Proceed Until Apprehended

We were talking about boundaries at work, and my colleague likened it to the “invisible fence” that shocks his two new puppies if they venture too far. They are inclined to sit pretty far back from even where the shocks begin, looking forlorn and whimpering.

We do that at work, too. We readily structure boundaries around our role, boundaries even more restrictive than the ones we are asked to accept.

“It’s too bad,” I said, “that one of your puppies doesn’t go get shocked anyway. That would be a great life lesson.”

“That actually does happen,” confirmed my co-worker.

Turns out, these two identical dogs behave in very different ways. They both struggle with the boundary, of course, but one of them pushes into the “shock zone” anyway, irritating their neck and scratching themselves raw. Guess what happened? It’s priceless. The puppy that pushed the boundary got the collar taken off. That puppy got to run free. Guess that boundary wasn’t so firm after all. Good thing he checked. 

For our own sense of well-being and happiness, it is a necessity that we test our boundaries, at least once in a while. Changing the seemingly unchangeable external factors of your situation can be done, or at least significantly influenced, by you. You have to be willing to ask/test/challenge/disobey.

Another note: The boundary-pushing puppy also figured out that the “shock” only lasts for a ten foot distance. With a full head of steam and the willingness to endure a quick zap, he’s spending his whole day outside the fence exploring the neighbourhood. I like this dog.

I’m one week complete in my new role with iQmetrix. It was intense, but also really great. I’ve got enough work and opportunity that it’s easy to get lost in the avalanche, but I’m not overwhelmed.

Overwhelmed is a choice.

Starting a new job, I had some of the expected upheaval: New computer, new policies to learn, new procedures, new names and faces, products, acronyms that don’t mean anything, work assignments, papers to sign, planning meetings about responsibilities I’ve just received, a litany of background documents that will orient me to the organization and my role… and I was invited on my first day to prepare and facilitate a session with our Leadership Development Program participants 24 hours later, before I had a desk or a phone.

At home, the dishwasher and the sink both decided to sprout leaks.

And I was asked to speak at the kid’s school open house last minute.

And the neurologist’s office called and I have to call them back between 10 and 12 or 1 and 4. (If I can find a phone.)

And Passport Canada requires me to call and confirm a friend’s passport application as soon as possible.

In the middle of all this, on Wednesday morning, I started a blank document on my computer and wrote at the top, “Stop. Clear your head. What’s important right now?”

Then I answered the question. It took some real effort to quiet all the “noise” that was going on, but I knew I needed to find some space to determine what direction was right for me, for the organization, for my mission… not just to respond to the invitations the environment presented.

My answers didn’t contain anything about plowing through the reports or becoming familiar with the phone system or organizing my desk or finding the supply cabinet and getting a pen. It said “learn about your co-workers.” It said “get a sense of the culture.”

I wrote these items down, and I’m pleased with myself for having the perceptiveness to do that, but I’m most proud of the fact that I then went and did those things. Standing up from the urgent items at my desk was scary, but identifying and pursuing the most important things I could do feels deeply satisfying at the end of the week.

One of the most fun and energizing weeks I’ve had in quite a while.

If you prompted some people I’ve worked with, they’d say I have two glaring weaknesses – I’m stubborn and I’m impatient.

Yet another group might say I have two clear strengths – I’m persistent and I bring a sense of urgency to my work.

They’re both right, of course. It seems to depend on the context of the situation, and also the paradigm of the person you ask.  One thing’s for sure, though. A big part of my story is my tenaciousness and how hard and fast I push… for better or for worse.

I feel like my acknowledgment of this component of my character is helping me mature as a leader. In the past couple weeks, I’ve been invited to participate in a couple of committees. My answer? Well, I thanked them, first. Then I said, “I’ve never met a committee I didn’t disagree with,” explaining that I’ve learned that I’m not always at my best when I need to coordinate an opinion and an action with a group. Sure, I share their desire for outcomes and positive change, I’ll even work with them, but joining the committee? I’m not sure that helps anyone.

That’s not to say I can’t work with others, but committees put a lot of agendas in a room. To come out of it with agreement there often needs to be compromise. For some problems, a reconciliation of diverse agendas isn’t the answer we need. Sometimes, it just prolongs the time until we can get to the heart of the matter.

I think there’s hubris in that statement, but I’d also like to think there’s also an unwillingness to compromise a vision for the security of a team approach.

I wrote just a little while ago about “Beware the Invitation.” Sometimes, committees are a big, distracting invitation. They offer a venue for you to roll up your sleeves and to “see and be seen” working the issue. If your passion and knowledge of an issue drives you to act, it will likely also generate these invitations to align yourself with others. I’d suggest you need to ask if it is going to help you or hinder you in pursuing your original reason for action.

Sorry committees. I didn’t mean to rail on you. I think I’ve just realized that you’re not always a fit for me and it’s OK to say no.

Commenting on a previous post, Chris asked me about my “mentor network.” Specifically, he asked,”How you selected it and nurtured it and what you seek to get from it and also contribute to it?”

A number of years ago I set up a network of individuals that I wanted to remain connected to even though I wasn’t going to be working with them on a regular basis – a mentor network.

Just a point about mentors – I think your supervisor or boss is sort of an “obligated” mentor. They should be coaching you, developing you and paying attention to your needs. However, they don’t always do this, and if they do, it’s only part of the coaching story. You’ve got to presume their loyalty lies with the organization, not with your personal growth. Sometimes you need some perspective from a different filter. Having a supervisor as a mentor certainly doesn’t hurt, but it’s not the complete package I would feel comfortable with.

With a desire for a diversified network, I identified three individuals that I appreciated and knew I could learn from. They had careers and roles that were pretty close to my definition of success.

I had worked with a couple of these individuals. Another, I had met once through doing informational interviews – I was simply curious about different career options and set up a meeting. I got a good vibe and knew he would be a good mentor for me.

As you’ll see in the letter below, I had some particular skills I wanted to grow, and I identified potential mentors that I felt were “best in the field” at these skills. They didn’t have to be a perfect model of what I wanted to be, they just had to have some strengths that I wanted to learn more about.

I established with my employer that I was starting the program and got approval to take time off of work each month for the meetings. I called each of my desired mentors up and asked if they would consider mentoring me. I didn’t ask them to decide on the spot. I said I’d share a letter that outlined my intentions.  This is what I shared:

Dear XXXX,

Re: Personal Mentoring Program

In the past six years, since I completed university, I’ve attained more from my career than I had ever envisioned. I’m happy with my success, but I’m at my best and most fulfilled when I’m growing. I’d like some help surpassing what I see as a potential plateau. I’d like to regroup, do some planning and some strategizing for the next phase of my life, and I’d like your help.

Let me show you what I mean. I hope to improve, among other things: 

• My ability to balance work and family
• My value in the employee marketplace
• My leadership skills
• My perspective and knowledge of Saskatchewan, Canadian and World industry and politics
• My salesmanship, both within a company and outside of it

This engagement clearly benefits me, providing me with:

• Access to your experience and knowledge
• Your guidance on the practical matters of the day
• Your guidance on the strategic direction of my career
• Clarity on steps I can take to improve my value in the marketplace

But I believe it also benefits you through:

• The personal reward of seeing someone successfully move on a planned career path
• Networking, both through my current and future contacts, increasing your influence and visibility
• Opportunity to share the things you’d wish “someone had told me at your age.”
• Perspective and enthusiasm from an “up and comer”

The minimum commitment I am asking from you would be for a monthly meeting at a time of your choosing. I have arranged for time to be allotted from my work schedule for our meetings, so any time of the day that is suitable for you will be suitable for me.

During this monthly meeting, I envision you sharing your experience and knowledge with me, as I would likely have prepared questions for you. The first meeting would include such questions as:

• What has been your career path?
• Was it through planning?
• Was it by choice?
• What do you credit your success to?
• What are the things that make a career fulfilling for you?
• Has your education been useful?

In subsequent meetings, we could discuss strategies for success, and actions and plans that should be incorporated to achieve career goals.

In addition, each meeting would be followed up with a summary of our conversation, for your records and for review at our next discussion.

The meetings suggested are a proposal. If you are willing to participate in this protégé/mentor relationship, I’d like to work with you to make sure that the meetings are an efficient and effective use of your time.

I believe there are other things that can take place in a mentoring relationship, and perhaps I leave these for discussion: 

• Using my skills or perspective to help you with your business needs
• Increasing my network by introducing me to your network
• Thinking of me when you’ve got a community activity that requires energy, enthusiasm or my skill-set
• Keeping in contact through email and phone conversations

Thanks for your time. The development of this program will benefit me greatly. I hope that it will benefit you, as well. I intend to build a happy family, a successful career and relationships that will last a lifetime, right here in Saskatchewan. I hope that you can help me fulfill that dream.

Please contact me at xxx-xxx to let me know your thoughts on my initiative. If I’m on the right track, perhaps we can arrange a time for our first meeting.

Thanks,

Nevin

Certainly, this isn’t the letter I’d write today. For one, I no longer have the gall to call myself an “up and comer.” I would also try and manage my apparent fascination with bullet points. I cringe a little bit at what I wrote and how it’s written, but I do like some notions I seemed to have at the time.  For one, I didn’t think anyone would say no to somebody saying “I think you’re successful and I want to learn from you.” They didn’t. For another, the idea of having a sustained, direct relationship with these individuals felt like it had long-term potential to create mutually beneficial opportunities. I think that’s come to pass, as I go to work for one of them in two weeks.

The relationships have morphed over the years. They aren’t nearly as formal as they once were. The key to sustaining a mentor relationship? I only have my experience, but this is it: I have in my calendar a regular reminder every six weeks – set up a lunch with your mentor. I don’t ignore it.

The Chinese bamboo tree doesn’t grow upwards until the fifth year after the seed has been planted. For four years, the seed is watered and cared for with seemingly no results.  It’s roots are growing, but you can’t tell. In the fifth growing season, the bamboo grows upwards at an incredible rate, reaching it’s mature height of 80 to 90 feet in just three or four months.

There’s a lot to be said for having a willingness and a commitment to do things even if they don’t show immediate results. Arguably, that’s a definition for leadership – even if the payoff is so far off as to be unimaginable (and perhaps, impossible), you do the right thing.

I like to picture the bamboo farmer patiently, deliberately, even lovingly watering the spot where the bamboo seed is planted. He knows his investment of care and time will be returned, but there’s more to it. A four year commitment without results is about the journey. It’s about the process of watering and caring, not the resulting tree.

My own bamboo shot up this week. I have accepted a job with iQmetrix. They’re beyond progressive, they’re wildly successful and they’re putting me to work right here in Regina. I’m ecstatic to be joining them in a role that suits me to a T, Manager of Employee Development.

I feel like I do many things that won’t ever pay. I blog, I volunteer for my kid’s school and I tell my bosses things they don’t want to hear. Except these things did pay. They paid when I did them (because it felt like the right thing) and now they’ve paid with a career-changing opportunity.

There’s no doubt my passions and my commitment to honesty played a significant role in my appeal to iQmetrix. Meeting with leadership in my new role, it’s immediately apparent that they actively seek those behaviours, and I naturally fit. No pretending. I’m going to an organization that desires truth, desires honesty and encourages individuals to challenge convention.

I’ve been told many times I’m too much of an idealist. Wait ’til you see me now that I’ve been validated.

In these days of economic turmoil, there is a growing gap between successful organizations and those that are on the slow path to failure.

There seems to be a huge difference in the kinds of employment experiences these organizations offer, as well. It’s a virtuous circle, or “runaway” as Seth Godin calls it, as successful companies engage their employees, get better results, recruit better employees, engage them even more, get even better results, etc. The troubled companies? It’s a circle too (or spiral), but not quite so virtuous.

When we’re considering employment opportunities, it’s important that we ask how we can recognize the good companies. There’s a bit of “greener grass” when you look at any potential employer, but what really makes the difference? Here’s my list.

Real leadership

Topping the list of desired traits in an engaging employer is a leader… a real leader. Leadership can take many forms, and at first glance, many business heads look the part and they certainly have the title. Figuring out if they can actually drive engagement and excitement is something altogether different than appearance or title, though. Jim Collins defines a leader really well in Good to Great. He calls it ”Level 5 Leadership,” and these leaders distinguish themselves through a combination of Humility and Will. I can’t do his full description justice, but my takeaway is that Leaders often put their ego in check as they make choices that are for the good of the company. I’d suggest there’s a simple test: Does your potential leader work on things that create results today and tomorrow or do they work for some distant future? The former makes them look good and feel good. The latter serves the organization more than themselves.

A healthy relationship with ideas

A healthy relationship would mean a conversation takes place… ideas would not be met with a response based on how it’s different than the conclusions that exist already. Are ideas examined or are they disputed? Are external ideas a distraction from the agenda or an opportunity to get better? Ideas need a meritocracy, not a pass-fail response. An engaging environment gives ideas a fair chance.

A reliance on their employees

Speaking of meritocracy, what’s the relationship with employees? I’ve yet to see a business that doesn’t say some version of “Our people are our greatest asset.” It’s come to the point that it’s now meaningless to say it. As with so many concepts, there is often a gulf between word and deed. I think this is most easily seen in the nature of the delegation. Are employees simply researchers for the boss’s agenda or are they asked to help find the direction? The creation of an engaging environment is one where the employees are empowered to pursue and develop the direction even when the boss isn’t around. In the unhealthy ones, the work happens when the spotlight is on, but it dies away when the boss’s attention is elsewhere.

As an off-shoot of this kind of orientation, I find I’ve got a hyper-sensitve response to job ads. When I read a description of an opportunity, I almost immediately classify it as an employer looking for labour or an employer looking for thoughtfulness. I’m sure I shouldn’t be so quick to judge so as to keep options open, but I suspect I’m saving a lot of wasted time, too.

A progressive business model

Another book with some fantastic concepts about successful, engaging businesses is Jeff Jarvis’ What Would Google Do? In it, he presents this gem: “There’s an inverse relationship between control and trust.” This is the foundation of some really exciting businesses. Google, of course, and Zappos, the online shoe-seller, are a couple examples of organizations where the leadership of the organization has ceded significant discretion and decision-making power to the individuals that are doing the work… in some cases suppliers and partners. If the organization is designed in an elegant, thoughtful way, letting go of control puts you in the centre of something infinitely more valuable. A business model that thrives on openness and transparency is also a lot more sustainable and, of course, engaging for employees. This one’s perhaps a bit more subjective to read, but in a conversation with people at the top of the hierarchy, are the gripping the steering wheel or looking for ways to hand over the keys?

I’m sure there’s many other essential elements important to a healthy employer. This is just the list that comes to mind for me. I invite you to share what makes a good employer for you in the comments.

Sometimes we can’t solve a problem because we’re too close to it. We work it so much that the prescribed boundaries of the problem become untouchable. What was originally established as an assumption becomes a given.

That’s dangerous thinking that we can all get caught in. Creating a deliberate practice of stepping out of that “can’t see the forest for the trees” mindset is important for our success.

You can do it in a number of ways. The list I come up with is by no means exhaustive:

• Invite in some fresh perspective. Someone who is not familiar with the problem won’t have accepted the same restrictions as you.
• Take a break and do something else. Take a walk, do a puzzle or listen to some music. Give you brain a breather, and a broader perspective.
• Engage in something completely unrelated and connect it back to the problem.  How are the essential factors in growing a good wheat crop similar to your challenge? Name ten things that are green and describe how they relate to the challenge.
• Picture your problem from above. Review it from a helicopter. Look different?
• Redefine the timeline. What does it look like five years out? Changing the timeline can remove some barriers.

There’s another practice that I wanted to explore a little more. That’s a technique I sort of intuitively do that I’m calling the 90 degree rotation, though it’s probably more appropriately entitled “Turn it upside down.” It goes like this: take your problem and any sort of organization, hierarchies or linear processes that are part of it. Try and describe your challenge from a direction different than how you’ve been thinking about it.

Trying to complete a work process through a traditional hierarchy? What if the responsibility was given to a cross-functional team?

Trying to spread a message? What if it wasn’t through mass media, but spread through individual followers?

Coordinating a large group through rules and expectations? What happens if they’re given the outcomes they have to achieve and left to their own leadership and organization?

I don’t think my effort to name and systematize this concept has worked, but I needed to share it anyway. It’s the incorporation of a foreign (near opposite) perspective so that the givens can be laid bare. Should they really be off the table, or are they just off YOUR table?

Thinking strategically vs. being strategic. There’s a difference. In fact, the more you delve into it, the more they look like they might be opposites.

As a strategic thinker, you’re pretty good at nuances, reading the tea leaves and coming up with solutions that negotiate all the pitfalls. You can see what needs to happen to get things done and dispatch problems with efficiency. Strategic thinkers are intelligent, perhaps even crafty. They can think a move ahead of their opposition. I like strategic thinkers. They see issues with clarity and get closer to root causes. They think up solutions that are more sustainable and more effective. Not every strategic thinker, however, uses their knowledge for the best possible results.

Strategic thinkers don’t necessarily take the steps required to move the intiative towards the best solution. That’s not the assignment. Strategic thinkers can guarantee you efficiency and smart maneuvering within the prescribed rules of the game. It seems that sometimes strategic thinkers see what doesn’t work, but they determine that the cost of change is too great compared to the benefit of the improvement. If it’s the wrong game or if the process doesn’t create the results it used to, a strategic thinker that doesn’t want to bear the possible pain that comes with change might be the one thing holding a flawed structure together. That is short-sighted and unhelpful. 

There’s a different level to strategy, the level where you know the rules of the game are wrong and profound results will only be achieved only if the rules are broken. If you see those deeper problems, congratulations. You’ve done an exceptional job of thinking strategically. As a next step, if you act on your knowledge to improve the game, the rules or the system, in my books you’ve moved from thinking strategically to being strategic.

If you want action outside the prescribed rules, you should seek out someone who is willing to be strategic. More important than knowing some crafty next steps, you need the person who will combine altruism with a sense of the long-term to deliver action that serves best interests, not assignments.

Are they opposites? Maybe the strategic thinker and the strategic doer, but a strategic thinker that doesn’t want to take pursue change is a dangerous enemy. They can be a formidable opponent of your efforts to change. If it weren’t for change-averse smart people, I think we’d move a lot more quickly.

There’s a certain boost of adrenaline that comes with the phrase, “working without a net.” When the trapeze artist performs without a net, there is no backup if the performer fails. The show gets better for the audience. People straighten up in their seats. The tension goes up. Breath is baited.

There’s the work equivalent, too. It’s working without deniability. What if there’s no fallback if your plan fails? If the initiative doesn’t make your numbers? What if ultimate responsibility lies with you and only you. That would be disastrous, wouldn’t it? Enter deniability, the practice of getting prior approval, consent or direction from someone else. This safety harness allows you to undertake initiatives without fear of reprisal. You’ve got all the CYA you need, so go forth and give it a shot. If it doesn’t work, that’s OK. You were following directions.

Deniability, however, really eats into your ability to create the kinds of change we need. Solutions that would really provide the kind of transformational thinking we need. The process of seeking deniability requires that you first anticipate the interests of the approver and mitigate the scary parts of the initiative by rounding the corners. Essentially, you propose something that’s got the scary parts removed to make it more palatable. The consequences of not doing the scary parts are where the real disastrous consequences sit. Not doing the thoughtful, scary parts is a subtle way of supporting the old model… the one you’re trying to change.

The alternative is to work without deniability, which is to say you would take initiative you think serves interests without checking for the go-ahead, first.

Do you need deniability? Is it all that important? If you fail, do you land in the middle ring of the big top, never to get up? Unlikely. Instead, you sheepishly admit your mistake, you get some amazing life experience and, as an added bonus, the people who really matter take note of the fact that you’re willing and able to work in an environment without deniability.

There’s an excellent audio lecture available right now. So excellent, in fact, I can’t believe it’s free. Seth Godin shares the main concepts of his latest book, Linchpin in a highly engaging presentation. He’s not actually talking about his book, though.  He’s providing advice about work and life that is spot on, relevant and very accessible.  Naturally, it inspired this post. By all means, read the book, but here’s an easy way to get your head around the concepts. Enjoy!