Do The Things We Want To Do

My mom tells a story about how I came up to her when I was about 15 years old and asked her if they’d let me adopt when I got old enough. She said, “I don’t know. Why?” And I replied, “Well, I don’t want to get married, but I do want to have kids.” I don’t remember that exchange at all, but for as long as I can remember I wanted to have kids.

Well, I did get married a little over 23 years ago, and my wife and I have two boys – Tyler’s 18 and Sam is 15. Like most families, there have been rough spots here and there, but I can say I have enjoyed parenthood WAY more than I thought I would – and like I said, I was really looking forward to it.

One of the most frustrating things about parenting though is that your kids can’t learn from your mistakes; they have to make their own. The best we can hope for is that we raise them right, give them a good moral compass and hope they follow the right path. That sucks.

I remember when I was 18 (a looong time ago). It was great to know everything do only what I wanted to do (well, almost), and live the bullet-proof life that was my birthright. I also remember how much smarter I was than my parents. “No way that could happen.” Of course it usually did – I always learned things the hard way.

My 18-year old is still under the youthful illusion that he shouldn’t have to do anything he doesn’t want to do, that any inquiry is an interrogation, and household rules are prison-like. I’m pretty confident that he’ll see the light eventually – most of us do.

So, Tyler’s getting ready to move out, Sam just had a birthday and I’m getting ready to have another birthday. They’re growing up – I didn’t want that to happen so quickly. But those three things got me thinking about what age does to our thought processes. (I haven’t had one of those birthdays that smacked me between the eyes, so this wasn’t like some “come to Jesus” revelation moment – just contemplative).

I thought especially about the idea that when we were young we oftentimes didn’t do things we didn’t want to do. Now we do things all the time that we don’t want to do – that’s part of being an adult and having responsibility.

What about doing the things we DO want to do? Why don’t we do more of those things? I’m not just talking about Bucket List-type stuff – although you should make time for those things too. I’m talking about personal stuff and even work stuff that we want to do but choose not do for one reason or another. Maybe it’s because even though you want to do something and know it’s the right thing to do, it’s a new direction or departure from the norm that might be a little uncomfortable.

Grey beards like me know that the only way to get comfortable with something uncomfortable is to do it. And it takes repetition to get comfortable doing new things.

We’ve been talking for the last 16 months about creating a culture of open communication, and I don’t recall anyone saying that it would be a bad thing. In fact, just about everyone seems to be in agreement that it’s a great ideal to shoot for. Unfortunately it doesn’t seem to be getting embraced the way you might think it be, and the only reason I can come up with is that it’s new, a little uncomfortable and maybe everyone’s waiting for someone else to go first.

Doing things we want to do is sometimes times harder than doing the things we don’t want to do. Open communication and the culture change that accompanies it is not easy, and there will inevitably be bumps along the way – there always is with change. Change is a dynamic evolution for an organization and it requires the participation of everyone to become reality.

A culture of open communication is an absolute necessity if organizations in today’s world are going to be successful. I read an article today that said by 2015 36% of the workforce is going to be comprised of millennials, and they are going to demand open communication in the workplace – and it won’t be long before they’re in a position to do just that.

I’m going to keep trying to coach my boys through the pitfalls and hoping they learn to do more of the things they don’t want to do. And I’ll keep trying to advance the culture of open communication. Experience tells me both of those things will lead to much smoother paths in the future.

Three Important Factors of Team Success

My 15U baseball team had a tournament last week in which we played pretty well through the first three games – we were 2-1, but really should’ve won the other one too. The temperatures in Nashville those days were 105 and 107 degrees! By the third day – the 109 degree day – we started to show some signs of wilting.

We had a manpower problem though – only nine of our 12 players were available for the tournament. And while that would normally be a challenge in a tournament anyway, it was especially challenging with those temperatures because we had no way of providing anyone downtime during the games.

Another problem that arises when you’re shorthanded is that you can’t always put your best people in their best positions – you have to do the best you can with the numbers you have. If you’re only playing a game or two, you can get by with a skeleton crew, but when your task is large, you need all hands on deck.

Needless to say, the combination of being shorthanded, ridiculous temperatures, and playing guys out of position was our undoing: We made it into tournament play, but then lost our first game. I think those things ultimately had an impact on our guys psyche too – when mistakes break your spirit early, it’s hard to recover.

It got me thinking about organizational teams and the importance of those three conditions in business:

• ·    Manpower: Proper staffing levels are critical. When people have more on their plates than they can handle, they tend to achieve acceptable, not excellent.
• ·    Good working conditions: This applies not only to workplace comfort and tools, but not having hostile working conditions either. As with team sports, encouragement oftentimes goes a lot farther that criticism, and having the necessary tools and conditions to perform is imperative.
• ·    Maximize talent: Let people do what they do best. I believe in a well-rounded player/worker who knows how the pieces work together to produce the whole. But I also believe everyone should play to their strengths – it benefits the team and the organization as a whole when well-rounded teams have experts doing what they do best.

These components are essential to success whether on the playing field or in the office. Teams and organizations can flourish or flounder in much the same way.

When you have a well-rounded, fully-staffed team, you get better input and therefore better output. You have the ability to give and get specialized thinking, unique perspectives, and hopefully more spirited discussion and better all-around group thinking.

More participation. More diversity. Better end results.

Confidence v. Arrogance - There IS a Difference

I’ve been coaching baseball for about 13 years – age groups from 4-year olds to 15-year olds – and I’ve come to appreciate a certain amount of confidence and cockiness in a player. It’s probably because with that oftentimes comes some sharp, sarcastic wit – and I LOVE that, even in kids.

I had a player about six or seven years ago who I love to talk about to this day. He played shortstop for me and he was our closer (the pitcher who comes in at the end of the games to preserve a win). I can’t tell you how many times I brought him into a game in a really tight situation – bases loaded, no outs, bottom of the last inning up by one. Yeah. Uncomfortable.

Matt didn’t care one bit – he knew he was capable of handling the situation and relished the opportunity to test himself. I don’t recall a time he didn’t succeed although I’m sure over the years there were some. But he delivered in the clutch consistently and always with a smile.

He was a big time travel hockey guy too, and he played baseball like a hockey player – 1000% everything, all the time. He was sharp as a tack – always with the snappy comeback and that twinkle in his eye. It was never disrespectful, but usually just a little left of center. Cocky and confident. He was also respectful to his teammates, and they willingly recognized him as a leader on the team, and had confidence in his ability to lead.

I had another player some years later who also had very promising skills on the field – especially at the plate. This guy could flat out hit. He also had a great deal of confidence in himself on the mound. And while he didn’t get the same consistent results as Matt, it didn’t seem to affect his image of self.

The difference between the second player and the first player is that the second player crossed the cocky/confident line to arrogance. He had a belief that he was better than those around him – including his teammates. That’s hard to coach, and hard to incorporate into a team setting. And because of his arrogance, he didn’t have the respect of his teammates.

On the other side of that fine line past cocky and confident where arrogance starts, it’s hard to communicate and collaborate too. And I don’t know anyone who relishes arrogance as a trait to admire, but I really loathe any kind of condescension – especially arrogance. Arrogant people seem to have a belief that the rules of comportment – in business and in their personal lives – don’t apply to them; that they are somehow above it all.

For me the difference between cocky and confident, and arrogant is this: Cocky and confident means I believe in myself. Arrogant means I believe I’m better than you.

I know that not everyone is comfortable with cocky, but there is a certain amount of self confidence that is necessary to be successful in life and in business. It’s the inner voice that says, “Bring on the challenge. I’m ready to test myself and make myself better. I can do this.” There’s a belief in yourself, and there’s a willingness and eagerness to continuously learn and improve yourself as a person.

On the flip side of that, I’d argue that arrogance stands in the way of progress because the arrogant person oftentimes doesn’t believe that improvement is necessary – he may even believe that improvement isn’t possible; I don’t know. What I do know is that no matter who you are there is always an opportunity to learn, and there is always someone who knows something you don’t know. Yes, there is always someone smarter than you.

Effective leaders, and those who wish to become effective leaders understand the concept of lifelong learning both personally and professionally. They have the self-confidence to be open to learning; the self confidence to admit they don’t know everything, and the willingness to learn from those around them – even those in subordinate roles.

Self confidence and a healthy belief in yourself is great. Arrogance and condescension may work for a while, but you’ll never truly have allies to help you succeed in life or business. Effective leaders not only have confidence (some with a dash of cocky), they also have another necessary ingredient – committed followers.

Satisfaction is Good, Engagement is Great

I was at my youngest son’s high school baseball game last night, and my wife and I chose to sit in seats that were somewhat away from the other parents on the team. We chose the spot not to be antisocial, but so that we could have a fuller view of the entire field – we hate obstructed-view seats!

After we’d been there for a while one of the other dads came over and sat down next to me and said, “Man, I wish I’d waited until you guys got here ‘cause I got my chair in the wrong place, and I don’t wanna be rude and move now. They’re all over there talking non-stop, and none of it’s about baseball; not even this game.”

It got me thinking about the difference between satisfaction and engagement (Yeah, I know. I can’t help it.)

You see those folks sitting over there talking were very happy to be at the game and socialize – and maybe even miss a play, hit, or pitch. That’s satisfaction.

For my wife (Chaney) and I, and that other dad, we’re happy to be there, and we’re willing to socialize between innings, but we don’t want to miss any of the action on the field. We’re not only there because our kids are playing; we’re also real baseball fans. That’s engagement.

Satisfaction is great and it’s a nice goal for companies to reach for – it means they care about their employees. But engagement is a difference maker. With engagement they’re not only satisfied, they’re giving that extra effort that turns into positive results on the bottom line for their organization.

Employee engagement is all about how the employee feels about the employer, and specifically the extra effort they’re willing to give.

That’s how you determine engagement – with that extra effort – not satisfaction, and that’s why companies with a higher level of engagement outperform those with lower engagement (or worse, disengagement).

The key with engagement is the reciprocal relationship between the two: What extra effort is the employer willing to give in return? If employees don’t have that connection with the employer, there’s virtually no chance for engagement.

That’s where managers come in.

Managers at all levels play a very important role in the engagement equation because they are the ones with whom employees (direct reports) have the most contact – to many employees their manager IS the company.

Good managers are in tune with their people and know how to motivate each of them individually. If they’re effective, that can lead to engagement and the extra effort that comes with it. The payback for managers is better personnel development, better unit performance and better company performance – it’s a can’t lose proposition.

It’s good to have satisfied employees. It’s great to have engaged employees.

If you want to improve yourself as a manager, ask yourself this question: Are my people there to socialize, or are they there to watch the game?

Communication – A Healthy Obsession

I have a tendency to be a little OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder). My wife would probably tell you it’s more than a little, and I have friends who would probably say that I’m just anal.

Whatever you want to call it, I admit that I have some idiosyncrasies – and sometimes they even bother me. I’ll see something “out of place” or think about something that needs to be done and I can’t concentrate on the next thing until I go fix whatever it was that was “out of place” or that needs to be done.

Why does that insignificant little thing matter to me? It’s not that important, so why can’t I stop thinking about it until I set it straight (at least “straight” to my way of thinking – which my wife will also tell you isn’t the way others think)? It really can be disconcerting sometimes.

I’m not like that about everything. Is there such a thing as Selective OCD? And it’s really not the kind of thing that you’d notice about me if you don’t know me well and spend significant time with me. It doesn’t alter my activities of daily living – it’s not debilitating. It’s just kind of a hassle sometimes.

O.K, so why have I bared my soul? Because there’s something out of place, something that needs to be done and my OCD nature won’t let it go.

Corporate communications, specifically internal communications can be very frustrating because the messages are designed to promote a culture of collaboration and dialog, but getting participation in a traditional workplace can be like pulling teeth. Turning the words into action requires participation from others.

Turning words into action requires partnership with others – you can’t do it alone.

One of the main barriers to open communication in organizations is trust. People don’t trust that you can really speak your mind and not get smacked around (figuratively, of course) for it. I’m not talking about bitching; nobody wants to hear that all the time. And complaining is different than expressing yourself about real problems – we all know how to tell one from the other.

I’m talking about honest, constructive communication – real dialog.

In the open-communication workplace, offering opinions, disagreeing with a point of view, or standing up for your opinions when someone higher in the pecking order seemingly shoots you down are not only the norm, they’re expected.

Another trust factor is related to job security. It seems people may be unwilling to share what they know for fear that if others know it’ll make them expendable. That’s a huge problem because the only way to improve is to share knowledge –that’s how products and processes improve.

Front line employees like sales and customer service have regular contact with those using the products and oftentimes get feedback about what’s good or bad, and what works and what doesn’t. They have to be willing to share what they learn so that those producing the products aren’t spinning their wheels on unnecessary things.

And those working on the products need to be willing to listen to the feedback so that they’re hitting that sweet spot for the customers. In fact, everyone should not only be willing, they should be eager.

The only way an organization can move forward to open communication is if there is a willingness on everyone’s part to take that leap of faith. Mutual respect and, wait for it, treating others the way you want to be treated are absolutely essential. (Hmm, I may have used that line before.)

Real communication isn’t pushed from the top down, it’s shared top down, bottom up, and side to side. Make information sharing and collaboration your obsession – you’ll be better for it, and so will your co-workers.

Silos Kill This Big 3!

Silos are great if you’re a farmer protecting grain. Silos are horrible if you’re an organization trying to adapt and grow.

In agriculture, silos are those big cylindrical vertical tubes that are used to keep the good stuff, like grain and corn, in and the bad stuff, like rain and critters, out. In business, silos keep information apportioned so that one part of an organization doesn’t know what’s going on in the other parts – even when they’re interdependent!

In business, silos are what prevent organizations from doing their best and being their most productive. In fact, according to the Harvard Business Review, CEOs site silos as the number one killer of innovation. And the worst part is that oftentimes people can feel protective of information. As if others won’t know what to do if they are trusted with the same knowledge – this is the kind of environment where trust struggles to survive.

Tearing down silos fosters trust, communication and teamwork.

1. Trust is built because we know what’s going on. We can see that our coworkers aren’t out to get us, and they can handle the knowledge sharing.
2. Communication is enhanced when we do a better job of sharing information. Again this has to be horizontally and vertically, flowing back and forth – top to bottom, bottom to top, side to side.
3. Teamwork happens seamlessly when we employ trust and communication because we’re able to develop better working relationships – across departments and across locations. We do better work – and work together better – when we know people have our best interest at heart.

In any organization – even in our own homes – silos create dysfunction. People need to know what’s going on so they can make good, informed decisions. What happens when the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing? It’s not uncommon for them to not only head off in different, but conflicting directions working against each other.

In a company where one of the stated strategies for employee growth is innovation, tearing down silos is absolutely critical. When you consider that no individual or department can function without the functioning from another department, it only makes sense that they should share information as freely and openly as they possibly can.

I got this from the HBR Blog Network:

"It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defender in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarm-ness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favor, and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who does not truly believe in anything new until they have had experience of it."

You know who said that? Niccolo Machiavelli, in 1533 – yeah, THAT Machiavelli. 500 years ago! He's describing the culture of a siloed organization - afraid of different, afraid of change.

Here’s how The Leadership Freak describes silos and what to do about them:

Organizational silos:

1. Grow inward like incestuous families.
2. Isolate talent.
3. Hoard resources.
4. Slow progress.
5. Dampen enthusiasm.
6. Create paranoia.
7. Act in self-protective ways that damage others.
8. Don’t network.
9. Focus on individual good rather than organizational good.
10. Win when others lose.

Bonus: Silos resist change.

Silo Breakers:

Silo-breaking is painful and slow but can be done.

1. Form a clear picture of your organization without silos.
2. Define specific behaviors that enhance collaboration and break silos.
3. Hold cross-department planning meetings. Let them see the “enemy.”
4. Embrace decision-making by participants not isolated bosses.
5. Tell stories that honor collaboration and illustrate silo-breaking.
6. Reward teams and teamwork.
7. Develop leadership skills and attitudes that enhance collaboration.
8. Measure performance in terms of teams.
9. Seek best solutions regardless of the source.
10. Establish inclusive rather than exclusive systems.

Bonus: Embrace maximum transparency and information sharing.


Silos are slow, cumbersome, and destructive. Organizations with silos may win battles but eventually they collapse inward and lose the war.

Here’s the organizational imperative: The key to breaking down silos and building trust is transparency and open communication. For organizations to thrive in the future, information must flow freely vertically and horizontally.

What's Your Recipe for Success?

Here’s a good story from Ian Harris of RockstarComms in London:

In 1952 Colonel Sanders ran his own restaurant in Corbin, Kentucky. It was doing well, but one day he heard about plans for a new highway that would bypass the town of Corbin.

Seeing that his business was about to evaporate, he sold the restaurant and began driving around the United States, trying to license his chicken recipe to restaurant owners.

The Colonel would walk into a restaurant, and issue a challenge to the owner: "I bet my chicken recipe is better than yours."

He'd propose a cook-off, and if the owner liked his chicken recipe, he'd franchise it to them at 5 cents per chicken.

The Colonel visited over 1,000 restaurants. Each one turned him down. He didn't have one successful deal.

Then one day, a bar owner tried his chicken and explained to him: "Look, I'm trying to sell beer, not chicken. You need to make this saltier so customers will get thirsty and buy beer!"

The bar owner grabbed some salt, and took another bite. "THAT'S more like it" he said. "Just add salt to this recipe, and I'll take it!"

The Colonel took a bite himself. It tasted terrible! But that was because he'd been on a salt-free diet for 30 years. His tastes were obviously different to everyone else's.

The Colonel wasn't stupid. Although he didn't like salt, it was better than starving - and so began the Colonel's enormously successful Kentucky Fried Chicken legacy.

At one time, if you bought a box of Kentucky Fried Chicken, it said on the side: "When Colonel Sanders added the 11^th spice, he instantly knew it was the best chicken he'd ever had."

Of course they didn't tell you what spice it was.

There are three lessons you can take from this:
1) Colonel Sanders could have visited 1,000 MORE restaurant owners, driven his car into the ground, and still had nothing to show for it, had he not been willing to change his recipe.
2) Although the recipe he so passionately believed in was the best recipe for his taste buds, it was NOT the recipe that his customers really wanted. Without a recipe that the customers wanted, no amount of effort or persistence would make it work.
3) The “magic ingredient” was ordinary table salt.

I’d say there are a few more good lessons:

1. We need to keep our minds open to change. Consider the possibility that sometimes change for the sake of change is a good thing, but change for the sake of improvement is always good.
2. For innovation and new product development to drive the company into the future, the company has to make sure new products are what the customer really wants – not just what we think they want. Our focus on customer feedback should drive our efforts.
3. Sometimes the answers are right in front of us. Let’s be willing to get feedback, provide feedback and engage in constructive conflict. Conflict isn’t a bad thing unless it’s threatening. We should be willing to disagree with one another – constructive conflict should be stimulating, not threatening.

Unlike KFC, where protecting the secret of the ingredients is part of the culture, transparency and a culture of open communication are key ingredients for growth and success.