomly patterned lists. If I have anything that remotely resembles a list, it looks more like a jumble to others, as there are things written on the side, in between, over and under. In fact most people would not see it as a list, but as a random placement of words, which have no relationship. But it works for me.

When you Google the word "list" you get 875,000,000 hits. So obviously I am in the minority. I think most people love lists, because it can bring some order to chaos. If you have a list, well you may be able to focus, to check things off as done, to remember things and to provide clarity to others. It may also help some folk in time management.  Although I think that perhaps instead of having a To-Do List, maybe a Not-To-Do List should be given equal air-time.

People also like to be on lists. The top 100 Most Powerful; The Fortune 100; the Top 50 Best Managed Companies; The Best-Dressed List; The Most Sexiest List; The Top 25 Sports Plays of All Time; Your Bucket List. And the list goes on (yes that pun was intended). Lists make us feel important. And not being on a list, well, that's when you say the list was bogus, because you should have been on the list. And then you campaign to try to get on that list next year. And when you are on it, then it isn't bogus anymore! I've been on some lists, and I won't deny that it did make me feel special!

If I ever number anything, it is usually in a business setting, on a Gantt chart or some such, where the process must happen sequentially. Not from 1 to 5, but the sequential aspect can be the difference between success and failure. But that tends to be the only time I will use a list.

So yes, I am list-averse. And I am not suggesting that people who make lists are bad -- I mean 875M hits can't be wrong. And yes, I have a pretty good memory, but instead of lists, I tend to have Post-its placed randomly across my desk. Think of desk level Brownian motion. 

My mind isn't linear, nor sequential. I love ambiguity and chaos. I also like streamlining same, but when it hits that sequential, linear parameter, I need to move on. 

When people look at lists they will often see #1 as the priority and then move down from there. But what if #1 isn't the priority? When you made the list, was it just a brain dump, and by numbering the "to-dos" have you made something a priority, that shouldn't have been? Or have priorities shifted and you are still abiding by the old list? By putting something on a list, have you denied the complexity of an issue, because, well, you can't have a lot of verbiage around a list? 

So, although I get why people like to make lists, I will continue my life as someone who is list-averse, embracing the ambiguity and working with the surprise of what Post-It note I will happen onto next!

ARE YOU TRYING TO ELICIT BLOOD FROM A STONE?

Do you remember one of the final scenes in the Raiders of the Lost Ark, when the "bad guys" open up the Ark of the Covenant and well, they meet a very gruesome end? Well, I believe that with the metrics for procurement often being purely about just driving down costs, will inevitably cause procurement and/or the business to meet the same fate.

Prior to procurement becoming an integral part of an organization, there was limited consistency and the opportunity for cost reduction abounded. It was like a kid in a candy store! A lot of the categories were tackled and professionally negotiated and the metrics of cost savings were not only met, they were consistently exceeded. Procurement folk, got bonuses and accolades and the future seemed bright!

Unfortunately, the powers that be thought "Wow, this is great! We can get these type of bottom-line savings every year, and well, because these procurement people are constantly exceeding expectations, let's up the ante and give them even a higher goal!" 

After a few years of this, the adage "blood from a stone" becomes appropriate. Assuming you have been diligent, you should be pretty much at the bottom of the price structure. 

The metric of cost savings can result in behaviour that doesn't help the business and in the long run can cost more! 

What's the point is saving ten cents on a bolt, when the result becomes a quality issue and there is greater amount of discarded product (and damaged reputation)? And if the ingredient in a food product is cheaper, but the taste isn't quite the same and customers move to another product? You might be able to get cheaper contract labour, but the cheaper person, might take 6 months vs. the three months the slightly more expensive/better person would have taken. And by the way, if you continually to squeeze the margin of the provider of the contract labour firm...well, the "good" people will be placed where there are higher margins, because that's the client that they want to keep happy.

But because of the metrics, which are focused on procurement cost savings and not on what's best for the business, this type of behaviour is encourage and is repeated over and over again.

On Monday, I wrote a blog suggesting that it is time for greater decentralization (Deconstructing a Sacred Cow) and today I'm probably going to be seen as an outlier on this topic (but given my blog entry from yesterday that shouldn't surprise anyone) but I believe that too many procurement folk have begun to bully their suppliers so that they can meet their metrics and get their accolades. And they always go to price, because, hey that's the easiest and fastest route, but it is also potentially the most damaging one. The other one I've seen continually as well, is significantly extending the payment terms to suppliers, more or less making your supplier, your bank. And when your sales force gets the same request from their clients, well they can't say, this is not how we do business. So cash flow ends up being neutral...so who wins this game of dominoes? 

Why not focus on demand management? Work with the business unit to determine if they need as many bolts, do they discard many, or can they be ordered in different volumes to potentially affect a discount? And how about compliance? I have gone into many firms where they thought there was an over 90% compliance rate, to only show that it was less that 50%. Why? Because when you are not representing the true needs of the business, people can be very creative in getting around you. And process streamlining -- there can be significant savings in that as well!  Renegotiate the contract -- there might be an opportunity to have longer warranties, have tiered levels of buy etc., etc.

Oh...and by the way, has your finance department actually removed budgetary dollars from the departments that use the products/services? I have found that most don't, so you truly haven't saved anything. What you have done is given those areas of the business a slush fund. So procurement might feel better, but nothing has been truly accomplished and that may be one reason the corporate gods keep coming back to you

I could go on, because there are lots of levers of opportunity for reducing costs -- both tangible and intangible -- that are beyond price.

So it's time to reset the expectations of the corporation and work with both vendors and the business units. You can't get blood from a stone, so stop bullying the suppliers to giving you more. It is time for Procurement to advise the senior leadership that given the successes to date, that the trough of cost savings is pretty barren, but you have other ideas on how to support the business, perhaps streamline processes, introduce technological advancements, become a revenue source (or at least a revenue catalyst) and that you are working, in partnership with your suppliers, to become creative in how services are delivered and perhaps even entertain a shared-risk, shared reward model.

Just as your business costs are increasing, so are those of your vendors. Yet we expect them to go to prices that are based on yesteryear benchmarks. Does that make sense to anyone? Certainly not to me.

As procurement professionals, we shouldn't be dealing with the supplier as the enemy. They are as important to your success, as you are to theirs -- ergo the need for openness, honesty and partnership. And don't give me "ah, there are twenty other suppliers who could provide this product/service." I don't know about you, but I've found when you find a vendor, who understands your business, who works hand-in-hand with you, that is responsive when there is an issue or problem and they are cost competitive-- well they are worth their weight in gold. Ok, maybe not gold, but they are worth paying a little bit of a premium, because they ensure that your business and its reputation (and the reputation of procurement) remain stellar.

I hope you are not thinking that she's crossed to the other side and become a supplier lover. Not at all. And I'm sure that any supplier that I've negotiated with would tell you that I'm not that easy. But what they would say, that I was tough, but fair, and I worked with them in partnership. With that attitude together we came up with some pretty creative ways to do business, that benefited all!

Change the metrics to incent the behaviours you want. Tell the powers that be, you have a better approach. And open up the kimono, and ask your supplier to do the same. And work together with them. Challenge them to be creative, not to sharpen their pencil. They will help you get to where you need to go.

Your success, is their success. Remember that!

IT'S MORE FUN TO COLOUR OUTSIDE THE LINES

Early in my career, during what I expected to be a stellar performance review, I was told that I needed to stop being a "superstar" because it was making other people in the organization uncomfortable. I probably sat there for a few minutes acting like a deer caught in the headlights, when I responded "I am not a superstar. It is just everyone else seems to embrace mediocrity and if they upped their game, well, I would just be normal!"

That commentary from my boss lasted a lot longer than my time at this company. You might think that this was just a backward place with a backward leader, but actually, I have found it is more commonplace than you might think.

As a society, we try to normalize. We metric and measure people against an average. We are constantly quoting averages, teach to the "average" in schools, bell curve to the average, and on and on. And when you are an outlier, when you push the envelope, when you challenge, when you are creative, when you are different-- even when you get results -- you can often be looked at askance by others who believe trending to the average is the goal.

I have always been an outlier. Even in elementary school, I did well academically, but spent a lot of time in detention as well. You see, I always enjoyed debating points of view, but teachers, well, they often couldn't or didn't want entertain differing opinions. Or if I got bored (which was often) I started talking.  I had some teachers who understood me, and I remember their names to this day  -- otherwise, without them, who knows, I might have well ended up not continuing in school, because of the frustration I felt.

Working in corporate, I continued to challenge, cajole, and persuade. I am creative and the status quo generally makes me uncomfortable. When someone says "it's because we've always done it this way," the hackles go up on the back of my neck, and for me, this usually that means it is time for a change. I love change, and would shrivel without that possibility. But I also don't do any of this as an island. I like working with the individuals who make up the team and enjoy seeing others embrace their inner change agent and creativity fairy. And often they didn't even know they had it in them.

When in a leadership role, I have tried to understand the INDIVIDUALS that worked with me. I capitalized individual, because in a work setting, we often focus so much on teams, that we lose the individual in the mix. The best teams are made up of many different types of individuals, as this encourages creativity, challenge -- different ways of thinking. The individuality of the team members when encouraged, makes for a great team. I don't buy into Aristotle's adage of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. I believe the opposite is true.

I have written before about the Christmas TV story "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer", and particularly about the Land of the Misfit toys. These toys weren't like the "normal" toys (a Charlie-in-the-box vs. a Jack-in-the-box), so they were banned to an island, where they spent years until finally they were "saved."

Are you encouraging the Charlie's-in-the-box working in your organization? Are you tapping them for their unique viewpoint, or are you just letting them idle? Do you give the "normal" folk more opportunity for advancement than those that don't fit on your bell curve? Do you let other team members isolate them?

Let's embrace our individuality. Not at the expense of the team, but to enhance the team, challenge the team and push to comfort envelope. Let's not ask people to be the same, let's bring the outliers into the fold and then you will see your team, your company, and your customers flourish.

Normal is actually non-existent, although it is a word we use all the time (according to my blog template, I am writing this in a "normal" font size).

It's ok to colour outside the lines. It is something I've been doing my entire life!

LEADING WITH LOVE: CREATING AN UNPARALLELED WORK ENVIRONMENT

Yesterday there was another article in The Globe and Mail about on work/life balance (or in the case of this article, they called it rebalancing). I have written about this topic before myself (Is Work/Life Balance Really an Oxymoron), however based on recent conversations that I've had with significantly overworked individuals I feel compelled to address this again.

The article in the Globe says a study of 25K professionals found that 40% reported high levels of overload, both at work and home. I don't know if the other 60% have somehow discovered the secret sauce or feel that perhaps they deem it a weakness to complain. Personally, with all the folk that I come in contact with I would suggest that the number is much higher. 

During the economic downturn, many employers cut back on staff and many of the staff were left doing the job of two or sometimes three. And because there was always a threat that they could lose their job, these people, kept their heads down and didn't complain, because, well, there weren't a lot of options in the marketplace at that time.

The problem is some employers haven't gotten the memo, that a) the economy is recovering and b) people don't want to sacrifice their "non-work" life and c) there is growing evidence that a happy workforce is more productive, which effects the bottom-line positively.

I have for many years been an advocate of the leadership philosophies of Lance Secretan. I have read all his books and have taken some of his workshops. His belief is that corporations should inspire the soul of each and every person that they encounter and create a loving environment. And although some may be uncomfortable with the word "love" in the corporate sense, just think about how we could positively transform organizations and inevitably the world, if we used "love" as the frontrunner in all of our encounters. 

The reason that I bring Lance up in this discussion about work/life is because he has developed Spirit@Work cards and the other day, after having a lengthy discussion with a friend about how she was expected to put in continuously 80 to 90 hours a week, with limited thanks and no additional compensation, I happened to pull the card "Integration" and this is what the explanation of this card is.

We hear much about the need to achieve greater balance in our lives. 

But it isn't balance we need. The very notion of balance infers that there are two solitudes to choose from -- work and life. What we are yearning for today is not balance between work and life, but a complete seamlessness of the two

 -- not balance, but integration.

When I read this, I felt like I had an epiphany, because I personally have always talked about work/life balance, but had never considered the holistic aspect of it. As a leader, I treated my teams with respect, care and yes, love. I guess that has been a revelation to me lately. And when I talk about teams, I think about all the stakeholders that make a corporation run. When I've said in the past about leadership being about the Golden Rule "Do unto others, as you would have done unto you," well, who doesn't want to be loved? 

Have I been perfect in trying to live this?Absolutely not. Did I embrace this approach earlier in my career? I thought I was, but in reality, I was still learning aspects of leadership, often by trial and error. I did however always do my best, and over the years I developed teams that were second to none and many folk who worked with me (I always hated the phrasing of "worked for me") have become life-long friends.

So to my readers who find themselves being overworked, under-appreciated, and underpaid I counsel you to start planning your exit. But first approach your boss with an open and honest discussion and indicate what you need and talk about integration. Unfortunately my experience had been that a person who believes that treating people this way is OK, will likely not change and they are not a leader, but an egoist. But at least you've given it a try.

So when you are at work today, think about love, not in the "huggy-kissy" way, but think about the feeling that it gives you, the empowerment that you feel, the joy in your every action and try to approach even one interaction today with love. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at the results.

PS: I also recommend reading the book "Leading with Luv" by Ken Blanchard and Colleen Barrett, which is the amazing story of Southwest Airlines and how they actually showed how this approach does positively affect the bottom-line.

THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT

Last week I began reading the novel "11/22/63" by Stephen King. Now I am not a Stephen King aficionado. I think after I watched the mini-series IT and I truly understood that clowns were evil, just like I thought, I haven't had a hankering to follow King's works.

Regardless, this novel's premise intrigued me. It is about time travel and in this case the protagonist is able to transport back in time to potentially stop the JFK assassination from occurring. As the novel advances there is continual reference to the "butterfly effect," defined as follows:

In chaos theory, the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions, where a small change at one place in a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences to a later state. The name of the effect, coined by Edward Lorenz, is derived from the theoretical example of a hurricane's formation being contingent on whether or not a distant butterfly had flapped its wings several weeks before. (from Wikipedia)

I have written a couple of blogs related to this condition in the past (Small People, Small Places, Small Things... and Does a Moment Change a Life), which were focused on what we can do at any moment to positively affect the lives of others. That can be from giving someone a heartfelt compliment which makes their day or helping someone, or just smiling. Simple things, yet the butterfly effect as defined above could make a huge impact.

But what if we had a time portal and we could go back and change things which we either feel guilty about or perhaps we believe would have led to a more desirable outcome in our lives. What then? 

I have heard over the years people lament about a variety of aspects of their lives with a refrain of "If only." "If only I had taken that job opportunity;" "If only I had changed XY behaviour, then I might still be married (or in a relationship);" "If only I had left the job/marriage/relationship earlier;" "If only I had gotten X degree vs. Y degree" and so on. Whenever you hear this type of statement it is usually followed by some variation of "...and then I'd be happier or in a better place now."

Unfortunately we are not given the opportunity to watch the "What if" reels and as in the butterfly effect, there is no saying your life would be better or worse, or perhaps even the same. And neither do you!

“Each affects the other, and the other affects the next, and the world is full of stories, but the stories are all one.”...Mitch Albom - from the Five People You Meet in Heaven

Too many people spend time living in the past and do not live in the present nor plan for the future. Are there things that if I had 20/20 hindsight that I would do differently? Maybe, but I like who I am today, and I know that had I not gone through some of the experiences which I had, then I would be a different person -- maybe better, maybe worse, who knows. But I know that I probably wouldn't be where I am today...and where I am is a good place.

If you don't like who you are, or where you are, and concentrate on what you could have done differently in the past, then you are missing the point of life. Because your future doesn't reside in your past, it resides in the here and now. If you don't like it, begin a plan to change it. And be patient, things don't happen overnight. You may not like where you are today, but it has given you valuable insight and as the old saying goes "What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger."

So take some time today to reflect, not on the past, but on the present and the future. How are you going to take advantage of all those butterfly wings that have been flapping to get you where you are today and how you can positively affect your future by having new butterflies wing into your present plans for the future, and that you won't have a whole new raft of "if onlys" in a few years.

You may not be where YOU think you should be, but you are always where YOU need to be .... from me (as far as I know)

So take the power into your hands today and develop the mold of your life for the future. 

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?