flashback friday: do you have a job or a career?

[Today’s flashback is a short piece I originally posted on September 5, 2011. Enjoy!]

I was watching Chris Rock’s “Kill the Messenger” the other night and was really struck by one of his comments. I’m paraphrasing, but he basically said that you know you have a career when there’s never enough time. You look at your watch and it’s already after 5pm so you plan on coming in early the next day. With a job, there’s too much time. You look at your watch and it’s just after 9am and the day stretches out ahead.

Absolutely brilliant! It doesn’t matter if you’re overpaid or underpaid, hourly or salaried, educated or uneducated, or what field you’re in or company you work for: if there’s never enough time to accomplish all that you’re excited about getting done, you have a career; if time is your enemy, you have a job. There’s a lot of people with college degrees in high paying jobs and there’s a lot of people just getting by (for now) who are forging their career.

So, what’s the scoop? Do you have a job or a career? If you have a job, what would it take to get a career?

 

social media leap of faith

Social media seems to simultaneously intrigue and terrify a lot of businesses. They love the idea of their message and brand going viral and being cheerfully spread throughout the land by their adoring customers (at no incremental cost to the company). The problem is, they also want to control 100% of the message and when they find out they can’t control the message, they don’t want to play.

It’s a silly argument that is perpetual, redundant, cliché, and not going away: What if people say bad things about us? What if they hurt our brand? The response is just as obvious, cliché, and not going away: People are already saying bad things. And they are saying good things. The leaders of these companies are scared because they can’t control the conversation. They can’t control what others are saying.

What they aren’t seeing is that social media is not all or nothing. It’s not “we control the message or we won’t play at all.” The conversation is happening regardless. Pretending it doesn’t exist does nothing to stop the damage; does nothing to build the brand; does nothing to create strong relationships with customers.

That’s the key, isn’t it? In the past, the business / customer relationship was one-way. We used simplemindedly archaic terms like “customer loyalty” as though our customers owed the business something. It’s not a top down relationship like from commander to the troops or from dictator to the masses. It’s a relationship of peers and equals. Both parties have something the other party wants and values. Both parties can benefit from or be hurt by the relationship.

In Richard Bach’s book Illusions there is a story of an underwater society that clings to the bottom of a river so they won’t get battered by the current. One day, one of them, against all traditional wisdom, let go. He was initially tumbled and bruised as he was forced along by the current. But then, after this painful start, his journey smoothed out and we was swept along with, rather than against, the river. Suddenly, there was a freedom never experienced before. (I’m going solely from memory, but that’s the gist that stuck with me.)

I suspect that letting go of the idea that we must control the conversation is a very similar leap of faith. We have to let go and stop pretending that the conversation is always one-sided and people don’t say things about us. When we first listen, learn, and seek out what is being said it probably feels like we’re being hit with the full force of the current. Painful, chaotic, out of control. It’s a leap of faith.

But then, if we realize the tremendous power in actual two-way conversation, where we can respond and influence, instead of duck, cover, and retaliate, it smooths out. We shift from controlling very narrow messages to expanding and influencing and flowing with much larger discussions and conversations. The relationship changes and becomes much more potent for it.

Ultimately, I believe that influence is much more powerful than control. Control contracts. We can only control so much. Influence is expansive. We can influence far more people, messages, and relationships than we can control.

It’s a leap of faith though to shift from control to influence. When you are used to telling the customer what to think it’s a huge jump to welcoming discussion and conversation with the customer. It’s a shift from controlling the message to being transparent. This transparency shows confidence, vulnerability, and authenticity. It creates real interactions. It changes the conversation.

The thing is, it’s impossible to do a leap of faith half way. You can’t “sorta” do it. Are you willing to make that leap as a company? As a department? As an individual?

 

i know what i know. do you?

I live out in the country and drive the same route to work every morning and, depending on who is getting which of our kids, drive the same route home at least three evenings a week plus multiple times on the weekend.

I know this route.

Except that the other day I noticed that a section of road that I would have sworn was 60mph wasn’t. What? No, it has to be 60mph. I know it is because I routinely grumble that the speed limit is too slow for that particular road.

I don’t know this route.

When did the speed limit change? When did it get raised to 65? Don’t know. It could have been over the weekend. Or, more likely, it was raised about a year ago when a connecting section of road also had its speed limit raised.

I know the answer yet I don’t. I only think I do. It changed when I wasn’t paying attention. I’ve been living by old rules and circumstances, unaware that they no longer apply. Unaware that I’ve been holding myself back.

The speed limit is a pretty minor thing. Yet, I have the opportunity to see the new rules daily. There is the immediate feedback of cars passing me that might cause me to question what I know, but never did. How much else that I know to be true might now be outdated. Incorrect. Wrong.

If it took so long to change a superficial belief system about HOW THINGS ARE despite all the contrary evidence, how long would it take me to change what I believe about topics I really care about?

What do you know that you don’t know?

So, how’s your diversity and inclusion initiative going?

How convinced are you that you really know the skills and experience required to succeed in that position you’re trying to fill?

What new technologies might make your job easier?

What are the top three actions you need to take this year to succeed in your own job?

Are you sure?

I know what I know. What do you know? What are the odds we might be wrong?

two secrets for better public speaking in 5 minutes or less

[Ok, just had to use an infomercial style title this morning. Seemed like a fun way to kick off a Saturday]

Public speaking is a crucial career (and life) skill that requires practice and persistence before most people feel comfortable. And, no matter how good we get, there is no finish line – there is always room to develop our skill even further. It can be a tedious and painful process, but there is a way to short cut it a little.

Use your video camera (differently)

Videotaping yourself presenting – and actually watching the video – is the only way you can see how your audience is experiencing you. We all know that. But it can be lengthy, tedious process. Here are two “secret” ways to shortcutting the process and picking up on nuances you might otherwise miss.

Different way #1: It’s not what you say, it’s your body language

Shut the sound off. That’s right: watch your presentation without listening to it. Communication is 55% body language and with the volume down all your attention is on your presence. In just minutes (5 or less!) you can easily see how confident, energetic, enthusiastic, charming, engaging, etc. you are.

Different way #2: Did you really mean to move like that?

Watch it in fast forward. It’s amazing how much you can pick up about your presence and body language that you don’t notice at regular speed (but your audience is noticing subconsciously). Are you flapping your arms about, pacing like a lion in solitary confinement, or stuck in a repetitive gesture? You’ll see it right away (that’s right – 5 minutes or less!).

Don’t words matter?

Yes, sort of. Words are about 10% of the message received by your audience. It’s an important 10% that can either be supported or completely undermined and negated by your presence and body language. Shutting the sound off or watching on fast forward removes the distraction of your words and lets you really focus on how you are coming across.

destroy your job (on purpose)

“Destroy everything, and build it up again.” ~ Hatebreed

I love to build and hate to maintain. I crave variety, new thoughts, new ideas. I want to hang out with the people who make me run faster and think harder to keep up. I want to play bigger, live louder, and do better. Tear it down, shake it up, and put it all back together.

If this is not you, please stop right here. The rest of this post will be absolutely baffling.

Destroy Your Job

Well, no, I don’t want you to actually destroy your job. But I do want you to reconsider what it is and what it could be. Below are two thought exercises, perfect for a Friday morning (or afternoon, for my friends across the Water).

1. Redesign

What if your position you were tasked with creating your position from scratch? Forget everything you know about your job (tougher than it sounds) and truly start with a clean sheet of paper. Pretend you are leaving the company on super good terms and are designing the position for your successor.

What are the three most important benefits the role could provide to the company? What projects, initiatives, and goals best support those benefits? What responsibilities would you make 100% sure were a part of this role? What duties would you fight to ensure were never handled by this position ever again? In your boldest dreams, what could this position be doing for the company?

2. Make Yourself Redundant

What would you need to do to eliminate your position while ensuring its core functions are fulfilled? I love this question because it forces us to really think about the essential value the position brings.

What work would go to other people? What needs to be done that could be easily and logically absorbed by other roles?

What work would stop entirely? If it doesn’t add much value, why continue doing it? More importantly, why continue doing it now?

What work could be easily automated? If it needs to be done, is there a way to automate it to minimize the impact to other roles yet still provide full value to the company?

What work could be outsourced while maintaining quality and still supporting the company? (Note: just because something can be outsourced, doesn’t mean it should.)

Of the work that is still left, is it truly valuable or is there a higher value use of the role’s time?

What new and higher value work could the position take on?

And Build It Up Again

Notice that the point of thinking about how to destroy your job is not to eliminate it, but to give it laser focus and expand it. Creation, not destruction. A thought exercise to ignite the Phoenix. If there are tasks and responsibilities that are easily added or eliminated, functions that need to stay or go to destroy the position or make it redundant, why not do them right now so you can focus on the truly exciting work the position could bring?

What thinks you?

human resources’ top goal?

From time to time I see HR folks insisting that the primary purpose of Human Resources is to keep the company from being sued. This philosophy is at the very core of everything I find wrong with HR.

Yes, HR can play a huge role in preventing or mitigating employment lawsuits. This is an important result of HR, but the top goal? Prevent lawsuits vs. select and train really great people? Prevent lawsuits vs. creating an environment where people actually want to be there? Prevent lawsuits vs. helping managers be the best leaders they can be? It really seems to be putting the cart before the horse. After all, a company can get sued if it mismanages its money but no one ever says that the number one goal of the finance department is to prevent lawsuits. You can get sued for being abusive to customers or false advertising, but I’ve never heard anyone suggest that the primary purpose of customer service and marketing are to prevent lawsuits.

Want to know the #1 way to ensure that HR is never involved in any strategic level conversations? Want to guarantee that your company culture is rife with fear and managers don’t manage? Want to be stuck in the glorious tar pit of HR as bureaucracy? Spend all your time focused on not getting sued.

In the perfect little world in my head, HR’s #1 goal is to help the company perform at its best. Minimizing lawsuits is a byproduct of doing things right; it’s a means to an end but not the end itself. The best processes and practices will help the company perform in a way that comply with all the laws and regulations. However, “not getting sued” as an end goal will never, ever create high performance. It’s like a runner training for a marathon with the #1 goal of not getting injured. Sure, they don’t want to get injured, but the best way to not get injured is to not train. After all, you can’t pull a muscle sitting on the couch. But that doesn’t work because their #1 goal is to perform at their best on race day. Not getting hurt is a part of that, but it’s obviously not the focus. Instead, the runner knows that with good planning, preparation, and execution of a training program they will minimize their chances of getting injured while maximizing the chances of high performance.

It’s an idea worth repeating: HR’s #1 goal is to help the company perform at its best.  And if you do it well, you automatically reduce the chance of getting sued. But that’s an outcome of doing things right not the other way around. For example, adhering to all the anti-discrimination laws does not ensure that you hire great people. But when you are focused on hiring the best people you will naturally seek diverse talent pools because you don’t want to exclude the best talent because of arbitrary bias.

Can we move HR out of the dark ages now? Instead of operating out of continual fear of lawsuit, let’s create high performing companies by helping people be at their best.

 

[This was first posted on November 14, 2011. I’ve reposted it because the issue was on my mind this morning.]

the good news about disengagement

“Stereotype fools, playing the game. Nothing unique, they all look the same. In this Sea of Mediocrity, I can be anything – anything I want to be.” ~ Arch Enemy

The Bad News:

People everywhere are disengaged from work. The statistics, if accurate, are horrifying. Within just the past year or two, Gallup indicated that 72% of US workers were not engaged in their work. This disengagement ranges from just going through the motions and getting through the day to actively undermining the efforts of co-workers and the company. Gallup also reports that the lost productivity from actively disengaged employees puts a $370,000,000,000 drag on the economy each year. Other research and news outlets consistently report similar findings.

That’s bad news for the economy, bad news for the average company, and not much fun for the majority of workers.

The Good News:

There is actually so good news that comes with so many people setting such a low bar for themselves and the world.

At the leadership / company level, there is a very effective and nearly uncopyable competitive advantage for those who can attract, develop, and retain people who care. [Here’s a little secret: people who care want to be around other people who care. Use this information to your advantage.]

At the individual level, the more others are disengaged, the easier it is for you to stand out as a superstar. Show up, smile, do a good job, do right by the customer and the company, and you’ll be looking good. Have some enthusiasm, give a damn, strive to go the extra mile, and you’ll be a full on rock star.

statistics can’t predict the individual

That position you’re trying to fill? All those candidates you’re interviewing and assessing, scrutinizing and evaluating to find the very best person for the job? I’ve got some bad news for you.

I’ve probably never met you. Certainly don’t know the position you’re trying to fill or the candidates you’re looking for but I do know one thing. It is impossible to predict whether an individual will excel at the job or not. Can’t be done.

We want to. We want to know that we’re hiring the right person. We want to believe we can look them over and just know. Hiring managers think they can tell something by the way a person shakes hands or looks them in the eye or where they went to school or their GPA in Junior High or how nicely dressed they are or where they have worked in the past or the recommendation of a friend of a friend’s friend. Vendors really want us to believe that if we purchase their assessment, their interview guide, their hiring secrets book that we’ll suddenly know the perfect match for the job. But, no matter how good we are overall, we can’t predict the outcome of any one individual.

If you go to a doctor and get diagnosed with a life endangering disease, the doctor cannot predict your chance of survival. This is important: they can only tell you the survival rate of people with a similar set of symptoms. They can tell you that, as a group, X% survive, but they cannot tell you your exact chance of survival. There are just too many individually specific factors at play such as genetics, skill of the doctor/medical facility, resources, your state of mind, willingness to fight, etc. Statistics can’t predict the individual.

Credit scores are used to predict how likely someone is to pay their debt based on past history, current debt load, etc. The strongest we can say is that people with X credit score tend to be a safe credit risk. But it can’t say how likely an individual is to pay their debt. Again, there are just too many uncontrollable variables: a person with a great credit score might lose their job, have a financially catastrophic medical emergency, go through an ugly divorce, develop a drug habit – who knows? Likewise, although people with low credit scores tend to be more of a credit risk, it’s impossible to predict what a specific person with a low credit score will do. After all, there are plenty of people with low credit scores who are determined to turn it around. Statistics can’t predict the individual.

I can tell you that the average height of a professional basketball player is right at about 6’7” (thank you Wikipedia). I don’t know much about basketball, but I do know that height is an advantage. Yet, there have been 24 NBA players shorter than 5’9” including Hall of Famer Calvin Murphy who was right at 5’9” and 5’3” (!) Tyrone “Muggsy” Bogues. Statistically speaking, there’s no chance of a 5’3” person being successful, but statistics can’t predict individual results. Again, too many variables, including talent, drive, determination, creativity, etc. The strongest we can say is that the most successful people in the NBA tend to be tall, averaging 6’7” but we cannot say that any particular individual will be successful l due to their height. Statistics can’t predict the individual.

“Improves the odds.” That’s really all a good hiring system does. We try to accurately identify demands of the job and skills, knowledge, and experience required to be successful at the job. They we try it identify people who might have a chance at being successful and we measure a lot of different things in different ways and try to remove any evaluator  bias from the process (or at least cancel it out). All this to try to determine which of the candidates is most likely to be successful.

“Most likely to be successful.” That’s it. A great selection system will do a good job of identifying who is most likely to be successful BUT it cannot predict that any particular person will be successful. There are just too many other factors. We try to minimize those other factors with a well thought out selection system, but there are still too many uncontrollable variables. Someone who was a superstar might have family troubles, not get along with their boss, or not fit well with the company culture. And, there’re those who get weeded out by the select system but would have been fantastic.

Does this mean we shouldn’t create rigorous hiring processes? Just the opposite. I am a very strong believer in minimizing the variables and improving the odds when hiring. The more data and the more measures and the bigger the sample size, the more accurately we can predict. But, despite all the best efforts, there may be some who just don’t work out and there may be some phenomenal people that get missed.

Statistics can’t predict the individual.

yet another thing they didn’t tell you in business school

Conventional wisdom holds that: Profit = Income – Expense. Formulas don’t get much simpler than that. Increasing income or reducing expenses increases profits. Intuitively, that sounds right and LOTS of business decisions are made on this basis. Stock analysts and the companies that pander to them love this formula. Announce significant expense reductions (perhaps through massive layoffs) and stock prices jump up in anticipation of the profits to come.

The problem is, this formula is nice in textbooks but a gross oversimplification in the real world. It pretends there is no relationship between income and expense and makes the implicit assumption that the other variable is being held constant. But that’s not how it works. The real interpretation of this formula is this: Increasing income while holding expenses the same OR reducing expenses while holding income the same increases profits.

Income and expense are connected in a very real way and cannot be completely isolated. Why? Income is determined by your customers, not by you. Let’s play with some “what ifs”:

What if you cut your inventory on hand to zero? Your overhead costs would drop tremendously. You’d save a ton of money and your profits would go through the roof, right? Nope. Your customers would get torqued off that you had nothing in stock and they’d go shop elsewhere. Cutting expenses cut income.

What about maintenance expenses? You’ll save a bundle by “deferring maintenance” for a year or two. Bingo! Except you’re going to have a hard time convincing your best customers to shop in a dingy, dirty, broken down building. They go across the street to your competitor’s modern, bright, clean store. Cutting expenses cut income.

What if you laid off all your employees? No salaries or benefits to pay – there’s a major expense gone. Big time profits, yes? No. Without employees to help customers it won’t be long before there aren’t customers. Cutting expenses cut income.

What if you just forced all your employees to take a pay cut or cut benefits? You’ll save some money then, oh yeah! Um, well, no. Disgruntled employees don’t take care of the customers. Your best employees have other options and they leave. Your customers are now consistently receiving poor service. Wait, I mean your former customers. Cutting expenses cut income.

What if you invest heavily in technology and facilities that make shopping easier, convenient, pleasurable, and more fun for the customer? What if you spend more to find, hire, train, and reward outstanding customer service driven employees? Is it possible that increasing expenses could actually increase income? Only if the variables of income and expense are in some ways interconnected.

It’s worth saying again:

Expenses and income are often directly connected. They are not independent variables because your customers determine your income, not you. Customers have choices of who they give their money to so income can never be assumed to be constant. If you cut expenses in ways that negatively affect the customer, your income will go down. Likewise, if you increase expenses in ways that positively affect the customer, your income may go up.

Some expenses are worth reducing, but all expenses are not equal. Choose wisely.