Blog — Page 13

At Which End Should You Crack Your Egg?

As someone who travels a lot for work, I end up eating in restaurants a fair bit, and I sometimes end up having difficulty deciding between the chicken stir-fry, and the boiled fish. Yep, that’s right, I have eating habits typical of an obese rabbit. But I digress.

You can imagine the confusion I would cause if I simply didn’t decide on a meal. For some indefinite period of time, I would become more and more famished, while the waiter, kitchen and support staff would wait (at first patiently), and then eventually boot me out for being such a twit.

Interestingly, this is exactly what happens to managers who fail to make decisions. People will wait patiently for some period of time, perhaps make a recommendation or two, but eventually they’ll get angry and boot you out.

There are a variety of reasons that managers fail to make decisions, but there are two essential things for indecisive managers to remember:

1) First, the decision you are about to (not) make, is really not all that important. It’s about as consequential as my choice between chicken and fish. Unless you are reading this as the head of some nation-state headed for armed conflict (in which case, I’d love your comments below, Mr. Netanyahu), then don’t flatter yourself by thinking that decision you’re delaying has any serious consequence.

2) The wrong decision today, is better than the correct decision a month from now. At least if you make the wrong decision now, it will become clear quickly, and you can change course. Just ask the guys who came up with the genius idea of “New Coke” a few years back. The old Coke was only off the shelf for a matter of seconds before they realized they’d made a huge mistake. It took a few more seconds to correct course, and get back to the business of pedaling sugar-water to the entire world, and kicking Pepsi’s ass.

So it’s time to quit agonizing and make a decision. When in doubt, flip a coin – the worst you’ll do is relive the New Coke fiasco. Start tomorrow morning by making the important decision of which side of your egg you should crack (with due credit to Jonathan Swift – look it up).

Forget Your Superstars — Focus on Middle Performers

In just about any work group or organization, you’ll find a normal distribution of performance quality. In other words, your employees will fall into the normal bell curve with a few superstars, a handful of laggards, with most of your employee population falling in the middle.

The management books and the HR folks will tell you reach out to all employees to create a high performing environment. The fundamental flaw with this advice comes from its source: most of the authors of management books have never actually been managers; and, HR… well, it’s HR. If you’re one of the few companies out there with a high performing HR department, then you probably should heed their advice. For all the other organizations, tell HR that once it manages itself to be a high performing group, they will win the privilege of advising you to do likewise.

Here’s what you actually need to do: forget about the front and back of your bell curve. Yep, that’s right, ignore your superstars and your laggards.

Your superstars are often your most high-maintenance people. They often do great work, but leave a trail of broken relationships behind them. When you look at their overall impact on the organization, as opposed to their proficiency in what you’ve asked them to do, the net effect is often much less positive than you might be lead to believe. They also tend to jump ship quicker than others.

Your laggards are a bit more tricky. You can’t ignore critically poor performance, or it will drag others’ performance down. You need to minimize the influence your laggards have on others, but you don’t want to put a whole bunch of energy into trying to improve the poor performer if there’s little chance it will substantially improve.

Leaders need to focus on the middle of their curve. If you can push those good performers a bit further along the curve, then the overall impact to the organization can be substantial. Those in the middle are lower maintenance, they probably have a higher ability to improve than the laggards, and they are more stable than the superstars.

The success of an organization rarely depends on the retention of a few superstars. More likely it depends on the retention of the middle majority of good performers – the same group that likely gets the least attention in most organizations.

I guess irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

Education versus Experience

Every now and then I get drawn into the age-old argument about education versus experience. On one side of the argument are people who seem to have an irrational resentment towards others’ educational credentials. They ask, “how is it that smart people can do such stupid things?”

The answer, quite simply is that education and intelligence are not necessarily correlated.

On the other side of the argument are those that wave their communications degree from the local community college around like it was a ticket to success. They ask, “I studied hard, why won’t they make me a vice-president of something?”

The answer, quite simply, is because you don’t know anything yet.

People who want to seriously argue whether education or experience is better, apparently have neither. It is an argument for brain-dead people. Here are a few points to ponder:

Education is simply a different form of experience. If this is all you have, it is limited at best.
People who have 25 years experience at something need to be questioned as to whether they have 25 years experience (like a neurosurgeon) or one year’s experience 25 times (like a barista). Sometimes anything past the first year is a waste of experience.
When things don’t happen the way you want them to, it’s not necessarily a knowledge (education) gap. If education was the only thing that mattered, then nobody would smoke, very few would be fat, and nobody would watch TV (or use any other recreational drugs).

The bottom line is that any education or development is going to make an individual better than s/he would be without it; it won’t make one individual better than another. So stop fixating over education versus experience, and go improve one or the other.

Politically Correct Brainstorming

So… how many politically correct pinheads does it take to screw-in a light bulb? ANSWER: None… because they are forever in the dark.

As it turns out, there was a (hopefully futile) movement in the UK to stop using the term, “brainstorming”, because some PCP (politically correct pinhead) decided that this was disrespectful to those with mental illness.

This PCP was apparently in a good position to winge about such things, because very clearly, s/he suffered from some form of mental illness. I’m not really sure what is more ridiculous to me: this PCP’s delusional version of reality; or the fact this complaint got enough traction that it actually made the news.

Perhaps people paid attention to this for the same reason they slow down to see a car accident. The most frustrating thing about this silliness is that it diverts attention away from the serious implications of mental illness.

So next time you suggest a brainstorm to generate ideas, and some PCP tells you the term is inappropriate, respond with the following:

a) First comment on their appearance – no one looks perfect, so find something really obvious to critique them on.

b) If they happen to be from a visible ethnic group, don’t be afraid to bring that up either. This is unlikely, as most PCPs tend to be white folks with Anglo-Saxon last names who ease their guilt by advocating for others who would rather they kept their mouths shut.

c) Question their parentage – that should set them off.

d) Ask them how much they’d charge to haunt a house.

e) Be relentless.

After your coworkers have pulled the (kicking and screaming) PCP off you, remind them that violence in the workplace is a serious issue; equating brainstorming with mental illness is not.

Now, I’m headed outside to board up Wily Manager headquarters in anticipation of the forthcoming firebomb.

Resistance is Futile

Wily Manager is a resource for managers at all levels of organizations. We also encourage aspiring new leaders to engage with us to. Every now and then I get some hate-mail that makes it clear that some non-managerial types hang out on the website too. I’m guessing they visit so they can make themselves more angry and bitter than they already are because they are boring, ugly, and have no friends.

The hate mail I get is when I speak truth to managers. Often times, these truths come at the expense of well-regarded intellectuals who have done lots of research about business, but have never really participated in one (other than the job they had as an intern during their undergraduate studies).

Here’s one of those truths:

“People will naturally resist change”

Of course, the gurus will tell you that people don’t resist change. They say people will get on board if you take the time to explain the benefits, why the change is being made, and what’s in it for them. That is exquisite BS.

The best is example is the metric system. The metric system is much easier and nearly universal in its use. Yet, the few hold-outs in the world cling to the old Imperial System like Linus to his blanket.

Here’s another uncomfortable truth:

“If you want to overcome resistance to change, you need to make the pain of staying the same greater than the pain of changing.”

The gurus would hate this truth. They would contend that you hold people’s hands, sit in a circle, and sing campfire songs, and people will change. They won’t.

Don’t coddle people through change – yes, you need to explain to them what is changing, why it’s changing, and what the benefits are. You need to tell them several times. But then you need to make the pain of staying the same greater than the pain of changing.

If you doubt me, here’s a third truth:

“Resistance is futile. Your own distinctiveness will be added to our own – prepare to be assimilated.”

Be the Master of Your Email Domain

Regular consumers of the Wily Manager website and podcasts will know we make the occasional Seinfeld reference when making our point. In the spirit of the 1992 Emmy Award winning episode, “The Contest”, we submit our list of ways in which dealing with email is a lot like being the “Master of Your Domain”:

The ridiculous amount of time you spend doing it, is something you really should keep to yourself.
It’s something you know everyone else is doing, but you’re never really sure.
If you don’t exercise caution and discretion, it can be really embarrassing.
It’s all about you… and really has nothing to do with anyone else.
It can make you go blind.

There are five more reasons that I chose not to publish, because many people visit our website from their workplace, and I’d rather not have it get caught up in a firewall.

For those that have absolutely no idea what I’m talking about, I’m hoping the video clip below helps, and if not, you should google: “Seinfeld: The Contest”. It’s even on Wikipedia.

Are you master of your domain? Cause, “I’m out. I’m out of the contest.”

I gotta go answer some email now.

Cross Cultural Conflict

A few years ago, I did a project with a company that was a joint venture between a British Company, an American Company, and a Canadian one. It was in the Utility sector, so you would assume that very similar parent companies, from very similar countries would have no problem integrating their cultures. This was an excellent example of why one should never assume.

The United States and Canada are both former colonies of the UK, and all three countries share a language (with respect to the one-third of Canadians who are French speakers). How different could they be?

On Managing Conflict:

Americans argue hard for their viewpoint, and ultimately get along at the end of the day
The British are much more reserved and polite, but will express dissent.
Canadians avoid conflict at all costs – often to their detriment

On Working Hours:

Americans work 12 hours a day, and rarely take more than a few days off in a row
The British work hard on a daily basis. They also have 8 weeks vacation (holiday) per year, and take a minimum of two weeks off at a time.
Canadians are about half way in between the two, unless there’s a hockey game on TV, in which case they go home early.

On Dealing with Governments (we were constantly moving people between the three countries)

The American Government was a nightmare to work with. They constantly change immigration rules, and won’t provide any reasons or justifications for doing so.
The British Government was consistent, although highly bureaucratic and cumbersome in its process.
The Canadian Government was consistent with its expressed goal of making it easy for skilled people to enter and work in that country.

On Language

Americans speak “Microsoft English” – the easiest and most identifiable form of the language.
The British contingent from England spelled some things differently, but otherwise communicated well. The Scottish contingent constantly baffled all the rest of us with their use of the language.
The Canadians sounded like the Americans; spelled like the British; and threw in some French spellings just to throw everyone else off.

On the Metric System

The United States is the only country in the world that still uses the outdated and cumbersome Imperial Measurement system.
The British were very frustrated when they hopped in their Audis and BMWs that the speed limit was 65mph, rather than 110 kph.
The Canadians were baffled that 32 degrees was miserably cold, rather than miserably hot.

On “Entitlement Mentality”

Americans don’t feel much entitlement, but rather feel the individual is responsible for his/her own circumstances.
The British have some Entitlement Mentality – particularly when it came to the private American health care system. (“I have to pay for this!?!?”)
The Canadians had a bad case of entitlement mentality. Perhaps it was because most of the people working there had been government employees before the utility was privatized.

In the end, we managed to make this company work, but don’t ever underestimate cross-cultural issues even in seemingly similar cultures.

Firing People is Underrated as a Motivational Tool

Firing people is really under rated as a motivation tool – hear me out.

It’s not about punishment and intimidation – those things only work for short periods of time. AND — as soon as you turn your back, people go back to what they were doing before. It’s also not very nice.

Rather – by removing a consistent poor performer, you do that person’s peers (the rest of your team) a tremendous service. If there are six people working on a team, and I am consistently not pulling my weight, then the impact of my non-performance is far more tangible on my peers than it would be to my boss.

This lesson was delivered home to me back when I had a real job as a manager – one that required me to occasionally fire people. One member of our team constantly called in sick on short notice – a behavior that significantly, and negatively impacted his co-workers. A bunch of us ended up working late because this person had called in sick, and we decided to go for a beer after work.\

We walked in to a local pub about 9pm, and saw our absent co-worker dancing on top of speaker. It was quite obvious he’d been there for some time. Apparently this fellow wasn’t very smart either – he chose to go partying at a place a block from work.

It was an easy decision to fire him, but what happened next surprised me. Several of his peers thanked me getting rid of the guy, and one even challenged me on what took me so long!

I’m not suggesting you fire the bottom 10% of performers every month. I am suggesting you provide crystal-clear expectations, do everything you can to help people be successful, and when the occasional person chooses to consistently betray his team and not perform, that you do not hesitate to remove that person.

Channel your “inner-Trump”. Your team will thank you for it.

Multi-Tasking Rush: The Recreational Drug of Choice

I often wonder when I see two people walking down the street side by side, talking on their mobile phones whether they are talking to each other. It seems quite possible to me that the cell-phone has become such an extension of our bodies, that this somehow feels more natural to talk to each other through technology than it does face to face.

Or maybe people simply feel they can get in some exercise, have a visit with a walking companion and return some telephone calls all at the same time. Now that’s multi-tasking!

It’s also horribly inefficient, and incredibly rude, but we seem to conveniently overlook these things. Somewhere along the line we decided that an iPhone can override a few million years of evolution that up until a few years ago had still only minimally developed our ability to do more than one thing at once.

It’s kind of a rush to try, though, isn’t it? It feels really good to be driving down the road, talking on the phone, listening to the radio, and screaming at the guy in the Audi that just cut you off.

Or the guy I heard in the men’s room returning a telephone call from the toilet. Just for fun, I went and flushed all the vacant toilets, and did some fake vomiting so the sound effects would be complete for whomever he was conversing with.

The “Multitasking Rush” is, in short, the same euphoria one gets when using drugs. Far be it from me to lecture people about how they get their kicks, but I would suggest that Multitasking, like all other recreational drugs should be used carefully and sparingly.

Fast Track to Alignment: Ignore Head Office

Many moons ago, I was an Operations Manager for a big, global company. My part of the empire was very small, but I was still subject to much of the silliness that comes with being part of a huge organization.

You could have said that the right hand didn’t know what the left hand was doing, but that would have been overly-kind. There were departments at global headquarters that out and out competed with each other. The loss-control guys would send out a memo, only to be contradicted by the HR group. Of course, none of them did this knowingly – they were simply so big, that they had no idea what the other support group was doing.

This is what happens when companies face operational issues, and rather than invest in frontline managers to teach them to deal with the complexities of the business, they suck control of everything short of turning the key in the front door back far away from the core business.

The result: total and complete misalignment. Frontline managers and the employees doing the actual work that makes money are being continually pulled in all directions, and end up flying like a moth to the brightest light depending on which support department issued an email directive that day.

I made the decision to leave this organization, about a year before my ultimate departure. I still loved the business, I just didn’t like working for a large, bureaucratic company that had centralized all control and decision-making.

I can honestly say, I was at my most effective in this last year. I still wanted the business to be successful, and I cared deeply about the people I worked with. What made me (and my operation) effective and successful in this last year is that I stopped listening to head office. I did what I thought was in the best interests of the business, and largely ignored my instructions from head office.

The result? They didn’t notice I was not complying with the multiple and competing directives. They did notice our numbers were in the top ten percent in the company.

Remember you heard it here first – the fastest way to aligning your business, and ultimately generating better results is to ignore your head office. Of course, it could also be the most direct route to getting fired, too.

Let’s be careful out there.