We Crave Connectedness But We Settle for Transactions

I’ve got a new thought for the New Year: tell the experts they’re nuts.  Well, on just one subject: explaining yourself…in business.  For the New Year, commit to “be yourself” and to hell with the so-called authorities and all their fancy “service platform explanations.”  (Does that make any sense?  I didn’t think so either.)

In the process, you just might find that you like yourself, and others, just a wee bit better.  And, that you’re not always measuring yourself against an untenable yardstick of “professionalism” and “propriety.” 

OK, if someone is explaining his/her business service to you, hang in for a minute: you can do it.  Don’t assume s/he will get it all laid out quickly, efficiently and elegantly; sometimes, the smart ones need time, you know.  And, this is how we build connections: what we crave.  We listen.  (Ask the expert, pensive, in the picture; he knows.)

If you’re in the professional service business, you’ve been told — how many times? — how important your “elevator speech” is to promoting your business.  (I’ve got news for you: you could be the Bill Gates of Consultants right now: you ain’t gonna sell nothin’ because no one’s buying nothin’.  Just the way it is.  [Excuse all of my colloquial double negatives, please.]  Well, they’re not buying much!)

What spurred this counter-revolutionary theme? (Some think it was my birth!)  I got to hear an “award-winnng” journalist and consultant speak recently on the subject of partnerships. The talk was a “blur” but I seem to recall a strong emphasis on the “message;” saying what one does in a specific format so that she, the speaker, or some prospective partner, could understand quickly.  Transactions not relationships: isolated vs connecting.  The old industrial model: we are “units of labor.”  Not my cup of tea.

From now on, I’m going to revolt against this type of “packaging:” I really don’t need someone to explain to me his/her business to know whether or not I’m going to like that person and can possibly do business with him or her.  (You know that language is less than 10% about words?)

Some call it the “elevator speech” or “escalator speech.”  I call it “deadsville” because it seeks to package what is hard to wrap: my passions, my expertise, my life. 

So, if the experts suggest you have ten seconds, tell ‘em off and use thirty, hell, use sixty, instead.  I’ll listen and if I don’t, I’m not being respectful.  How’s that for a New Year’s resolution: I will behave more respectfully in 2010.  Towards others, the planet, my clients/customers, my colleagues.  I’ll listen: I’ll make more of an effort to connect.

I’m being encouraged, no coerced, to commoditize myself so that you can understand, in an instant, whether or not I have anything to offer you, as another business person, potential partner, etc.  How have we arrived here?  Slick commercialism?  Greed?  Fear?  Whatever it is, I don’t want to buy it: if you want to tell me about your work, your livelihood, I’ll wait to hear what you’ve got to say: I’ve got plenty of time: I am interested in connecting.

So, when I’m told that I have to explain my work in the “right format,” (What do you offer?…To Whom?…How do they hear about it?…) I’m being told to state my rank and serial number.  I’m being told I’m a “thing.”  Corn, soybeans, crude oil: I’m a commodity.  Trade me on the Mercantile Exchange.  That’s not connecting!  But…it is safe.  (We crave safety, too.)

If I’m a “thing” to you, a tool of some sort that seems to fit your current conundrum, don’t buy me.  If you want to know who I am, great.  I’ll tell you.  But, it will take more than ten seconds.  Sorry, just the way it goes if…you’re interested in connecting.  How’s that for a New Year’s resolution?  We’re not in an economic crisis…we’re in an emotional crisis: a lack of meaningful connection.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Does the Truth Set Me Free…Really?

Noted author and consultant John Berling Hardy poses a provocative question about what we say, how we present ourselves in our work and personal life. In his blog post, The Price for Lying, he offers this observation:

“Living in a talk world as we do, the temptation to lie is great. First impressions count for so much, there is a huge incentive to embellish our self-representations.”

After I read Hardy’s piece, I got reminded of how I used to “embellish” my accomplishments and “story” when I was back in College (last century, you know). Upon reflection in some solitude later on, I would shame myself, shake my head and wonder why I couldn’t get out of the habit of lying, yes lying. I wasn’t so elegant to call it something else — embellishment, grandiosity, exaggeration — I knew what I was doing and why: to make me look “better” in the eyes of the listener. As if. (That phrase is, I think, now replaced with “whatever.”)

Businesses, being driven largely by fear, create cultures that sustain and support misrepresentation; the outcome is more fear and lost opportunities for raising performance.  People taking credit for ideas they didn’t generate, essentially plagiarizing others: for what?  Prestige and status?

My post-adolescent embellishments cost me some guilt and shame — pretty instructive to have a conscience loaded up — but not necessary because…I didn’t need to lie in the first place. Didn’t need it at all.  Give it up.

Powered by ScribeFire.

We Can Do This: Raise the Bar

I’m going to share an easy three-step process for raising performance in organizations.  Why consider this?  Because we’ve got to demand more of ourselves; we can work smarter.  We can be more effective.  Scroll down to the three steps if you don’t want to read the setup, the preamble, the case. 

Preamble, Setup, The “Case:”  As I work, I’m watching: I see people, good people, engaging in some irrational behavior: I see people engaging in habitual tasks which, seemingly, have little or no value to the enterprise.  So, the idealist in me is struggling to comprehend the level of fear, resistance that pervades the culture and climate of the bulk of organizations today; it is indeed akin to pushing the ball up the hill. 

I wonder: Is it job security — the terror of being unemployed — that has everyone hamstrung into “staying below radar,” avoiding innovation, with all our behaviors?  Rhetorical.  (As a Consultant since 1983, I’ve been unemployed at least half of my time in the last 25 years: I’m being a little sneaky: no Consultant can bill 100% of his time.  Lawyers, yes. 110%!  But, not Consultants.)

I am revisiting the theme of taking risks now — raising the bar, pushing the envelope of comfort — in an effort to create some new models that will better serve the organization and its constituents both now and when we have a more robust economy.  (Could it be any less robust?  Yes!)

I am advocating for more vibrancy, more “buzz” as one of my clients calls it.  At a time when reinvention is being demanded of us, we’re succumbing to the weight, the burden of “the work.”  The stuff that grinds and, perhaps, now pays  the bills but…is increasingly showing its cracks, its flaws, like a 16th Century Michelangelo painting.  What I see organizations doing, many of them, doesn’t seem to have much punch, value to the customers and constituents.  Enough preamble.

I have a cure for this common ailment; it involves three steps (isn’t that quaint?):

1. Forget the past, live in the now (ooh, Zen!)  OK: I have to admit: a little too squishy.  Forget that one.  Let’s try another first Step (this is, sort of, the three steps in action):

Step 1 (Reinvented): Look Up: Stop Working.  Leave your office.  Go outside (after you finish reading this whole post).  If you can’t leave your office: stare out the window or stare at the ceiling without the intent to do anything but stare.  Breathe.  Take it all in: the good, the bad, the ugly.  No one is going to die.  This is the precursor to “evaluation.”

Step 2: Become a “Good” Investigator: find the things you and your people are doing that are positive, successful, productive.  List the “base” items like “showed up for work today.”  I know this sounds crazy but it has an aim: to change what your brain focuses on: better brain “food,” better brain function: a mind that sees possibilities. Make the list big: “Rescued a customer today…didn’t yell or get angry at ___who made a mistake…” 

This is a precept of a relatively new process called Appreciative Inquiry that seeks to find the underlying strengths in groups and organizations.  Check it out.

Step 3. Become a Scientist: Experiment.  Take what you’ve learned from Step 2 and find new arenas in which to apply those assets: leverage.  Archimedes would be proud.  (“Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.”)

Experiment: try some new methods; change policies; ask customers what they would like to see from you right now.   (See Dyson’s [the cool inventor guy] video on encouraging creativity: he talks about “silly” ideas that end up having some value.)

“If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it” — Albert Einstein

Machiavelli had a technique: built on domination, it was effective.  But, it is a method that has seen its day: it may have worked in crustier times, but it can’t work now.  Collaboration and creativity flourish in an atmosphere of experimentation. 
 
James Dyson on Encouraging Creativity – MarketWatch Video

I like to feel inspired about my work; you know, invest some passions for greatness, for doing something memorable, novel, innovative.  I have no aspirations to reinvent Edison’s light bulb, but…I like incremental improvements that are mined out of my imagination and desire for excellence.  It’s inherent in everyone: tap it. 

Powered by ScribeFire.

Disappointments Usually a Function of Failed Communications

When I take on a project, even a little one, I want to make sure that my clients are going to be satisfied, delighted even: like the feeling you get when viewing the puffy cumulus clouds linger in a cerulean blue sky.  The “pot shot” methods of getting things done, which I see, makes me wonder how tasks and work is being delegated within the enterprise, hence, the inspiration for this post: we’ve got to get it right.

So, this is a review of productive methods for getting things done by asking others to do the actual work.  Yes, my clients are busy and, often, they trust me (it’s well placed, I might add).  But, it’s not enough.  We need to invest the time: I remember some wise man telling me years ago, disparaging management methods in the U.S.: “yeah, in America, we don’t have time to do it right…but we’ve got time to do it over.”  Well, I don’t like doing it over.

Since most delegations are the equivalent of a “rain dance” — a lot of moving around wiht the hope of something magical — it’s a good to remind ourselves of some productive methods.  These are simple but powerful techniques.  You can put them into three steps, even: three’s an easy number.

First, the task is set out: “I need you to figure out how we penetrate this new sales channel…” The next step (Step #2) is the discussion of the “why” (I deserve to know the reason) and the “how.”  As the one giving the task, I can lay out the motivation, the “why.”  As I see it anyway.

The “how” (Step 3) is where the person doing the work has a chance to invest him/herself.  Thist takes time and sounds something like this: “So, how do you think it would be best to go about doing this?”  What results is a give and take: “yes, good idea and how about some preliminary research?” 

In the end, (maybe Step 4, OMG!) there is the task, the purpose for doing it and an agreement on an outline of methods that should be reviewed and agreed upon.  “So, we want to  do _______, because it will _________, and you’re going to do x, y, z.”  Yes, it sounds a bit childish, as if we’re working with a toddler but…it’s not.  So, if you’re not interested in following some productive methods, you can always count on the probable option: doing it over.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Public Debate Absent, Social Delicacy Takes Priority?

This is not a blog post about politics.  It’s about ideals, a principle upon which this country, the U.S. of A., was founded.  I’m concerned at how easily we’ve abandoned those ideals in the past few decades in pursuit of stuff that’s, now, worthless.

I’m disappointed that we can’t muster more courage, like the emerging bud of a spring-inspired tree, to talk about two, at least two, topics that need and deserve some discussion, attention.

My concern goes beyond the lack of discussion about our “wars,” or the scorched-earth politics being practiced in D.C. that is benefiting no one.  (One Republican Senator, Snowe, steps out of line to forge some new initiative in the healthcare field. Yikes!)  My desire begins to address the possibility of a unified message of hope and optimism that goes beyond personal needs and greeds and addresses our collective reality: we’re in this mess together — rich and poor, privileged and disadvantaged, white, black and brown.

So, the first conversation I would like to hear is the one that addresses a message, an affirmative dream, of how this society will look once we get through this economic debacle.  Where’s the new, compelling Vision (yes, with a capital “V!”) that is so critical to inspiring me and others to make the sacrifices that we — secretly of course — know we’re going to have to make?  (My window supplier and his family have shuttered their business; several local restaurants that are members of Chambers of Commerce are forgoing their dues in an effort to cut costs.)

The second discussion that I’m missing is the one that goes something like this: “Yes, these are tough times and, yes, we’re in this together….those of you who might have more privilege, more resources, more stable jobs, those folks need to extend a helping hand in a tangible way that cuts through all of the governmental and social institutions…”  Charity?  No.  Generosity of spirit?  Yes.

Yes, one of the barriers, a Berlin Wall of barriers perhaps, is that we don’t know how: we’ve gone for so long without helping each other that we don’t know what it looks like.  So, here are some possible
examples: “Dear Neighbor, If you’re struggling, lean on me.  If, when your kids come home from school, you need someone to watch them, ask me.  If you need a car for some trips to town, you can take mine. If you need some of my construction tools, please let me know.  If you are forgoing maintenance on your house because of a lack of expertise, tell me and I will help you.” 

And, now, here’s the pitch to you, my readers, the exhortation: We’re all stretched and many of us are hurting; we need to stretch some more and be of service to each other and our society.  This is the appeal for the next year, for leaders and, more importantly, for effective followers.

In business, this means that collaboration can be more effective than competition especially within the organization.  It’s time: 1) we can do this, and; 2) what can I do to help you?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Pain Is Likely from Rejection, But Methods Can Minimize the Sting

I’ve been “let go” twice and fired once.  Each time, it has hurt.  Even for someone whose self-esteem is bigger than mine, the experience proves wrenching.  But, I’ve learned that it can be more humane; the end result holds the possibility for both parties to feel better about a pretty crummy endeavor.

First, of course, the conversation does not have to come as a surprise (as most of mine have been).  If there has been no feedback as to performance or cultural fit or business pressures leading to the action, then the conversation needs to have some element of remorse or shame. 

I’m sorry if this comes as a shock to you, but, we’re having problems with_____(the economy, cash flow in your unit…) and we need to take some action to change the status quo.

The employee being dismissed gets at least a small slice of perceived sympathy.  And any sympathy or empathy can provide some salve on the wounds that get opened during this process.

For others, this tactic of mild subservience might not be required: one employee, Lou, that I had to discharge in the late 80′s, told me that he had wondered why I took so long.  Shame on me.  He knew that he just wasn’t doing the work despite my close coaching. 

Fear, of course, is the biggest motivator in all of these discussions — or lack thereof: the discomfort of a bad fit is so pervasive that neither party wants to bring it up.  The fear, though, doesn’t have to govern the process. Courage and enhanced skills can go a long way. 

OK, back to tactics: follow the old rules of 1) tell ‘em what you’re going to tell ‘em; 2) tell ‘em, and; 3) tell ‘em what you told ‘em.  So, there is the agenda: “we need to talk about something serious…something that’s quite uncomfortable for me..”  At this point, let everyone breathe: a big deep breath as you move on to Step 2.

“I think it’s been clear that we’re having some problems in the relationship…” (avoiding the word “you” makes the other party less likely to become defensive).  “Perhaps we haven’t been clear enough in our articulation of what we’ve been expecting or where we’ve been disappointed, but….we don’t think this is going to work out…”  Yes, it’s words; we’re talking about minimizing the “sting;” these are tactics that soften what is, ultimately, perceived to be a hammer blow to one’s ego. 

The tactic of taking the possibility of responsibility for the problem in the “relationship” provides a way for the worker to hold on to some self-esteem, to not feel totally blamed — which he or she is likely to do anyway — for the deterioration of events.  And for you, the terminator as it were, to not feel like Satan as you go back to your office, in whatever job security that you possess.

Right now, the person being spoken to has so much adrenaline running and fantasies occuping what little RAM he’s got in his brain — what do I tell my wife…where am I going to find another job…was I that bad??? — that he’s not likely to hear anything else.  Try anyway.  Find something, as specific as possible, that you found exemplary in his performance: “I really liked the way you were calm in the face of crises like when your computer crashes in the middle of a project…”  Don’t make it up: be genuine.

Step 3: Keep trying to penetrate the fog of the adrenaline and personal terror: find something very specific that was needed that you didn’t get.  “We really needed someone who could work lots of overtime and…your family situation just doesn’t allow that…”

Lastly, Step #4: Acknowledge the situation’s crumminess and validate: “I know you really tried to make this work; I’m sorry.”  Can this overcome the abysmal sense of rejection that the person is going to feel?  No, but it can help and, if you can, why not do it?  And, of course, apologize a great deal: “I’m really sorry about this.  Is there anything I can do for you?”

Yes, this is, in reality, a five minute conversation.  And, it is discomforting to both parties.  So, the exercise I propose to be taken is just a way to reduce the pain that is inevitable. 

Of course, the easiest way to avoid this nasty conversation is to take the time up front to make the fit successful: 1) identify the skills and behaviors needed to be successful in the job; 2) provide more than sufficient information to the hiree so that s/he knows what’s expected to be effective; 3) provide appropriate and necessary resources (training, office space, culture, tools, etc.), and; 4) create reward systems that reinforce the desired behaviors and provide feedback on a timely basis (not once a year, duh). 

Powered by ScribeFire.

We Can Make a Difference: Four Non-Profits, Five Consultants Offer Proof

September 2, 2009 was a monumental day for this challenged country and state: a small change, perhaps big impacts.  From a small conference room at a tech incubator in Rohnert Park, California, four non-profits went away with help from five skilled, compassionate and experienced business consultants.  Change in realtime.  Common people — not politicians or bureaucrats — working together, to make a difference.

Now called “The Minerva Project,” this was an effort born of dreams.  And frustration.  On more than five occasions, with more than four different local and state agencies, an idea of creating an army of consultants in California was ignored, spurned.  A friend and colleague provided comfort and inspiration after one such meeting: “forget them…we’ll do  it ourselves.”  Julie did  more good than she knew.

A simple aim of employing the unused capacity and good will of consultants was the “big idea.”  No one was willing to buy.  Unfortunate.  What does this say about our non-profit and volunteer institutions?  Seth Godin, an international marketing guru, had something to say about the non-profit world in one of his recent blog posts:

These organizations exist solely to make change. That’s why you joined, isn’t it?

The problem facing your group, ironically, is the resistance to the very thing you are setting out to do. Non-profits, in my experience, abhor change.

To read the whole thing, go to Seth Godin’s Blog.

Am I harping about the resistance to change?  No.  Am I blowing my own horn?  Perhaps, in a way, sure.  What I want to emphasize is that we/I are not beholden to outmoded ways of operating, thinking: I — and you — can make changes.  I don’t have to be thwarted by resistance to some new ideas; I can make things happen.  And, in fact, I am. 

I’m hoping, too, that this kind of thinking provides some needed inspiration for others to do similar things: harness unused talent and expertise for the social good.  I see the need for all of us, any of us, to provide inspiration for others: you can do this, too!  You can do something that will make a difference?

Now, I reflect on that May 2009 meeting with the Senior Management of a Volunteer Center; their response was not unfamiliar in my travels on this subject; I’d received a less than tepid response at the State (California) level, too.  I scratched my head a bunch of times: “why would some Volunteer organization whose mission — to encourage Volunteerism –  turn down an offer of help from a group of consultants?”  (BTW, you can’t find that organization’s website anymore: http://www.volunteercentersca.org. Pity.)

Let’s go forward and do something great.  Together.  It’s more than possible; it’s probable.

theminervaproject.org

Subscribe to The Minerva Project

Email:

Visit this group

Powered by ScribeFire.

Worriers Can Be Winners

“Lincoln, Churchill, and Newton, to name just a few famous mopers, all accentuated the negative.”

I have been accused, a good part of my life, for only seeing the bad stuff.  Some of this, possibly, is genetics — my hardwiring — and other pieces could be learning: it got rewards from my father and others.  Doom and gloom folks, though, seem to have skills that the optimists don’t: to see the future more clearly, the pitfalls, the dragons lurking in the dark that will breathe fire and…bite.

An Op-Ed piece in Business Week by Patricia Pearson, sheds light on the need right now for some balance.  She reports that optimists have an “attentional bias” to notice opportunities and look for rewards.  They’re unlikely to pay much attention, though, to the gathering storm clouds on the horizon.  That’s the domain of the somber.

For the scientists out there, the analyticals, there appears to be a genetic link between mood disorders and “problem-solving creativity.”  A plus.  Those with irrational optimism are, by contrast, not the best at creating a “Plan B.” 

Businesses, especially during difficult times, are encouraged to tap “depressive realism:” the gift given to the melancholy to see “reality more accurately.”  While they won’t  be warmly welcomed at today’s relentlessly upbeat sales conferences, they are needed and should be listened to.  (Remember Sharon Watkins who told Ken Lay [Enron] about the impending “implosion of accounting scandals?”)

Email me at george@theapgconsulting.com

Subscribe to High Performance Organizations

APG Consulting Website

Powered by ScribeFire.

Powered by ScribeFire.