Australia vs. The Time-Out Chair

 I was having lunch with friends the other day, and they started asking my advice on some chronically bad behavior at their company.  They were complaining that dysfunctionality was running rampant in their organization, and were wondering what they could do about it.

I asked them one simple question:  "How do your executives act?"

The response was as I expected.  Terms such as "childish" and "distrustful" and "conniving" were thrown about.  It was simple cause-and-effect.  The employees misbehave BECAUSE the executives misbehave.  A while back, I was asked to respond to a letter on Office-Politics.com where the top three executives were having affairs.  I suggested to the letter writer that he may want to consider a career change because their behaviors would eventually filter throughout the company.

It's pretty easy if one person misbehaves.  In school or at daycare or at home, you have a time-out chair to help correct the errant child.  (Some children spend more time on the chair than anywhere else.)  However, a couple of centuries ago, Britain decided they needed a whole island to deal with their less-than-stellar citizens, so Australia was colonized as a prison.  (Now people vacation there; go figure.)  So it is with some organizations.  If you have one or two bad employees, it's fairly easy to deal with them the traditional ways: coaching, counseling, corrective action.  If the whole lot are acting like a werewolf convention during a full-moon, then you have a problem with the overall culture.

The diagnosis of the systems output is simple.  However, the cure can be more challenging (but not impossible).  If enough people (namely executives), decide they want to change the culture (think Seattle's world famous fish market), then anything is possible.  With the Fish! example, the decision to change had to come from the top man himself, and then he had to make good by modeling the behaviors he wanted to see.

Where do you see yourself fitting into this organization?  Are you prepared to tackle an entire culture?  Some battles you can win, but some wars are costly.

There are no easy answers, but it certainly gives you something to think about if you're in an organization where you dread getting up in the morning.

Jest the Facts

I'm a big fan of systems thinking... and I happen to love the "thinking" part every bit as much as the "systems" part.  There's just something about the exchange and use of facts and information that fascinates me.

I've been distressed by the onslaught of poorly constructed rhetoric coming through the media in the past couple of years in the form of political campaigns.  It appears as though both parties have difficulty distinguishing fact from fiction, reality from opinion.  And it doesn't matter which side we're talking about.  Both have become so entrenched that neither will consider a view the doesn't coincide with its own.  For example, here in Iowa, it's a FACT that the courts ruled that banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional.  It is OPINION that this ruling was part of a politically-fueled left-wing conspiracy.  It's a FACT that the democrats at a national level passed a health care bill.  It's OPINION that it will actually help those it is intended to help in the long run.  It is a FACT that some people are in this country without legal documentation; it is OPINION as to whether or not they should be allowed to stay.  (For the record, I could argue pro and con on either side of these arguments, so don't read anything into the above statements that is not intended.)

Facts and opinions are two of the many inputs our brain uses in its own system of making decisions about issues, news, people, and activity.  It also uses beliefs and values, as well as experiences and relationships to form decisions.  This article by Joe Keohane for the Boston Globe points out some fascinating things about us humans.  Facts don't always win.  If one's belief system is so strong, presenting said individual with facts may only backfire:

This bodes ill for a democracy, because most voters - the people making decisions about how the country runs - aren't blank slates. They already have beliefs, and a set of facts lodged in their minds. The problem is that sometimes the things they think they know are objectively, provably false. And in the presence of the correct information, such people react very, very differently than the mere misinformed. Instead of changing their minds to reflect the correct information, they can entrench themselves even deeper.

"The general idea is that it's absolutely threatening to admit you're wrong," says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on the Michigan study. The phenomenon - known as "backfire" - is a "natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.

I think we've all run into those people who are ALWAYS right... even when they are not.  How do we deal with them?  Well, my preference is to disengage.  If somebody won't operate on logic and integrity, why bother dealing with them?  Whether or not I call them out for their behavior (directly or indirectly) depends on the individual and the culture (environment) in which I'm working.  Your main focus needs to remain on why you wanted to convince them in the first place.  If winning over the other individual is not mission critical to meeting your goals, then quit wasting energy there.  It's as silly as the rhetoric the far left and far right use to convince the other how wrong they are.  However, if you need to win the person over, but their belief systems are too strong to let facts influence them, then find other ways to penetrate through their beliefs. In some cases, you may need to appeal to their belief systems.

The key point is recognizing how the system of influence and exchange works between you and your audience before you engage.  It will save you much headache in the future.

Sumac Problem

When we moved into our house over 14 years ago, I was overwhelmed with a number of household projects.  The then-40-year-old house had more than a few quirks, both inside and out.  Over the years, my wife and I (and contractors too numerous to mention) have tackled quite a few of them.  One of the first issues was the amount of sumac growing around the house.

For those who don't know, sumac is a highly productive plant which spreads like wildfire.  It is beautiful for its thick coverage, especially in the fall when its leaves turn a very deep red.  It is the wildlife of landscaping.  It is also a noxious weed, very toxic, and irritating to the skin.  By the time I had finished my "deforestation" project, despite wearing long sleeves and gloves and other protective gear, my arms and legs were a wreck.

Organizations have sumac as well.  They pose as highly productive employees who seem to accomplish a lot of good for the organization through projects or sales or other contributions.  On the surface, their achievements are pleasing to the eye.  But their accomplishments come at a cost:  they are highly toxic.  They poison those around them, making their professional lives miserable.

What to do with organizational sumac?  Well, my friend and leadership guru, Kevin Eikenberry, once conveyed to my students during a guest speaking conference call that "you can't coach toxic," and those behaviors should be eliminated from the organization as quickly as possible.

I've always liked Bob Sutton's approach in his book, The No Asshole Rule.  He suggests calculating the TCA (Total Cost of Assholes) and weighing the cost these people create through absenteeism, turnover, additional meetings, counseling, etc. against their so-called productivity.  When observing the economic balance sheet of bad behavior, it becomes pretty evident that they are not contributing to the bottom line as much as management may credit them.

Of course, there is always the Atticus Finch approach from To Kill a Mockingbird:  "If you just learn a single trick, Scout, you'll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks. You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view... Until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it."  Maybe your sumac needs to be put in someone else's shoes to see how they like their point of view.

No matter how you cut it, sumac is still a weed.  What's really going to determine whether it dies or thrives is how management and the organizational culture react to it.  After all, according to Thorndike's Law of Effect: Behavior that is rewarded tends to be repeated.

Nailing The Dismount

Even in a bad job market, people evidently still have their dignity.

After all, one can only put up with a bad job, bad coworkers, and/or bad boss so long before one gets really fed up and says "Screw it!!!"  I'm always bewildered by those who write into Office-Politics.com and have put up with a bad work situation for (drum roll) YEARS and wonder how they can make it better.  (It's called a "recurring pattern of behavior," Bucky... sloooowly step away from the employer.)

I've been amused by two stories that have made the news in the past couple of days.  The first is Steven Slater of Jet Blue who got fed up with a passenger's disobedience, delivered a rant via the PA, grabbed some beer, and high-tailed it down the inflatable slide.  The second is Jenny, who got fed up with her bad boss, and resigned via photos to her coworkers (in the process exposing her boss's Farmville addiction)... although I'm not sure how credible the latter story is, but it is hilarious nonetheless.

"Take this job and shove it!" never sounded so good... well, except for poor Steven who is now behind bars for his antics.  Everyone has had a bad work situation from time to time.  As I talked about yesterday, office bullies sometimes run rampant and unchecked.  Some executives are utterly clueless.  Silly rules of bureaucracy befuddle otherwise intelligent and rational individuals.

Still, your stint at a particular employer (or client, in my case) is a system.  And your departure is the final piece of output.  Losing it on the dismount is never a good thing... unless you are attempting a triple-quadruple-3/4-rotating-back-front-rotating-vertical-gravity-defying-death-cheating-Holy-Mary-mother-of-God-did-we-really-just-see-that flip.  Then a less than perfect landing might be expected.  I've had clients where I've left less than gracefully (but I've done it with my head held high for what I attempted to do while I was there), and I've dismounted some projects with a style and grace that would leave Shawn Johnson with her mouth gaping.  How you depart is up to you.  But be prepared to deal with the perceptions of others... that feedback loop can be like landing on concrete without padding if you're not careful.

HR Is Neither Human, Nor Are They a Resource

OK, I'm going to have every single SHRM member down my throat if I don't explain my title pretty quickly.

I'm quickly becoming a fan of workplacebullying.org - an outstanding resource for those who are dealing with the extreme of office politics known as workplace bullying.  I take a vested interest in this topic because I was a target of bullying my first job out of college.  Both of the bullies eventually "met their waterloo" and I've been able to observe their roller-coaster careers with interest.  Both have zero credibility with those who now work with them, and those who formerly worked with and for them have extremely unfavorable things to say about them.

Regardless of my own past, I've found this site to be thought-provoking and articulate, especially with a recent post on HR's role in dealing with office politics.  In my afore-mentioned experience, I reached out to HR, who was not only unwilling to help me, but reported my issues to the superiors who were bullying me, just adding fuel to the fire.

A lot has changed in 20 years of evolving organizations... or has it?  Is Human Resources part of the solution or the problem?  After reading two sides of the argument and the corresponding comments, what do you think?  What positions have you observed from HR?  Do they assist with bullying or alleviate it?

What's Black and White and Read all over?

After reading this Deron Snyder article about making snap racial judgments, I was reminded of my own mis-perception on a recent business trip.  As my group pulled up to the hotel, we noticed a large African-American man and a very attractive Caucasian woman conversing at the back of the taxi.  He was somewhat unkempt, and definitely dressed very casually.  She looked like she had just stepped out of a salon, wearing a short, casual dress which complemented her figure.  They appeared to be having a conversation about the future pick-up from the hotel for the trip back to the airport a few days in the future as he pulled suitcases out of the trunk.  What happened next is what floored all of us:  he took his suitcases into the hotel to check in, and she jumped in the driver's seat of the cab and took off.  Everyone in my party completely misread the roles, whether by race, gender, or appearance (or all three), we automatically assumed he was the taxi driver and she was the customer.

If you've ever read Blink by Malcolm Gladwell (truly, one of my favorite books), you learn how your mind really works.  It's an amazing computer, allowing us to generate snap decisions, often with great accuracy.  Gladwell even covers the race/perception issue with alarming clarity.  However, when you look at situations outlined in the article or even your own personal judgments as a systems thinking problem, it really brings things into clearer focus.

Whenever we look at ANY situation, what we see are not the only inputs reaching our brains.  We are also seeing our own past experiences, our judgments, our values, our prejudices, our paradigms.  Tom Vilsack saw what Fox News wanted him (and everyone else) to see.  Based on that information, and his own set of perceptual filters available to him at the time, he reacted... incorrectly.

Next time you go people watching, try something:  suspend judgment.  Just try to see what is actually there.  It's not as easy as it sounds.  You're challenging your mental system by suppressing inputs which the brain naturally wants to process.  Now... the next time you have to make a decision at your job, try the same thing.  What are the facts, and what are the filters? 

Taking My Toy (Story) and Going Home

It's been interesting to read/hear the reactions from my friends about the ending of Toy Story 3.  (Spoiler Alert)  I mean, it's one thing for little kids to get upset at the end when Andy gives all his toys to Bonnie and then drives off into the sunset to go to college, but I've been surprised how many adults (including myself) have gotten a little choked up over the scene.

Having taught a few semesters of an MBA class in creativity, I have a theory about why the end of this flick is affecting adults... I think it forces us to relive our own lost childhood.  We have to come to terms with the fact that we no longer allow ourselves to be kids, to play with toys, to explore our own imaginations (as opposed to video games which give us the story), to know what joy feels like with reckless abandon.  We see Andy going off to college and leaving his toys behind, and we look at our mortgages and car payments and performance appraisals and bad bosses and every-day-spouse-and-kids... we begin to mourn a simpler time in our lives.

My creativity students are pushed into situations where they have to unlearn how to unlearn creativity... yes, you read that right.  We're all born with creativity and in the course of time, we unlearn it.  My job as a professor isn't to teach creativity; to believe I could do so would be both futile and arrogant.  My job is simply to help them whack through all the perceptual filters which have prevented them from being creative... to help them find their box of toys again.

What do you think?  Once we've gone past "infinity and beyond" is it possible to return?

Ought-Opsy

Last month, I got to visit a friend and relative who's a county coroner.  (Lesson learned: never eat BBQ with an engaging story-telling coroner.)  I saw more than my fair share of dead bodies over the weekend, most of which were still intact.  However, a coroner's job is take bodies apart so they can find out why they died.  I saw one such body, dissected on the table like a 3D jigsaw puzzle.  What was more disturbing than the scene was the smell.  Dead, taken-part bodies stink.  Regardless, it was a highly educational weekend in many ways.

To take something else apart, we in Iowa recently held our election primaries.  As I predicted many months ago (in spite of the fact that our current governor has lost a lot of political capital from both parties), Bob Vander Plaats could have saved himself a lot of time and effort by not even entering the race.  He lost soundly to 4-term-Governor-turned-candidate, Terry Branstad.  Then he was shot down again at the convention when he tried to challenge the bid for Lieutenant Governor.  But what has amazed me is the reaction of his followers.  The social conservatives have spent so much energy over the past few months painting Branstad as a liberal-lover or a RINO (Republican In Name Only) because they claim he ignores their desires.

I recently debated this point with a far-right-conservative, and I tried to impress upon him that social issues were still important... just NOT AS important as economic issues at the moment.  Once the party got the economy back on track, then other issues may come to the forefront.  It's called PRIORITIES.  No candidate can take on everything and do it successfully (just ask Obama).  Suffice it to say, he didn't believe me.  It was a very black-and-white mentality of all-or-nothing, my-way-or-the-highway with him.  (To be fair, I see the same behavior in the far left too... that's why I only talk politics with logical moderates and independents... way more productive and far less annoying.)

But I didn't write this post to bash the political players.  In seeking to seize the accomplishment, one must learn to prioritize.  What task needs my attention today?  What relationship should I focus on?  Which project should I do first?  What OUGHT you do first? then second? then third?  What OUGHT your focus be?  What OUGHT to be your priorities?  When you learn to dissect what you OUGHT to do, then you get through things a lot faster.

To avoid prioritizing, whether in politics or in life or in business, means your accomplishment will die a questionable death, and somebody will end up dissecting it.

Gazing Into McChrystal Ball

(Alternatively titled: "A Rolling Stone gathers no boss" OR "Flat Stanley travels to Washington")  

General Stanley McChrystal learned a hard lesson about workplace behavior.  No matter how incompetent you think your boss is, you don't vent your ill will to a public source.  Recently, there was an article in the Des Moines Register about some locals who had lost their job because of Facebook.  I've had situations before where clients thought I was writing about them in my blog.  I assured them that while they may see themselves in the pages, I have a policy about not writing anything critical about an active client (besides, I have MANY past clients who provide me with ample fodder).

Sometimes, people think they are justified in bad-mouthing the boss.  In this soft-economy era, there are more and more stories about employers who have abused the relationship with their employees.  I know of one recently dismissed individual who could easily and justifiably go to the media to blow the whistle on his boss' inappropriate and unprofessional behavior, but he refuses... bad-mouthing the boss just comes back to haunt you.

Granted, I've broken this rule myself throughout my career.  And I've paid for it.  And I've learned from it.  I'm fortunate now that I can be selective in my project choices, and I've learned to tell good client managers from bad client managers through the interview process.

So if you think YOUR boss is a complete schmoe, just remember what poor ol' Stanley is going through this week.  Then watch yourself before you let your inside voice play outside.

Fill-Turd

One of the things I love about blogging is the ability, every once in a while, to stir up some engaging commentary from my readers.  (It seems my Facebook posts do that quite frequently.)  I generally like all blog comments, even from those who disagree with me, as long as they can disagree respectfully.

But recently, my blog has been receiving comments from the dregs of social media: spammers.  Even if they seem like legitimate comments, I really don't want to hear from ViagraGal, WorkfromHome, StudyOnline, BestGamblingSite.  Because of these low-life commenters, I've finally been forced to turn on comment moderation.  GRRRR.  These people want to fill my comment space with irrelevant advertising, so I'm now going to keep them out.

In systems thinking, we talk a lot about inputs, but how often do we discuss filtering out the unwanted inputs?  How do we keep out the crap?  In HR, they do screenings to prevent less-than-desirable hires from reaching the employment status.  In project management, we maintain controls to prevent scope creep from adding to our work.

What about in your job?  What are the undesirable work-turds filling your in-baskets?  What are the safeguards you can use to keep them out?

(And for those who use your real name to comment on my blog with relevant commentary, please be patient with me as I get used to publishing your comments as they appear in my in-box).