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.

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?

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 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!

I find myself getting pretty frustrated with the skimming it induces. A full night of superficial snippets can leave me with a lot of trivia and nothing of substance. I find it more important than ever to make sure I pull away from the bells and whistles every once in a while and actually go deep, immersing myself in something that engages my brain.  Deliberately exploring a topic to a new level of understanding makes a lot more meaning for me than the skim.

In fact, if we were to collect all the things we hear and see each day and somehow conduct an audit to figure out what actually made it into our brain, we’d realize we can do without a lot of the barrage that occupies us.

So, why do we often choose to consume so much at a superficial level? I think it’s because choosing to actively ignore information that’s coming at you is like the problem with not buying a  lottery ticket. How can you possibly not buy a ticket? This may be THE ONE.  What if this ticket is the one that makes you rich? What if that next phone call is the President? What if the next big Internet sensation needs my investment immediately? What if a once in a lifetime announcement is just around the corner? All that hope, all those what-ifs… they cause a lot of attention to be directed to areas that rarely, if ever, have a payoff.

Here’s why some can do without lottery tickets: They get the math. They understand that one in 14,000,000 means you’ll typically spend $14,000,000 on tickets before you hit THE ONE. There’s an equivalent logic for understanding the information barrage, too. It may be less tangible, but intuitively, we know it’s there. If you step away from the constant flow and deliberately pursue and immerse yourself in what you want to see, you get more, you learn more. It’s more relevant. It’s more applicable to your life because you have selected, not received.

We’re now in a world where it’s easier for each of us to be our own program director. There’s unlimited information. It’s accessible at the click of a button. It comes on our time and on our terms.

It’s time to break an old habit – technology now allows you near complete control of the firehose. Don’t let others choose the messages for you.

Well, OK. I think that one actually did happen.

I don’t think that’s always the case.

Often, epiphanies come from a systematic effort to think about a problem differently. I propose that the key is actually that you open your mind to approach the problem from different angles. You have to deliberately steer your mind to make wander or make connections between seemingly unrelated concepts.

The reason epiphanies sometimes happen when you’re not trying to solve the problem is that we allow our minds out of the restrictions we were imposing on it. That doesn’t have to be by accident.

In 1990, Frank Lynn Meshberger, M.D., saw that Michelangelo’s “Creation of Adam” on the Sistine Chapel was actually a side profile of the human brain. The fact had been overlooked for centuries. I remeber hearing this back in the day, and it has always stuck with me. I find it pretty cool, not because of what Michelangelo did (it’s debated), but that Dr. Meshberger saw what so many others had not.

He had been in medical school at the time and happened to look at picture of the fresco shortly after dissecting and drawing a human brain – here’s the story.

That discovery, I would suggest, was a very happy coincidence (if you indeed believe Michelangelo was drawing a human brain). Regardless, this kind of a discovery offers a glimpse, into how we can synthesize and find solutions.  Sometimes, problem-solving comes when we add in lots of influences, not when we buckle down and “work the problem.”

If you’re stuck or things aren’t coming together, it might be time to pick up a book, look through the funny pages or listen to a symphony. You might need to invite in some other opinions, or draw the problem as a picture, or write a short story about it.

Putting in some extra hours at the office is likely counter-productive.

I enjoyed the competition, I definitely enjoyed the stories of triumph and tragedy, but I’m not left feeling I’m better off after I had this intense blitz of melodramatic reality broadcast to me.

I keep hearing that the Olympics are a treasured experience for my fellow Canadians. That the gold medal count, the hockey victory and the splendid performance of the City of Vancouver were a fantastic, even memorable experience for them.

I’m sitting here wondering how the Olympic viewing experience is anything more than a brief break from reality. Cynical, no?

Like many of us, I’ve given in to the allure of a large bag of  potato chips in just one sitting, or a second bowl of ice cream when one would suffice. I’ve honked my horn or shook an angry fist at a fellow driver and I’ve said something hurtful to a friend so that I’d feel better. All of these actions share a common thread – they offer a respite from my own hurt or sadness. They give reprieve, just for a moment.

After each of these events, I think you’re quite likely going to experience a hard landing back to reality. Those reprieves don’t last forever, and when they end, you’re actually a step back from where you started.

I’m trying not to make a negative post here, and I know I’m failing. I’m trying to say that “vacations” from reality don’t help us, they momentarily sidetrack us. They trick us into sitting on the couch for two weeks or gaining weight instead of losing. They withdraw deposits from the emotional bank account or they coax us into engaging with a road-rager in a no-win situation.

One of the things I’m personally working on is not wasting time in front of the TV. If I am in front of it, it’s programming I’ve carefully selected with the commercials removed.

My clear-headed, relentless pursuit of this objective was sidetracked by the Olympics. I sat in front of the TV indiscriminately. I didn’t know what was coming next. There was lots of interesting stuff, but I also watched uninteresting, unfulfilling blather and watched more commercials in that two week period than I do in an entire year. Those two weeks of excessive couch potato-ing were a backslide.

Damn you, Olympics and your heartwarming stories.

While the worker is cutting down the undergrowth, the manager is behind the action making sure the worker is well supported – sharpening machetes, providing training, nutrition, strength building, you could even imagine this manager providing supportive words of encouragement… “Great slash! A couple more like that and you’ll be up for hacker of the year!”

The leader is perched atop a tall tree ensuring direction, and if necessary, yelling “Wrong jungle!”

The lesson Dr. Covey is conveying is about the importance of having someone that is at the highest of high levels thinking about purpose and direction. Another great example he uses is talking about climbing a ladder and the importance of having the ladder up against the correct wall. I’m in wholehearted agreement with the sentiment.

I really like this jungle analogy. When I talk about it, I always attribute more lessons to it than Dr. Covey did. I think this analogy is fantastic for helping us understand our organizations. It simplifies the playing field and allows for a very direct examination and discussion about roles in the workplace.

Here’s my addition to the analogy. I think the Manager feels tremendously inadequate in their role. They’re on the field. They’re in a position to assess and actually provide criticism on the actions of others, however they don’t cut. They don’t participate in the direct purpose of the organization. Seen from the perspective of a hotshot machete worker, they’re a gofer. A waterboy.

For managers, that can weigh heavy, especially since most of them used to be hotshot machete workers. I think these managers have a tremendous internal pressure to pick up a machete and impressively lead the way. Especially consider when one of their machete workers pleadingly looks back at them. “This is a very difficult patch,” they say. What manager could resist the opportunity to show their skill at getting the job done? It’s a moment that allows them to be a hero, is it not?

The moment a manager puts down their clipboard and starts hacking, the organization is gravely injured. When a manager takes on that role on the front lines, all other machete workers are without support. It’s so simple to see in the analogy, so seemingly difficult to see in the office. In the manager’s (selfish) effort to show their ability and see immediate progress, they reduce the capability of everyone else. I’m not sure that’s even the worse part, though. They also teach one machete wielder a very unhelpful lesson – if you find yourself in a challenging spot, look backwards. Rather than taking the time to figure it out, you can count on someone else to do the really hard stuff.

If a manager does their very difficult, emotionally demanding job of not jumping in, they build capability of staff.  They build a more sustainable and healthy organization.

Here’s the assignment. Don’t look for validation through the social mirror, look for it in your own principles. The majority of your colleagues likely won’t be with you, but that’s not the objective. You’re looking for personal satisfaction for a job effectively done. For what it’s worth, I will also be celebrating your courageous choice.

Thanks Chris,
It’s an interesting question. How does one get into this?

I think the start is mostly curiosity. You end up asking questions like, “Does it really have to be this way?” or “Why are things this inefficient/ineffective left this way?” Part of that examination for me was, “Do I really want to make a killing in business and be known for all the money I made?”

I know you see a better way. There is a better way. Let’s take that as a given.

With this knowledge and the need to do something with it, I’ve created sort of a self-imposed life crisis. Rather than wait until mid-life, I work myself up and get really anxious about the limited results I’ll have if I abide by the (artificial) rules of the game. I recognize, on a theoretical level, that moving outside of my comfort zone will create some positive results, either in what I learn or what I accomplish.

What you’re seeing on this blog is the result of me pushing my comfort zone and putting the theory into practice. I’ve also practiced it in how I conduct my employment search, how I speak truth to my friends and colleagues and even how I ride my bike, among other things. Each of these practices teaches me a little something about myself and the social boundaries around us. I’m constantly on the prowl for the next way I’m going to challenge my assumptions and I have ideas that are giving me heart palpitations right now. I should say though, that it is getting easier.

I’m sometimes accused of being fearless, but I’m far from it. This is a deliberate effort to discover who I really want to be. I’m acknowledging my fear, asking if it’s a rational belief and often discovering that it isn’t.

The 4-Hour Workweek by Tim Ferris has some great exercises to build your comfort with, well, discomfort. I’d say try his exercises. His blog is here. He’s a fascinating guy who essentially applies this practice to everything in his life. 

Another way to start down the path is to find something you’re not doing because you think you’ll get fired and ask yourself, really? Will they fire me over that? The answer is likely no. Think of it as civil disobedience. You’re not explicitly fighting, you’re just not following the rules. They won’t fire you for that. It’s not in their rulebook. Worst-case scenario, you may be humiliated, demoted or snickered at, but you’ll still get your paycheque. The things you learn, however, will be priceless. That’s how I started. Literally, I said, “Well, they’ll give me a few warnings before they can me, so I’ll try it.” Still waiting for the first warning, FYI.

Here’s one last thought. If you (or any reader) wants to find me and make a plan or talk about this over coffee, lunch or over the phone, that’s an excellent use of my time. Just contact me.

Love it.