Does All That Face Time Make You Wish For “Get Out of My Face” Time? Try This
By Kelly Goldsmith and Marshall Goldsmith | January 7, 2011
You can count on them. They can count on you. You’re open, inclusive, always there for them. But could you be a little too open?
Case in point: The editor-in-chief of a top women’s magazines was a very dedicated and well-organized leader. She took pride in her ability to juggle a high-pressure job and a sane personal life with her husband and two young kids. She tried to be home every night by 6:30 to be with her kids. Her staff considered her a great boss; an excellent listener whose door was always open.
Is it really love?
When this editor found herself make more and more excuses for working late — 9:30 or 10 p.m. every night – she told herself it was simply that she loved her job. (Running a glamorous money-making magazine can be a ton of fun!) But as she analyzed the problem, she realized it had nothing to do with her love for her work. Instead, it was her staff that loved her too much — and depended on her too much.
Dependent relationships can be one of the darker sides of power. Great leaders know how much they rely on the people in their organizations. They don’t just count on the power of their positions to get things done; they create the kind of loyalty and respect that inspires people to “take the hill” even when it’s most difficult. But the more the leader is respected and admired, the more her staff may feel the need to gain her approval.
It’s never just “a couple minutes”
Staff members often see access as a sign of status. They assume that if the leader chooses to spend her limited time with any one person, that person’s ideas and opinions must be the most important. But this can play out as a grab for face time and can lead to a dependency that becomes trouble.
The magazine editor had created an environment where getting face time with her was as easy as going to the ATM. This developed into a never-ending spiral where she could never leave the office. People were always coming by, saying, “I just need a couple of minutes of your time.” As we all know, a “couple of minutes” always means more than a couple. She tried to give her staff whatever they needed. It just seemed as if they needed too much.
She finally became frustrated, gathered her staff together, and announced, “From now on, my door is closed at 5:45. After that, no more face time. At 5:45, it’s get-out-of-my-face time!”
Not surprisingly, this approach didn’t work. She was punishing her staff for a situation she had created, and they felt abandoned. She wanted to empower her staff to take responsibility, yet she still wanted to provide help when needed.
Boundary issues
She came up with a wonderful idea–one that can work for anyone who feels trapped by the needs of staffers. She set up one-on-one meetings with each of her direct reports to discuss responsibilities, hers and theirs.
First she asked each person to look at their own responsibilities. “Are there places where I can let go? Other instances where my help can make a big difference?”
Her staff acknowledged that they didn’t really need her input on many decisions. Checking in so frequently had become a habit. Each person was also able to re-focus on areas where the editor’s involvement would really pay off.
Do you really want to let go?
Next the editor asked her staff to look at her responsibilities. She asked, “Do you ever see me doing things I don’t need to be doing? Are there activities I could delegate?” Every person had at least one good idea of to help her let go, save time, and help staff members develop.
The editor implemented almost all of their suggestions. And she realized that while part of the problem was the staff’s dependence, another issue was her own need to feel important.
The pay-off
Follow this course, and face time will have as much value as Confederate paper. Within a year or so, employees will be much stronger — and ready to talk again about how little face time they need with you, and how much more out-of-my-face time.
MY THOUGHTS
well put. really great! you want to let your staff know you're there for them. for things they cannot take care of themselves. if you're out of the office and your phone keeps on ringing, you've made them to dependent. or you have not equipped them enough. or maybe that's how you want things to be. shame on you!
Friday, January 28, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
SUPERSTITIONS HOLDING YOU BACK?
Are Your Secret Superstitions Holding Back Your Career?
By Kelly Goldsmith and Marshall Goldsmith | October 6, 2010
Walking under a ladder. Breaking a mirror. A black cat darting across your path. So what, right? As a worldly business person, you probably scorn superstitions as silly beliefs of the primitive and uneducated. Deep down inside, you assure yourself, you’re above these antiquated notions.
Not so fast. To a degree, everyone is superstitious. And in many cases, the higher one climbs up the organizational totem pole, the more superstitious one becomes.
Psychologically speaking, superstitious behavior comes from the belief that nonfunctional activity followed by positive reinforcement is actually the cause of that positive reinforcement. Years ago, psychologist B.F. Skinner showed how hungry pigeons may repeat nonfunctional behavior when their twitches and scratches are reinforced by small pellets of grain. From our experience, hungry corporate leaders may also repeat nonfunctional behavior when their behavior is followed by large pellets of money and recognition.
Superstition is merely the confusion of correlation and causality. Any human (in fact, any animal) will tend to repeat behavior that’s followed by positive reinforcement. The more one achieves, the more reinforcement one gets. One of the greatest mistakes of successful leaders is the assumption, “I behave this way, and I am successful. Therefore, I must be successful because I behave this way.”
Almost everyone we meet in our work is successful because of doing a lot right, and almost everyone we meet is successful in spite of some behavior that doesn’t make any sense. One of my greatest challenges is helping leaders avoid the “superstition trap.” This occurs when they confuse because of and in spite of behaviors.
Consider Jim. He was a brilliant, dedicated executive who consistently made his numbers. He wasn’t just smart; his creative ideas led to groundbreaking new procedures. Everyone agreed that he had been instrumental in helping turn around his organization. He sincerely cared about the company, employees, customers, and shareholders. On top of all that, Jim had a great wife. His two kids were enrolled in top colleges. He lived in a beautiful home in a great neighborhood. Overall, life was very good for Jim.
Except for one thing. Jim was a remarkably poor listener. Even though his direct reports and coworkers respected him, they felt that he didn’t listen to them. They were somewhat intimidated by his genius and creativity. At times, they felt that if Jim had made up his mind, it was useless to express another opinion. His wife and kids loved him, but they also felt that he didn’t hear a word they said. If his dog could speak, it would have said the same thing.
We suggested to Jim that he was probably successful because of his talent, hard work, and some good luck. And we also suggested that he was probably successful in spite of being an appallingly bad listener.
Jim acknowledged that other people thought he should become a better listener, but he wasn’t sure that he should change. He had convinced himself that his poor listening actually helped him succeed. Like many high achievers, he wanted to defend his superstitious beliefs. He pointed out that some people present awful ideas and that he shouldn’t just pretend to listen to those stupid suggestions to make them happy. He proudly asserted that he didn’t suffer fools gladly.
When asked whether he really believed that his coworkers and family members were fools, he grimaced and shamefacedly conceded that his comment was stupid. These were people he respected. Upon further reflection, he concluded that perhaps he sometimes acted like a fool.
Jim then went into defensive reaction number two: fear of overcorrection. He expressed concern that he might start listening too much and that the company might not benefit from his creative ideas. Perhaps he would become too unwilling to share his opinions. We pointed out that the danger that a 55-year-old man who had been seen as a bad listener for his entire life would overcorrect and become excessively interested in others’ opinions was extremely remote. We assured him that he could remove this concern from his things-to-worry-about list. Ultimately, he decided it was more productive to hear people out than waste time justifying his own dysfunctional behavior.
Think about yourself. What are you doing because it actually helps you achieve results? And what are you doing because of some irrational superstitious belief that may have been affecting your life for years?
We’ve never met anyone who was so perfect that there was nothing on his or her in spite of list. What’s on yours?
MY THOUGHTS
this article calls it being superstitious.i call it being stubborn. we get stubborn about changing what we think is right because it worked so many times in the past. we forget that times change, circumstances change. what worked for us 10, 15 years ago will not hold water anymore.
By Kelly Goldsmith and Marshall Goldsmith | October 6, 2010
Walking under a ladder. Breaking a mirror. A black cat darting across your path. So what, right? As a worldly business person, you probably scorn superstitions as silly beliefs of the primitive and uneducated. Deep down inside, you assure yourself, you’re above these antiquated notions.
Not so fast. To a degree, everyone is superstitious. And in many cases, the higher one climbs up the organizational totem pole, the more superstitious one becomes.
Psychologically speaking, superstitious behavior comes from the belief that nonfunctional activity followed by positive reinforcement is actually the cause of that positive reinforcement. Years ago, psychologist B.F. Skinner showed how hungry pigeons may repeat nonfunctional behavior when their twitches and scratches are reinforced by small pellets of grain. From our experience, hungry corporate leaders may also repeat nonfunctional behavior when their behavior is followed by large pellets of money and recognition.
Superstition is merely the confusion of correlation and causality. Any human (in fact, any animal) will tend to repeat behavior that’s followed by positive reinforcement. The more one achieves, the more reinforcement one gets. One of the greatest mistakes of successful leaders is the assumption, “I behave this way, and I am successful. Therefore, I must be successful because I behave this way.”
Almost everyone we meet in our work is successful because of doing a lot right, and almost everyone we meet is successful in spite of some behavior that doesn’t make any sense. One of my greatest challenges is helping leaders avoid the “superstition trap.” This occurs when they confuse because of and in spite of behaviors.
Consider Jim. He was a brilliant, dedicated executive who consistently made his numbers. He wasn’t just smart; his creative ideas led to groundbreaking new procedures. Everyone agreed that he had been instrumental in helping turn around his organization. He sincerely cared about the company, employees, customers, and shareholders. On top of all that, Jim had a great wife. His two kids were enrolled in top colleges. He lived in a beautiful home in a great neighborhood. Overall, life was very good for Jim.
Except for one thing. Jim was a remarkably poor listener. Even though his direct reports and coworkers respected him, they felt that he didn’t listen to them. They were somewhat intimidated by his genius and creativity. At times, they felt that if Jim had made up his mind, it was useless to express another opinion. His wife and kids loved him, but they also felt that he didn’t hear a word they said. If his dog could speak, it would have said the same thing.
We suggested to Jim that he was probably successful because of his talent, hard work, and some good luck. And we also suggested that he was probably successful in spite of being an appallingly bad listener.
Jim acknowledged that other people thought he should become a better listener, but he wasn’t sure that he should change. He had convinced himself that his poor listening actually helped him succeed. Like many high achievers, he wanted to defend his superstitious beliefs. He pointed out that some people present awful ideas and that he shouldn’t just pretend to listen to those stupid suggestions to make them happy. He proudly asserted that he didn’t suffer fools gladly.
When asked whether he really believed that his coworkers and family members were fools, he grimaced and shamefacedly conceded that his comment was stupid. These were people he respected. Upon further reflection, he concluded that perhaps he sometimes acted like a fool.
Jim then went into defensive reaction number two: fear of overcorrection. He expressed concern that he might start listening too much and that the company might not benefit from his creative ideas. Perhaps he would become too unwilling to share his opinions. We pointed out that the danger that a 55-year-old man who had been seen as a bad listener for his entire life would overcorrect and become excessively interested in others’ opinions was extremely remote. We assured him that he could remove this concern from his things-to-worry-about list. Ultimately, he decided it was more productive to hear people out than waste time justifying his own dysfunctional behavior.
Think about yourself. What are you doing because it actually helps you achieve results? And what are you doing because of some irrational superstitious belief that may have been affecting your life for years?
We’ve never met anyone who was so perfect that there was nothing on his or her in spite of list. What’s on yours?
MY THOUGHTS
this article calls it being superstitious.i call it being stubborn. we get stubborn about changing what we think is right because it worked so many times in the past. we forget that times change, circumstances change. what worked for us 10, 15 years ago will not hold water anymore.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Are you a Duck at Work?
Managers: Stop the Shuffling and Just Fire the Person
By Suzanne Lucas | July 12, 2010
Dear Evil HR Lady,
I recently accepted a brand new position as regional director. There was a previous director who provided management for a portion of my current region. I have now been tasked with finding a new title and job duties for the previous director. HR is really pushing for this person to retire as he has been employed for many years and one of the reasons they created the new position was to remove him from management. There was a very lucrative retirement package offered, but he declined.
I created a new position based on the organization’s needs. The previous director will assume this new position including a rather large pay cut. My dilemma is that I know this person is not going to be able to meet the new job requirements (I based the job on department needs, not on the current skill level of the previous director). I have tried everything but to directly ask for retirement. Do I have any other options? I am afraid I am going to end up going down the disciplinary action road with ultimate termination since the company has a very quick disciplinary process of three strikes and you’re out.
I hate being put into this position to start with but know I need to deal with it. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Did you know what you were getting into when you took this job? Because if you weren’t told, you should be seriously ticked off and you should tell your boss so.
Was the former manager failing at the job you took? Was it just expanded so much that he didn’t have the capability of doing the job? Or did everyone assume that the old guy wouldn’t want more responsibility?
What your lovely company has just done is set itself up for a big age discrimination lawsuit and by golly I hope they lose. I don’t say that lightly. Normally I tell people that suing will just make their lives miserable, and I admit that if the question writer was the former director, I’d tell him that suing would make his life miserable. But, secretly I hope he’d sue and nail your company’s figurative heiny to the wall.
Because even if this guy was completely incompetent the company is acting like the only reason for wanting him gone is his age. Because if he was a poor performer, they would have fired him already. And by golly, if it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck the jury will conclude that it is a duck.
Now, here is what should have happened.
1. Sr. Management determines that Previous Director (PD) is not capable of handling the expanded responsibilities.
2. Sr. Management documents failings
3. Sr. Management coaches PD on his problems and gives him the opportunity to improve
4. If improvement occurs, the process is over and he moves into the new role. If there is no improvement then…
5. PD is told that his last day of work will be X and that in exchange for him signing a general release he will be given a severance package according to the company standard plan.
6. PD may negotiate or not. Final agreement is made.
7. PD has his last day worked, signs his general release and is never heard from again OR
8. PD refuses to sign, is terminated anyway, and launches a lawsuit. Company wins because they have documented evidence of poor performance.
But, that isn’t what happened. So now you have a guy who believes he was competent in his job, bumped out by some young whippersnapper (If you’re older than he was, then super–age lawsuit isn’t relevant, but I’m guessing that isn’t the case), and is now placed in a job that he is not a good fit for and will fail in. This will make him angry, defensive and likely to sue. And because of the way this has been handled up until now, likely to win. (Although I will note, I am not a lawyer and don’t pretend to be.)
If he was doing the previous job competently then the lowest risk the company can take is to move you to the new role and put him back in his old position. Sorry! Not the answer you wanted. But, as I said, the way this was handled reeks strongly of age discrimination. If he was not performing at the appropriate high level then everyone needs to stop beating around the bush and terminate the poor man and let him get on with his life.
His direct supervisor (I think this is you) and a witness (either HR or another equally high level manager), need to sit down and say, “PD, the nature of business and the company has changed over the years and as a result of this your employment with X Company has been terminated. Today will be your last day of work. We have put together this severance and retirement package. In order to receive the severance and/or enhanced retirement package you must sign this general release. Please take your time to look it over. We advise you to speak with an attorney prior to making a final decision.”
And then you jump to step 6 above. The only change is that you’re more likely to lose the lawsuit if you have just been shuffling him around rather than documenting his inability to perform. Moving him around to “force” him to resign won’t result in a clean resignation where everyone can pat themselves on the back and say, “boy, look how smart we were to get rid of him without firing him!” He will still have a case for a discrimination claim and even for unemployment, as he can claim a “constructive discharge.”
So, what do you do? You go to your boss and tell him that this person’s poor performance needs to be documented and then he needs to be terminated–not asked to resign, not shuffled around–terminated. Then you go ahead and do that. I know it’s unpleasant. It’s part of being the boss. When you take a job that involves managing other people you take on the responsibility of terminating them if the need arises. If your job was created by combining two positions into one, you don’t need performance issues, as it is a position elimination. (And please note, you don’t actually need a reason to terminate anyone. At will employment in almost all cases. But, the way this has been set up is going to require a reason if you want to survive the law suit.)
Your manager did you no favors by handling this poorly to begin with, but it’s now your problem. So, document, terminate, provide severance and require a general release. And please, please, please, get the release written by legal counsel. It is not okay to write one up yourself.
MY THOUGHTS
"if it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck the jury will conclude that it is a duck." i'm quoting from the article above.
have you worked with ducks? one duck, one quack - not so bad- you learn to live with the quack until it's time to send the duck somewhere else where it can quack all it wants. now several ducks means lots of quacks. if you don't watch it, you'll be quacking,too. and it's your fault. you're the manager, aren't you? you may have inherited the ducks. but you're raising them now. you don't want to use the axe because you don't want to be unpopular with the ducks? then you are the real duck. (the jury should be on you)
you're the manager. your job description includes hiring. but it also includes firing. and if you're a good manager you would know how to hire. and how to fire. with training and coaching in between. one of the biggest mistakes a leader can make is to want to be popular. if everyone likes you, you're not doing your job.
the reason you are a manager (hopefully a leader, too), is the need to make "hard" decisions. that's why you're getting more pay. more fringe. that's where the ducks and their quacks come in.
if you need a goose to lay the golden eggs (that's what the head farmer expects from you) you find a goose. it can be a baby goose. but it should think and act like a goose. a young goose. with lots of potential to lay the golden goose eggs.
a duck, will never be a goose. that's just in fairy tales. a duck, will lay eggs. even golden eggs. duck eggs. not goose eggs. you can train the duck. coach the duck. send the duck to the best schools, training abroad. it comes back. it's still a duck. and it's still gonna give you duck eggs. you gave the duck training for a goose. what do you expect?
you think you're doing the duck a favor by letting it stay in your farm? wrong. you're making the duck miserable because nothing in this world can make it a goose. so, you transfer this duck to some other place in the farm. but yours is a goose farm!!!! and you let one single, miserable duck quack around your goose farm. you end up with geese quacking like ducks.
now, if you're a goose in a duck farm, you know what to do.
and if you're a duck, reading this. don't take it personally. there's nothing wrong with you. you're just in the wrong farm.
oh my goodness! enough is enough. i can feel myself ready to quack.
By Suzanne Lucas | July 12, 2010
Dear Evil HR Lady,
I recently accepted a brand new position as regional director. There was a previous director who provided management for a portion of my current region. I have now been tasked with finding a new title and job duties for the previous director. HR is really pushing for this person to retire as he has been employed for many years and one of the reasons they created the new position was to remove him from management. There was a very lucrative retirement package offered, but he declined.
I created a new position based on the organization’s needs. The previous director will assume this new position including a rather large pay cut. My dilemma is that I know this person is not going to be able to meet the new job requirements (I based the job on department needs, not on the current skill level of the previous director). I have tried everything but to directly ask for retirement. Do I have any other options? I am afraid I am going to end up going down the disciplinary action road with ultimate termination since the company has a very quick disciplinary process of three strikes and you’re out.
I hate being put into this position to start with but know I need to deal with it. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Did you know what you were getting into when you took this job? Because if you weren’t told, you should be seriously ticked off and you should tell your boss so.
Was the former manager failing at the job you took? Was it just expanded so much that he didn’t have the capability of doing the job? Or did everyone assume that the old guy wouldn’t want more responsibility?
What your lovely company has just done is set itself up for a big age discrimination lawsuit and by golly I hope they lose. I don’t say that lightly. Normally I tell people that suing will just make their lives miserable, and I admit that if the question writer was the former director, I’d tell him that suing would make his life miserable. But, secretly I hope he’d sue and nail your company’s figurative heiny to the wall.
Because even if this guy was completely incompetent the company is acting like the only reason for wanting him gone is his age. Because if he was a poor performer, they would have fired him already. And by golly, if it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck the jury will conclude that it is a duck.
Now, here is what should have happened.
1. Sr. Management determines that Previous Director (PD) is not capable of handling the expanded responsibilities.
2. Sr. Management documents failings
3. Sr. Management coaches PD on his problems and gives him the opportunity to improve
4. If improvement occurs, the process is over and he moves into the new role. If there is no improvement then…
5. PD is told that his last day of work will be X and that in exchange for him signing a general release he will be given a severance package according to the company standard plan.
6. PD may negotiate or not. Final agreement is made.
7. PD has his last day worked, signs his general release and is never heard from again OR
8. PD refuses to sign, is terminated anyway, and launches a lawsuit. Company wins because they have documented evidence of poor performance.
But, that isn’t what happened. So now you have a guy who believes he was competent in his job, bumped out by some young whippersnapper (If you’re older than he was, then super–age lawsuit isn’t relevant, but I’m guessing that isn’t the case), and is now placed in a job that he is not a good fit for and will fail in. This will make him angry, defensive and likely to sue. And because of the way this has been handled up until now, likely to win. (Although I will note, I am not a lawyer and don’t pretend to be.)
If he was doing the previous job competently then the lowest risk the company can take is to move you to the new role and put him back in his old position. Sorry! Not the answer you wanted. But, as I said, the way this was handled reeks strongly of age discrimination. If he was not performing at the appropriate high level then everyone needs to stop beating around the bush and terminate the poor man and let him get on with his life.
His direct supervisor (I think this is you) and a witness (either HR or another equally high level manager), need to sit down and say, “PD, the nature of business and the company has changed over the years and as a result of this your employment with X Company has been terminated. Today will be your last day of work. We have put together this severance and retirement package. In order to receive the severance and/or enhanced retirement package you must sign this general release. Please take your time to look it over. We advise you to speak with an attorney prior to making a final decision.”
And then you jump to step 6 above. The only change is that you’re more likely to lose the lawsuit if you have just been shuffling him around rather than documenting his inability to perform. Moving him around to “force” him to resign won’t result in a clean resignation where everyone can pat themselves on the back and say, “boy, look how smart we were to get rid of him without firing him!” He will still have a case for a discrimination claim and even for unemployment, as he can claim a “constructive discharge.”
So, what do you do? You go to your boss and tell him that this person’s poor performance needs to be documented and then he needs to be terminated–not asked to resign, not shuffled around–terminated. Then you go ahead and do that. I know it’s unpleasant. It’s part of being the boss. When you take a job that involves managing other people you take on the responsibility of terminating them if the need arises. If your job was created by combining two positions into one, you don’t need performance issues, as it is a position elimination. (And please note, you don’t actually need a reason to terminate anyone. At will employment in almost all cases. But, the way this has been set up is going to require a reason if you want to survive the law suit.)
Your manager did you no favors by handling this poorly to begin with, but it’s now your problem. So, document, terminate, provide severance and require a general release. And please, please, please, get the release written by legal counsel. It is not okay to write one up yourself.
MY THOUGHTS
"if it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck the jury will conclude that it is a duck." i'm quoting from the article above.
have you worked with ducks? one duck, one quack - not so bad- you learn to live with the quack until it's time to send the duck somewhere else where it can quack all it wants. now several ducks means lots of quacks. if you don't watch it, you'll be quacking,too. and it's your fault. you're the manager, aren't you? you may have inherited the ducks. but you're raising them now. you don't want to use the axe because you don't want to be unpopular with the ducks? then you are the real duck. (the jury should be on you)
you're the manager. your job description includes hiring. but it also includes firing. and if you're a good manager you would know how to hire. and how to fire. with training and coaching in between. one of the biggest mistakes a leader can make is to want to be popular. if everyone likes you, you're not doing your job.
the reason you are a manager (hopefully a leader, too), is the need to make "hard" decisions. that's why you're getting more pay. more fringe. that's where the ducks and their quacks come in.
if you need a goose to lay the golden eggs (that's what the head farmer expects from you) you find a goose. it can be a baby goose. but it should think and act like a goose. a young goose. with lots of potential to lay the golden goose eggs.
a duck, will never be a goose. that's just in fairy tales. a duck, will lay eggs. even golden eggs. duck eggs. not goose eggs. you can train the duck. coach the duck. send the duck to the best schools, training abroad. it comes back. it's still a duck. and it's still gonna give you duck eggs. you gave the duck training for a goose. what do you expect?
you think you're doing the duck a favor by letting it stay in your farm? wrong. you're making the duck miserable because nothing in this world can make it a goose. so, you transfer this duck to some other place in the farm. but yours is a goose farm!!!! and you let one single, miserable duck quack around your goose farm. you end up with geese quacking like ducks.
now, if you're a goose in a duck farm, you know what to do.
and if you're a duck, reading this. don't take it personally. there's nothing wrong with you. you're just in the wrong farm.
oh my goodness! enough is enough. i can feel myself ready to quack.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Make A Really Bad Career Decision
How To Make A Really Bad Career Decision
Jan. 19 2011 - 5:12 pm | 1,084 views | 0 recommendations | 1 comment
Posted by Chrissy Scivicque
Decisions are an inescapable part of life. We all have to make them and, big or small, the process can be daunting. How do you know you’re making wise choices? What if you’re blinded by circumstances, emotions or bad intel?
When it comes to making any kind of major career decision, serious deliberation is in order. But, even with careful consideration, bad decisions still get made.
Below, I’ve outlined six common traps that inevitably lead to regrettable career decisions.
1. Make your decision…then justify it.
Confirmation bias happens when your brain only sees evidence to support its decision. So, imagine you have a new job offer that you’re considering and you think to yourself:
Taking this job would be a really good career move for me. But I guess I should weigh the pros and cons before accepting it…
Your mind is made up. You’re taking the job and any effort spent evaluating the decision will only confirm that it’s the right move.
When facing any major decision, give every option a fair shot. Refuse to take sides until all the evidence is in.
2. Ask everyone you know for advice.
Wanna get totally confused? Just share your dilemma with five friends and family members. It’s pretty much guaranteed that you’ll get five different points-of-view and no one will offer you the wisdom you’re really seeking. Sure, they all love you, support you and want what’s best for you. Each person will sound really convincing as well. But you’re the only one who matters.
Asking for advice will only fill your head with the opinions of others. Plus, they’ll dump their fears and biases on you as well. All of these things will only serve to mask your own true instinct and intellect.
If you absolutely must get an outside perspective, find one that’s truly objective. Hire a coach—someone who isn’t personally involved in your life or your situation.
3. Let fear steer the ship.
In general, a decision that stems from any emotion is usually not as sound as one that is based on fact and reason. When the emotion in control is fear, the outcome is even worse. Fear will push you into irrational decisions. It will hold you hostage and keep you safe in your tiny comfort zone bubble. Fear will never, ever support your higher aspirations. Recognize when fear pops up and be brave. Remember that fear is a sign you’re on the right track.
4. Hold tight to your beliefs, even when evidence proves otherwise.
In the book Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior, authors Ori and Rom Brafman refer to the concept of “commitment”—the natural inclination to hold tight to our beliefs. This is sometimes so strong that we make completely irrational decisions just to support the ideas we’re already mentally, physically and emotionally attached to.
…whether we’ve invested our time and money in a particular project or poured our energy into a doomed relationship, it’s difficult to let go even when things clearly aren’t working.
So, let’s say you’ve always wanted to be a nurse ever since childhood. You spent years in school being trained to do the job. You truly believed it was the only thing you were meant to do with your life. And now, after several years in the field, you’re unhappy. It’s not providing you with the fulfillment you once imagined it would.
Many people end up in situations exactly like this. But they’re so committed to the earlier belief that they’re unable or unwilling to see reality, much less make a decision that goes against that belief.
Allow your beliefs to evolve when evidence justifies it. Never let your earlier commitment to something—or someone—prevent you from doing what feels right.
5. Think in black and white.
When facing a major career decision, it’s easy to get stuck in an “A” or “B” mentality. You see only two choices and nothing in the middle. This is a limiting thought pattern that prevents you from truly understanding the vast number of opportunities that surround you.
In truth, there is always a middle road. When you catch yourself thinking in terms of either/or, step back and say, “Yes, AND…” Yes, you have those two options. AND what else?
6. Get stuck in thinking mode.
This is called “analysis paralysis” and it happens to the best of us. After spending a certain amount of time doing your research, you have to stop thinking and start doing. How long you spend is up to you. But be cautious of getting so bogged down in decision making that you never actually take action on a decision. Give yourself a pre-determined time limit and once it’s reached, game on.
MY THOUGHTS
there are 2 friends i go to when faced with a difficult and major decision. i love and trust all my friends but these 2 are the ones who can always show me the middle road and allows me to see different sides of the coin no matter how painful that may be. i do get 2 differing opinions but it's better than getting stuck.
Jan. 19 2011 - 5:12 pm | 1,084 views | 0 recommendations | 1 comment
Posted by Chrissy Scivicque
Decisions are an inescapable part of life. We all have to make them and, big or small, the process can be daunting. How do you know you’re making wise choices? What if you’re blinded by circumstances, emotions or bad intel?
When it comes to making any kind of major career decision, serious deliberation is in order. But, even with careful consideration, bad decisions still get made.
Below, I’ve outlined six common traps that inevitably lead to regrettable career decisions.
1. Make your decision…then justify it.
Confirmation bias happens when your brain only sees evidence to support its decision. So, imagine you have a new job offer that you’re considering and you think to yourself:
Taking this job would be a really good career move for me. But I guess I should weigh the pros and cons before accepting it…
Your mind is made up. You’re taking the job and any effort spent evaluating the decision will only confirm that it’s the right move.
When facing any major decision, give every option a fair shot. Refuse to take sides until all the evidence is in.
2. Ask everyone you know for advice.
Wanna get totally confused? Just share your dilemma with five friends and family members. It’s pretty much guaranteed that you’ll get five different points-of-view and no one will offer you the wisdom you’re really seeking. Sure, they all love you, support you and want what’s best for you. Each person will sound really convincing as well. But you’re the only one who matters.
Asking for advice will only fill your head with the opinions of others. Plus, they’ll dump their fears and biases on you as well. All of these things will only serve to mask your own true instinct and intellect.
If you absolutely must get an outside perspective, find one that’s truly objective. Hire a coach—someone who isn’t personally involved in your life or your situation.
3. Let fear steer the ship.
In general, a decision that stems from any emotion is usually not as sound as one that is based on fact and reason. When the emotion in control is fear, the outcome is even worse. Fear will push you into irrational decisions. It will hold you hostage and keep you safe in your tiny comfort zone bubble. Fear will never, ever support your higher aspirations. Recognize when fear pops up and be brave. Remember that fear is a sign you’re on the right track.
4. Hold tight to your beliefs, even when evidence proves otherwise.
In the book Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior, authors Ori and Rom Brafman refer to the concept of “commitment”—the natural inclination to hold tight to our beliefs. This is sometimes so strong that we make completely irrational decisions just to support the ideas we’re already mentally, physically and emotionally attached to.
…whether we’ve invested our time and money in a particular project or poured our energy into a doomed relationship, it’s difficult to let go even when things clearly aren’t working.
So, let’s say you’ve always wanted to be a nurse ever since childhood. You spent years in school being trained to do the job. You truly believed it was the only thing you were meant to do with your life. And now, after several years in the field, you’re unhappy. It’s not providing you with the fulfillment you once imagined it would.
Many people end up in situations exactly like this. But they’re so committed to the earlier belief that they’re unable or unwilling to see reality, much less make a decision that goes against that belief.
Allow your beliefs to evolve when evidence justifies it. Never let your earlier commitment to something—or someone—prevent you from doing what feels right.
5. Think in black and white.
When facing a major career decision, it’s easy to get stuck in an “A” or “B” mentality. You see only two choices and nothing in the middle. This is a limiting thought pattern that prevents you from truly understanding the vast number of opportunities that surround you.
In truth, there is always a middle road. When you catch yourself thinking in terms of either/or, step back and say, “Yes, AND…” Yes, you have those two options. AND what else?
6. Get stuck in thinking mode.
This is called “analysis paralysis” and it happens to the best of us. After spending a certain amount of time doing your research, you have to stop thinking and start doing. How long you spend is up to you. But be cautious of getting so bogged down in decision making that you never actually take action on a decision. Give yourself a pre-determined time limit and once it’s reached, game on.
MY THOUGHTS
there are 2 friends i go to when faced with a difficult and major decision. i love and trust all my friends but these 2 are the ones who can always show me the middle road and allows me to see different sides of the coin no matter how painful that may be. i do get 2 differing opinions but it's better than getting stuck.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Dimwitted Leadership Strategies
Guest Post: 5 Dimwitted Leadership Strategies
By Geoffrey James | January 18, 2011
I rarely post material from other writers, but in this case I’m going to make an exception. Success coach Dawna Maclean published the following riff on Sales Machine posts which she’s kindly allowed me to repost. I think it’s definitely worth reading:
Today’s post was inspired by The 8 Stupidest Management Fads of All Time and The 5 Dumbest Management Concepts of All Time by Geoffrey James. I would respectfully disagree with some on his lists but I did enjoy his provocative perspectives.
Geoffrey’s articles got me thinking about the most dim-witted leadership strategies that continue to linger in today’s business community. The good news is that there is growing momentum in our appreciation for transparency and we are finally starting to embrace the power of mass collaboration.
Let’s agree to abolish these 5 useless and more often dooming leadership strategies:
* #1 Command and Control. Command and control leaders might as well put a blindfold on along with some earplugs. Typically these leaders rationalize their methods emphasizing the negative outcomes of consensus based strategies. Consensus based strategies, while polar in nature, are as dysfunctional. Both strategies are negligent and like most things in life the sweet spot is somewhere in the middle. Decision makers are crucial, as are collective buy-in and the voice of the team broadly. We need more leaders that have the confidence to act and the humility to listen.
* #2 Bottom Line Be All End All. Leaders that put the bottom line above all else will eventually find themselves at the bottom without the line. And assuming they defy the odds and sustain this risky strategy, they will not be maximizing their potential. They are simply gaining more than they are losing. I’m not suggesting the bottom line is not important, it is without question a key performance indicator, but it is no more significant than customer experience or employee experience and arguably less important. A healthy bottom line can be a goal, but it is not a strategy. Once again, it’s about balance, we need more leaders with the courage to focus beyond the all mighty dollar.
* #3 Tradition and Prescription. While tradition might provide comfort, familiarity, and even bind groups of people, it can also inhibit and even sabotage meaningful change. I’m not suggesting all traditions be tossed, but they do need to be examined mindfully and they should never be maintained blindly. Similarly prescriptive leadership may provide consistency and reduce complexity but the reality is we do not live in a one size fits all world. It stifles creativity and fosters inflexibility. The effort required to develop a universal solution is enormous and commonly fraught with compromise on behalf of the customer. That said, highly regulated industries often require a more prescriptive approach, such as Health Care. The key is to examine all practices through the lens of your customer; it is possible to both meet regulatory demands and remain creative. Bottom line, we need more creative leaders that embrace and celebrate change.
* #4 The Black Hole. Every company has a black hole, that is where all the wasted money, energy and talents fall when theY are misused, misunderstood or worse unnoticed. I would bet that we could feed an entire continent, if not the world, if we could monetize this waste collectively. Every company needs a ‘waste master’, chances are they would be your most profitable investment. Leaders are often aware of some waste and blind to even more, we need leaders that have the courage and foresight to eliminate waste and in so doing maximize their potentiality.
* #5 The Lone Ranger. This is the “I need to do it myself if it is going to get done right” leader. News flash, you are NOT a leader if you are doing everything and deciding everything. Being a leader is about making others successful and motivating them to act like an owner. A lone ranger may feel like a rock star but nothing could be farther from the truth. This leadership approach will chase away the talent on your team, it clearly does not scale, it is not sustainable, and it puts your business at massive risk. We need leaders that cultivate positive results from others; a smart leader surrounds themselves with those smarter then they are.
READERS: What do you think? As you probably know, I’m not big on using the term “leader”, but her identification of these pathological strategies is, I think, quite brilliant.
MY THOUGHTS
it's easy (or easier) to be a manager. managing is more of a science. there are concrete steps to follow - how to plan, how to budget,how to organize, how to measure performance. but when boundaries are not clear, when the circumstances defy reason, that's when the line is drawn and when leaders are required. leadership is more of an art. there are tips. there are suggestions. but are there really concrete steps on how to inspire? managers give instructions. that's relatively easy. leaders provide vision and creates the desire to follow. not all managers can do that.
By Geoffrey James | January 18, 2011
I rarely post material from other writers, but in this case I’m going to make an exception. Success coach Dawna Maclean published the following riff on Sales Machine posts which she’s kindly allowed me to repost. I think it’s definitely worth reading:
Today’s post was inspired by The 8 Stupidest Management Fads of All Time and The 5 Dumbest Management Concepts of All Time by Geoffrey James. I would respectfully disagree with some on his lists but I did enjoy his provocative perspectives.
Geoffrey’s articles got me thinking about the most dim-witted leadership strategies that continue to linger in today’s business community. The good news is that there is growing momentum in our appreciation for transparency and we are finally starting to embrace the power of mass collaboration.
Let’s agree to abolish these 5 useless and more often dooming leadership strategies:
* #1 Command and Control. Command and control leaders might as well put a blindfold on along with some earplugs. Typically these leaders rationalize their methods emphasizing the negative outcomes of consensus based strategies. Consensus based strategies, while polar in nature, are as dysfunctional. Both strategies are negligent and like most things in life the sweet spot is somewhere in the middle. Decision makers are crucial, as are collective buy-in and the voice of the team broadly. We need more leaders that have the confidence to act and the humility to listen.
* #2 Bottom Line Be All End All. Leaders that put the bottom line above all else will eventually find themselves at the bottom without the line. And assuming they defy the odds and sustain this risky strategy, they will not be maximizing their potential. They are simply gaining more than they are losing. I’m not suggesting the bottom line is not important, it is without question a key performance indicator, but it is no more significant than customer experience or employee experience and arguably less important. A healthy bottom line can be a goal, but it is not a strategy. Once again, it’s about balance, we need more leaders with the courage to focus beyond the all mighty dollar.
* #3 Tradition and Prescription. While tradition might provide comfort, familiarity, and even bind groups of people, it can also inhibit and even sabotage meaningful change. I’m not suggesting all traditions be tossed, but they do need to be examined mindfully and they should never be maintained blindly. Similarly prescriptive leadership may provide consistency and reduce complexity but the reality is we do not live in a one size fits all world. It stifles creativity and fosters inflexibility. The effort required to develop a universal solution is enormous and commonly fraught with compromise on behalf of the customer. That said, highly regulated industries often require a more prescriptive approach, such as Health Care. The key is to examine all practices through the lens of your customer; it is possible to both meet regulatory demands and remain creative. Bottom line, we need more creative leaders that embrace and celebrate change.
* #4 The Black Hole. Every company has a black hole, that is where all the wasted money, energy and talents fall when theY are misused, misunderstood or worse unnoticed. I would bet that we could feed an entire continent, if not the world, if we could monetize this waste collectively. Every company needs a ‘waste master’, chances are they would be your most profitable investment. Leaders are often aware of some waste and blind to even more, we need leaders that have the courage and foresight to eliminate waste and in so doing maximize their potentiality.
* #5 The Lone Ranger. This is the “I need to do it myself if it is going to get done right” leader. News flash, you are NOT a leader if you are doing everything and deciding everything. Being a leader is about making others successful and motivating them to act like an owner. A lone ranger may feel like a rock star but nothing could be farther from the truth. This leadership approach will chase away the talent on your team, it clearly does not scale, it is not sustainable, and it puts your business at massive risk. We need leaders that cultivate positive results from others; a smart leader surrounds themselves with those smarter then they are.
READERS: What do you think? As you probably know, I’m not big on using the term “leader”, but her identification of these pathological strategies is, I think, quite brilliant.
MY THOUGHTS
it's easy (or easier) to be a manager. managing is more of a science. there are concrete steps to follow - how to plan, how to budget,how to organize, how to measure performance. but when boundaries are not clear, when the circumstances defy reason, that's when the line is drawn and when leaders are required. leadership is more of an art. there are tips. there are suggestions. but are there really concrete steps on how to inspire? managers give instructions. that's relatively easy. leaders provide vision and creates the desire to follow. not all managers can do that.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Facebook and Productivity
Why Your Employees Are More Productive When They Facebook at Work
By Dave Johnson | January 13, 2011
Many companies spend gobs of money and effort blocking Web sites like Facebook and YouTube in an attempt to corral employees into working more productivity. For many businesses, the Internet is perceived as little more than a temptation to distraction. Here’s a study that shows that the opposite is true.
A study conducted by the University of Melbourne contends that folks who perform reasonable amounts of Web-based goofing off are actually more productive than people who don’t.
The study featured 300 workers and found that those who spent time surfing the Web were about 9% more productive than those who did not.
How did people use the Internet? Online shopping and reading news were the most popular, with playing online games and watching video on YouTube also ranking very high.
The study makes sense. Using the Web for short bouts of recreation help employees recharge between tasks. Says Dr. Brent Coker, from Melbourne’s Department of Management and Marketing:
“Short and unobtrusive breaks, such as a quick surf of the internet, enables the mind to rest itself, leading to a higher total net concentration for a days work, and as a result, increased productivity.”
The lesson, of course, is that you can get more value from employees by embracing the Web and allowing reasonable use of the Web. And it’ll save you a lot of money on IT costs in the process.
MY THOUGHTS
works if you have mature employees. that means you are a mature employer. if you are able to measure results and make decisions based on those results and a system that would ease out non-performers, why bother blocking the internet? if people have enough meaningful work on their hands and they know you're serious about performance, you think they'll find the time to surf the net even if they want to?
during my brief project with a company, the CEO spent money (and time) blocking facebook, youtube and all other internet sights they can block. nothing happened. nothing changed. people found other ways to cheat on time. the real problem was not the internet.it's not even the employees. nor the lack of job descriptions, performance measures and the like. the problem is the CEO. but that's another story.
as a team leader, i really don't mind if you get to all the sites you can go to. unless of course they are morally incorrect sites. but i will raise hell if my people do that and the performance suffers. pretty soon, they will find they have all the time in the world to go to all the social networking sites.
By Dave Johnson | January 13, 2011
Many companies spend gobs of money and effort blocking Web sites like Facebook and YouTube in an attempt to corral employees into working more productivity. For many businesses, the Internet is perceived as little more than a temptation to distraction. Here’s a study that shows that the opposite is true.
A study conducted by the University of Melbourne contends that folks who perform reasonable amounts of Web-based goofing off are actually more productive than people who don’t.
The study featured 300 workers and found that those who spent time surfing the Web were about 9% more productive than those who did not.
How did people use the Internet? Online shopping and reading news were the most popular, with playing online games and watching video on YouTube also ranking very high.
The study makes sense. Using the Web for short bouts of recreation help employees recharge between tasks. Says Dr. Brent Coker, from Melbourne’s Department of Management and Marketing:
“Short and unobtrusive breaks, such as a quick surf of the internet, enables the mind to rest itself, leading to a higher total net concentration for a days work, and as a result, increased productivity.”
The lesson, of course, is that you can get more value from employees by embracing the Web and allowing reasonable use of the Web. And it’ll save you a lot of money on IT costs in the process.
MY THOUGHTS
works if you have mature employees. that means you are a mature employer. if you are able to measure results and make decisions based on those results and a system that would ease out non-performers, why bother blocking the internet? if people have enough meaningful work on their hands and they know you're serious about performance, you think they'll find the time to surf the net even if they want to?
during my brief project with a company, the CEO spent money (and time) blocking facebook, youtube and all other internet sights they can block. nothing happened. nothing changed. people found other ways to cheat on time. the real problem was not the internet.it's not even the employees. nor the lack of job descriptions, performance measures and the like. the problem is the CEO. but that's another story.
as a team leader, i really don't mind if you get to all the sites you can go to. unless of course they are morally incorrect sites. but i will raise hell if my people do that and the performance suffers. pretty soon, they will find they have all the time in the world to go to all the social networking sites.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Learning How to Live with Certainty in Uncertain Times
Learning How to Live with Certainty in Uncertain Times
By Deepak Chopra
Original Content | January 06, 2010
What makes a relationship right, or an important decision? How can you tell if deep spiritual questions have an answer? As children, we all asked these questions. They came naturally. Is there a God? Do I have a soul? What happens after I die? Children are too young to understand that their parents are just as confused as they are. But the answers are given, and for a time they suffice. If Grandma went to heaven to be with Grandpa, a child will sleep better and feel less sad.
When you grow up, however, the same questions return. You can postpone the deeper ones, perhaps, but not in matters of love, relationships, and personal decisions. Everyone wants to know the answers to those kinds of dilemmas. And thus you discover that your parents, however well intentioned, never showed you the way (unless you happen to be one child in a million who had very mature parents who could truly love and understand you).
I know I seem to be painting a very large, open-ended picture. But getting into a healthy relationship, discovering whether you have a soul and even picking the right job have something in common.
In all these cases you either hope, believe or know what the answer is. "I hope he loves me enough." "I believe my spouse is faithful." "I know this marriage is solid." These are very different statements, and we find ourselves awash in confusion because "I hope," "I believe" and "I know" are never the same thing. We just wish they were.
If you will indulge me in sounding so abstract, there's a useful lesson here. The spiritual path actually has only these three elements. You move from a state of uncertainty—"I hope?—to a somewhat firmer state of security—"I believe"—and eventually end up with true understanding—"I know." It doesn't matter whether the specific issue is about relationships, God or the soul, about the higher self, heaven or the far reaches of the supernatural. Either you hope, you believe or you know.
MY THOUGHTS
i know that there's reason for me to believe that there's always hope. this article is deep. hoping starts it all, i guess.
By Deepak Chopra
Original Content | January 06, 2010
What makes a relationship right, or an important decision? How can you tell if deep spiritual questions have an answer? As children, we all asked these questions. They came naturally. Is there a God? Do I have a soul? What happens after I die? Children are too young to understand that their parents are just as confused as they are. But the answers are given, and for a time they suffice. If Grandma went to heaven to be with Grandpa, a child will sleep better and feel less sad.
When you grow up, however, the same questions return. You can postpone the deeper ones, perhaps, but not in matters of love, relationships, and personal decisions. Everyone wants to know the answers to those kinds of dilemmas. And thus you discover that your parents, however well intentioned, never showed you the way (unless you happen to be one child in a million who had very mature parents who could truly love and understand you).
I know I seem to be painting a very large, open-ended picture. But getting into a healthy relationship, discovering whether you have a soul and even picking the right job have something in common.
In all these cases you either hope, believe or know what the answer is. "I hope he loves me enough." "I believe my spouse is faithful." "I know this marriage is solid." These are very different statements, and we find ourselves awash in confusion because "I hope," "I believe" and "I know" are never the same thing. We just wish they were.
If you will indulge me in sounding so abstract, there's a useful lesson here. The spiritual path actually has only these three elements. You move from a state of uncertainty—"I hope?—to a somewhat firmer state of security—"I believe"—and eventually end up with true understanding—"I know." It doesn't matter whether the specific issue is about relationships, God or the soul, about the higher self, heaven or the far reaches of the supernatural. Either you hope, you believe or you know.
MY THOUGHTS
i know that there's reason for me to believe that there's always hope. this article is deep. hoping starts it all, i guess.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
The One Personal Goal YOu Need as a Leader
The One Personal Goal You Need for 2011
By Sean Silverthorne | January 3, 2011
Goals. We all make them to start the new year. And forget them by Valentine’s Day.
So here’s your excuse to stop working on your Personal Goals for 2011 right this moment. The reason: They might make you a less effective leader.
The fact of the matter is that personal goals can come at the expense of something more important: making others around you better by making them your priority. That’s the word from Harvard Business School professors Robin Ely and Frances Frei, and Anne Morriss of Concire Leadership Institute.
“That doesn’t mean leaders are selfless. They have personal goals — to build status, a professional identity, and a retirement plan, among other things,” the authors write in the current Harvard Business Review. “But the narrow pursuit of those goals can lead to self-protection and self-promotion, neither of which fosters other people’s success.”
This may be one of the hardest things you will do as a leader. After all, self-protection is the ultimate brain hard-wire. So to downplay our own needs can feel dangerous, according to Ely, Frei and Morriss in their article, Stop Holding Yourself Back.
“But all breakthrough leaders find ways to tame their security impulses. Most are amazed by the energy and meaning they discover when they no longer define themselves by their personal needs and fears.”
OK, so you should have at least one personal goal this year: Make others better. Your commitment should be to make another person, or your entire team, better in some way. At problem solving, or prioritizing, or communicating with customers. Then get them the resources they need to get to work.
MY THOUGHTS
last year, one of my favorite leaders, someone i have worked for and idolized for years, went through some pretty gruelling leadership test. i had the privelege of going through the test with him. when the real crunch time came, he said something i will never forget - "i have nothing to prove to this world". wasn't that a confirmation that he didn't have personal goals? no personal agenda? there was no need for him to work (except probably to keep himself busy???) yet he was there. going through the ordeal. drinking it all in. fighting his way through in the most humbling way. not for himself. but for his personal mission of making others better. i felt he made me better. i certainly hope so.
By Sean Silverthorne | January 3, 2011
Goals. We all make them to start the new year. And forget them by Valentine’s Day.
So here’s your excuse to stop working on your Personal Goals for 2011 right this moment. The reason: They might make you a less effective leader.
The fact of the matter is that personal goals can come at the expense of something more important: making others around you better by making them your priority. That’s the word from Harvard Business School professors Robin Ely and Frances Frei, and Anne Morriss of Concire Leadership Institute.
“That doesn’t mean leaders are selfless. They have personal goals — to build status, a professional identity, and a retirement plan, among other things,” the authors write in the current Harvard Business Review. “But the narrow pursuit of those goals can lead to self-protection and self-promotion, neither of which fosters other people’s success.”
This may be one of the hardest things you will do as a leader. After all, self-protection is the ultimate brain hard-wire. So to downplay our own needs can feel dangerous, according to Ely, Frei and Morriss in their article, Stop Holding Yourself Back.
“But all breakthrough leaders find ways to tame their security impulses. Most are amazed by the energy and meaning they discover when they no longer define themselves by their personal needs and fears.”
OK, so you should have at least one personal goal this year: Make others better. Your commitment should be to make another person, or your entire team, better in some way. At problem solving, or prioritizing, or communicating with customers. Then get them the resources they need to get to work.
MY THOUGHTS
last year, one of my favorite leaders, someone i have worked for and idolized for years, went through some pretty gruelling leadership test. i had the privelege of going through the test with him. when the real crunch time came, he said something i will never forget - "i have nothing to prove to this world". wasn't that a confirmation that he didn't have personal goals? no personal agenda? there was no need for him to work (except probably to keep himself busy???) yet he was there. going through the ordeal. drinking it all in. fighting his way through in the most humbling way. not for himself. but for his personal mission of making others better. i felt he made me better. i certainly hope so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)