Proceed Until Apprehended

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.

Have you ever been intensely frustrated with a work team that doesn’t seem to get it? It may be that the roles are ill-defined, the processes are haphazard and inefficient or there is simply no purpose to align efforts. Forget about “systems thinking,” these teams are organized for knee-jerk reactions. When an issue comes up, watch the thrashing that ensues. Ultimately, the team isn’t getting to any results.

If you’re seeing this, what’s the right response? If we look around us, it’s clear that one of the most common responses is to wait it out for a bit and see if things get better.

Seriously, have any of these things ever gotten better on their own?

More likely – actually, always – this results in a continued ineffective organization. The problems remain undefined, the potential solutions go unexamined and those that are propagating the problems continue their path unabated.

Wishfully thinking the mess will resolve itself is not a realistic strategy. It’s a defense mechanism that keeps you from taking emotional risk. It keeps you safe on the sidelines, smug in your knowledge that it sucks.

But that’s OK. Fair enough. If you don’t want to get in the fray, I think that’s your right. However, this strategy should not be accompanied with your continued frustration with the situation. You don’t get that right. If you are choosing to quietly wait for someone else to lead the way out, you’re making a decision to also endure it until it gets better. You’ve gotta pay that price. By the way, it’s your burden, and yours alone. You don’t need to unload it on an unsuspecting confidant so you can temporarily feel better. Sit with it. Stew on it. Maybe, if it becomes uncomfortable enough, you’ll realize you shouldn’t just wait it out.

If only the wishful thinker would propose a solution, the benefits are tremendous.

• You focus a conversation on a problem that others haven’t seen, or at least have been afraid to acknowledge. Groupthink can drive a wedge between a committee and reality. Diverse perspectives can bring a committee back.
• You introduce an alternative path. This often defines the parameters of future conversations. Everybody gets busy supporting or fighting your plan… others aren’t even considered.
• You make a statement about what kind of participant you are. You are one that bring solutions, not problems. That puts you in a special, rare category.

The cost for all this? Well, as Ghandi said, “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” On the first attempt, in all likelihood, they ignore you. Perhaps you’ll be so fortunate as to get some eye-rolls or scoffs. They at least heard your point. If you keep it up, you’ll have the success of your audience sitting up ramrod straight and telling you all the reasons it can’t be done. That’s when you’ve got them right where you want them. With persistence, I believe you can make a difference.

More plainly, the cost is how it makes you feel. It’s not particularly comfortable in the moment. It’s just right. That’s integrity, and it has the ability to make you feel unsettled and at peace in the same moment.

I’m in a pretty timid organization, a bureaucracy where having eye-to-eye conversations about real issues is to be avoided at all costs. I would LOVE to have more ridicule and more fighting of my ideas. As it stands, I’m pretty sure I could propose the purchase of a beaver to sharpen our pencils and I wouldn’t get a response. You know what, though? I feel a lot better pushing for what’s right and getting nowhere than remaining silent and by default becoming a supporter of what’s wrong.

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.

With brilliant simplicity, Seth Godin has offered an opportunity for his readers to connect with others in their area.

Here’s his post, but don’t click away just yet. I want to impress upon you how smart I think this is.

Presumably, Seth Godin’s readers are everywhere.  One of the problems, however, is that the ideas and concepts he’s sharing create short-term discomfort when you practice them. Being a Linchpin or leading a Tribe (his two most recent books) require you to buck convention, speak truth to power and stand up for change. In my experience, the large majority of people in your off-line world are going to react negatively to this behaviour. The ones that agree with you are hard to find and you can’t identify them. If only we had special hats or t-shirts. 

I humbly suggest that Regina, Saskatchewan, my location, is worse off than most. We’re a government town in a resource-based province. A new reality hasn’t really hit here yet.

Seth Godin just put his hand out to me. He said, “I know it’s hard. You’re not alone.” For one glorious evening, I’ll be able to see the people in Regina that are having a similar experience. If you’re in Regina and buy this stuff, I hope to see you there.

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!

The Internet is such a firehose. The information comes fast. The marketing comes fast. The new ideas, the new products, the next thing… fast, fast, fast.

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.

In the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Dr. Stephen Covey illustrates the role of a leader with the Jungle Analogy.  He talks about a group, an organization, committed to swathing a path through the jungle.  In this organization, he identifies three roles – the machete-wielding worker, the manager and the leader.

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.

Look around. Are you on a conveyor belt?

I’ve been in a number of meetings where each plan and action coming out of the mouths of my colleagues is faultless. Despite this fact, I’m left with a feeling that we’re going backwards. What is it?

I think it’s that they’re on a conveyor belt. It’s going south, we’re trying to go north. We can agree on the direction, we can even agree on the destination, but in that very moment, the discussion about footsteps (the tactical), not the route (strategic choices we’re making). For most people, most days, the essential component is to put in the right directional effort. The results are secondary. As a result, there’s plenty of faultless effort, but minimal ground is gained. We need to do a better job of acknowledging that we’re on a shifting foundation.

Step one: Stop. Look around you. Are you on solid ground? Are you doing the right things or are you just doing things right?

Step two: Communicate your (new) reality to others. It’s your obligation. I say ”obligation” because it may not be pleasant. You will likely get chastised because your comments will be counter-productive to the immediate conveyor belt march. Your colleagues are trying to keep up and you’re a distraction. That’s to be expected. Just be ready.

Step three: Be very observant and engage with those that give you sidelong glances and pleading looks. They want to get off, too. They just need some help in the courage department.

This is a shift that’s been going on for a while, but it’s time I call it out on my blog. You can be nice, do generous things for others and you can operate with an abundance mentality and you get more in return than ever before. I watched Conan O’Brien’s farewell speech on the Tonight Show. I was impressed, and I think he will be rewarded handsomely in the future for his authentic class and heartfelt honesty. I think there’s a few things going on that make this a new game for the Nice:

• It’s easier than ever to see and celebrate good things done by individuals
• It no longer requires large investments or big distribution to connect with individuals
• Those who want to protect the status quo have little to no control when you choose a different, more individual path
• These paths allow people to be authentic and, surprise surprise, when not going through bureaucratic filter, most people are nice

All of this is resulting in people that just get to be themselves and still create a following. Conan now has a legion of fans that will give him attention, credibility and yes, money. He won’t need a big network. If he just starts doing something, people can connect directly.

I want to follow and connect with people that are open, selfless and giving. The old system used to squeeze that out and more often than not produce closed and selfish. Now that this option is reality, it’s clear I wasn’t alone in my desire. Examples abound of success through giving. Just check my blogroll.

With a hat tip to Dan McCarthy, here’s a transcript of Conan’s speech:

“Before we bring this rodeo to a close, I think a couple things should be said.
There’s been a lot of speculation in the press about what I legally can and can’t say about NBC.
And this isn’t a joke.
To set the record straight, and this is true, tonight I’m allowed to say anything I want.
(Man laughs)
Um, and no it’s not a joke, but thanks sir. Tonight I really am allowed to say whatever I want and what I want to say is this.
Between my time at “Saturday Night Live,” “The Late Night Show,” and my brief run here on “The Tonight Show,” I’ve worked with NBC for over 20 years.
Yes, we have our differences right now, yes we’re going our separate ways, but this company has been my home for most of my adult life.
I am enormously proud of the work we’ve done together. And I want to thank NBC for making it all possible.
I really do.
(Audience applauds)
A lot of people have been asking me about my state of mind and I’ll be honest with you, walking away from “The Tonight Show” is the hardest thing I have ever had to do.
Um, making this choice has been enormously difficult. This is the best job in the world.
I absolutely love doing it and I have the best staff and crew in the history of the medium.
I will fight anybody who says I don’t, but no one would.
But despite this sense of loss, I really feel this should be a happy moment. Every comedian…every comedian dreams of hosting “The Tonight Show” and for seven months, I got to do it.
And I did it my way with people I love. I do not regret one second of anything that we’ve done here.
(Audience applause)
And yeah.
And I encounter people when I walk on the street now who are just uh who give me sort of a sad look.
I have had more fortune than anybody I know.
And if our next gig is doing a show in a 7-Eleven Parking lot we will find a way to make it fine. We really will.
I have no problems. And, I don’t want to do it on a 7-Eleven parking lot.
(Audience laughs)
But whatever, uh, finally I have something to say to our fans.
This massive outpouring of support and passion from so many people has been overwhelming for me.
The rallies, the signs, all the goofy outrageous creativity on the Internet uh, the fact that people have traveled long distances and camped out all night in the pouring rain.
(Audience cheers)
It’s pouring! It’s been pouring for days and they’re camping out to be in our audience.
Really, you…Here’s what all of you have done.
You’ve made a sad situation joyous and inspirational.
So to all the people watching I can never ever thank you enough for the kindness to me and I’ll think about it for the rest of my life.
And all I ask is one thing…and this is…I’m asking this particularly of young people that watch…please do not be cynical.
I hate cynicism. For the record, it’s my least favorite quality.
It doesn’t lead anywhere.
Nobody in life gets exactly what they thought they were going to get.
But if you work really hard and you’re kind, amazing things will happen. I’m telling you. Amazing things will happen. (Audience claps) I’m telling you.
It’s just true.
As proof, let’s make something amazing happen right now. (Intro Will Ferrell)

Chris commented on my about page. As my response kept getting longer, I decided it needed it’s own post.

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.