Dan Erwin

I Was Wrong

My error was obvious, so I sent my friend this note: “You’re correct all the way around. My error. Drawing incorrect inferences is inevitably problematic for all of us . . .  including me.”

Here’s the context: As occasionally happens, I interacted via both phone and email three or four times with an intimate of mine the other day. On the second or third interaction, he sent me an email saying that he was less than receptive to my input. And he wondered if I was making a broad generalization of his patterns based on a couple comments. His analysis was that he didn’t disagree with what I was saying, but that it seemed to him “that I was providing advice from an incorrect assessment of his behaviors.” He noticed that I really couldn’t give specific examples (that were correct), so was wondering if I was drawing premature conclusions.

Upon receiving my admission of error, he responded: “It’s good to know that you know you’re not infallible. I relish these reminders.” The telephone call after all that was filled with our typical easy-going chatter and amusement. It continues to amaze me how admitting error provides such a public service. While chuckling about that interaction this morning, I realized once more how narrow is the truth, but how diversified are our mistakes. And how bad we are at admitting mistakes.

Few of us have mastered the basic skill of saying “I was wrong.” Typically the clause doesn’t hang in the air by itself. It’s often followed by a strategic addendum. You may remember that classic statement attributed to Kissinger (among others): “Mistakes were made, but not by me.” The New York Times calls it a “classic Washington linguistic construct.” I’ll pat myself on the back. When I sent the email to my buddy, there was no conjunction but attached.

Two truths about admitting we’re wrong. Our attitude toward wrongness—that inevitable distaste for error—tends to be rough on relationships. And as Kathryn Schultz points out in her absolutely brilliant book, Being Wrong, failing to admit to wrongness applies to relationships among nations, communities, colleagues, friends and (as you well know) relatives. She reminds us of the old adage of therapists, “that you can either be right or be in a relationship: you can remain attached to Team You winning every confrontation, or you can remain attached to your friends and family, but good luck trying to do both.”

But Schultz proposes an even more significant insight about being wrong, one that I’ve rarely thought about with as much clarity. It’s her observation that it is ultimately knowledge of our wrongness that teaches us who we are. My friend’s willingness to call me on the carpet pointed out my potential, as a successful coach, of being very wrong. And especially, it challenged me, once more, to be aware of my penchant for drawing conclusions quickly as well as for the fact that they are often wrong conclusions.

My mistake was initially embarrassing. After all, I am a well-educated student of human behavior. I was taught to be very careful about drawing inferences around human behavior. But significantly it was far more illuminating, as only a mistake can be. It forced me to look again at my friend’s behavioral pattern, to ask more thoroughgoing questions, to recognize that I was wading into deep water without his permission, and to remind myself that there are a seemingly infinite number of inferences that can be drawn about behavioral patterns. My mistake will help keep me out of trouble—for a while. And it forces me to put on a better lens the next time. 

Flickr photo: by rob_pym

Edina Is Not . . . Well . . . Mississippi or Alabama

You have to move fast to keep up with some Minnesota cities, especially up-scale Edina.

In my recent blog on collaboration, I pointed out that competencies are inevitably a response to culture, society and economics. Indeed, the burgeoning emphasis on collaboration is uniquely tied to the evolution of the economy and the knowledge worker.

Now comes the fruit of another cultural shift. Reported in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the gift was, amusingly, an Easter gift to diversity.

First, the state’s Catholic hierarchy made an ass of itself in front of its own high school students at Minneapolis’ DeLaSalle High School regarding gays, gay families and of all things, adopted kids. The high schoolers raised an uproar with the hierarchy reps, causing the church to back down fast. What the church was trying to do—with only high school seniors present—was gain more votes for anti-gay legislation. Our Catholic fathers seem not to know that the arc of the biblical tradition is toward inclusion. So, the hierarchy probably lost more than it gained, showing the immense gap between the younger generation and old, white men in black robes.

But the more intriguing Easter gift was from the city fathers of Edina, who decided, unanimously, to add still more dates to their no-meetings list. The change only affected 3 of 120 meetings this calendar year. Now the no-meeting list includes the following:

Christian holidays: Christmas, Christmas Eve, Good Friday

Jewish holidays: The evening before and the day of Yom Kippur, the evening before and two days of both Rosh Hashanah and Passover

Islamic holidays: Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha

Hindu holidays: Diwali

A priest at the Hindu temple responded that the move is “really awesome. That means American culture is really considerate of other cultures, they try to understand and want them to celebrate. It really helps us at the temple.”

Of course, this will drive the Tea Party nuts, but I suspect there aren’t many of that ilk in Edina.

“Edina” is Minnesota shorthand for lots of money, successful professionals and top public schools. But it has also become, like many East coast and Midwestern suburbs, a mecca (hmmmm--my Islamic reference.) for wealthy professionals, many of whom are Islamic and Indian.

Tolerant Minneapolis and the western suburbs (including Edina) are a case-study in how to change cultural attitudes. There was a time in the first half of the twentieth century when Minneapolis was known as the most anti-semitic city in the country. But the Star Tribune, under the leadership of the Cowles family, changed all that. Not only did they editorialize against anti-semitism, but the family strongly supported Planned Parenthood, editorialized for birth control and public schools, and led in the immense focus upon arts in the Twin Cities. We always enjoyed the arts in New York and Chicago, but we also knew that we’d get just as much exposure in the Twin Cities, especially in drama and music.

A few years ago, I found myself seated on a flight to Chicago beside Joe Dowling, the artistic director of the Guthrie. At the time the Guthrie was raising funds for its new edifice on the Mississippi and I chatted with Dowling about the status of the drive. “You have to remember,” he explained, “that the Guthrie is the most heavily endowed theater in the world.” As a New York theater-goer, that was more than a little shock to my system. But as I thought about it, not much of a surprise.

It continues to amaze me how much a few people can impact a culture for the good--and not reinforce its death-giving values.

How Leaders Kill the Joy of Work

Senior executives routinely undermine creativity, productivity, and commitment by damaging the inner work lives of their employees,” say Harvard’s Teresa Amabile and Steven Kramer. Amabile and her associates have successfully studied the inner work life of employees. And often, the picture is not very pretty.

These aren’t union leaders. This is management. The sample isn’t from the factory floor or your local public school. No. These are business professionals. The objective of the research was to better understand the role of upper-level management. To get at that objective, Amabile and Kramer dug back into 12,000 electronic diaries from dozens of professionals working on important innovation projects at seven North American companies. They selected only entries from diarists who mentioned bosses—868 narratives in all.

Progress: Key to meaningful work
As the researchers remind us, understanding the traps should help execs determine whether they risk falling into some of the traps themselves—unknowingly. And dragging their organization into the abyss with them.

In their book, The Progress Principle, Amabile and Kramer argue that managers routinely—and unwittingly—undermine the meaningfulness of work for their subordinates through “everyday words and actions.” They found “that of all the events that can deeply engage people in their jobs, the single most important is making progress in meaningful work.” So, they wanted to see whether meaningful progress is on the radar screen. In survey research of 669 managers at all level from dozens of companies and industries around the world, they sought to rank five employee motivators: incentives, recognition, clear goals, interpersonal support, and progress in the work.

Their conclusion, reported in the McKinsey Journal, reveals that most managers and execs don’t act as though progress matters to their direct reports. Only 8 percent of senior executives ranked progress as the most important motivator. Had they chosen randomly, 20 percent would have done so. In short, our survey showed that most executives don’t understand the power of progress in meaningful work. And the traps revealed by the diaries suggest that most executives don’t act as though progress matters.

But back to the first research. The study revealed four traps that leaders fall into—often inadvertently.

• Mediocrity signals. The diaries that the researchers studied were full of references to innovation. Yet, those senior managers were so focused on cost savings that they repeatedly negated their teams’ autonomy dictating cost reduction goals that were primary. By the end of the diary reports, employees were “completely disengaged.” Mediocrity was also signaled by top managers’ risk aversion.
• Strategic ‘attention deficit disorder.’ A second trap, far too familiar for those of us who’ve done much consulting, was starting and then abandoning initiatives, making for an attention deficit disorder. What workers call “the fad of the day.” Of course, if execs don’t have their act together on where the organization is heading, the troops will quickly lose the joy of work.
• Corporate Keystone Kops. You remember those Keystone Kops from the silent films—fictional policemen, running around in circles and bashing each other on the head. Some execs contribute to the “comedy” by failing to hold support organizations accountable, overly complex reporting structures and last minute changes. A chronic indecisiveness.
• Misbegotten ‘big, hairy, audacious goals.’ It’s important for organizations to give strategic direction, audacious, relevant goals, articulated in a way connects with peoples’ values and emotions. (Google’s stated mission “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” In contrast, the researchers found that goals are stated in ways that seem unattainable and vague, even empty.

What to do?
Although Amabile and Kramer don’t address it head on, this is a masterful study of the creation of strong motivation. Think about that subtext: leaders must create forward momentum in meaningful work. Leaders who can provide meaningful work for their employees are on the road to success.

FYI: As I’ve worked through these recommendations, thought over their implications and seen their immense relevance, four issues kept cropping up in my ever-busy gray matter:

1. The notion of meaningful work has a long history, dating from the Reformation. Martin Luther and John Calvin both spoke to the importance of meaningful work in ways that haven’t been on our 20^th and 21st century radar screen. But some workers are caught in meaningless work. Flipping burgers is little more than a few bucks in the pocket of a teen-ager or poorly-educated adult.
2. Amabile and Kramer’s conclusion are spot-on. They couldn’t be more accurate. On those occasions where they’ve been implemented, the productivity rates skyrocket.
3. Most leaders don’t think in terms of the subjective or of soft power. Yet when they do, success is often inevitable.
4. When someone asks me why, at my age, I haven’t retired, I have one answer. “I’m having too much fun. My contributions have been exceedingly meaningful for me as well as for others. Why would I want to retire?” Duhhhhhh.

Want to motivate your employees? Make sure their work is meaningful.

Photo from Flickr: Intermayer

Facebook's Values as the New Normal

As part of the IPO filing for Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg laid out a set of company values. They are illuminating, especially when compared to the values of older, more mature firms: the Facebook values serve as a 21^st century heads-up for firms focused on technology and Generation Y. They are a pointer for the “new normal.”

I emphasize the notion of “pointer” because although corporate values put the public face on a company, they also reinforce the employee values that they intend to reward. It’s noteworthy that  Zuckerberg’s values are readily considered to be, as Michael Wolff of The Guardian wrote, “naïve or other-planetary.” But Wolff is the real naif because ultimately value statements can be exceptionally useful—something that few journalists or companies seem to understand.  And that’s no more true in organizations than in the smallest public organization, the family. (Why is it so many older, more experienced journalists and execs often seem to have a difficult time with youthful success?)

Values statements create a rhetorical world, give order and direction to behaviors, and reduce the internal corporate chaos that is inevitable in today’s highly diverse, rapidly changing corporations. Values are cultural fictions, designed to heighten the understanding of “who we are,” foster behavioral sensibilities and impact not only the bottom line, but also define the boundaries of ethical and social responsibility. (Think Fiddler on the Roof’s Tevye and his “traditions.”) Cultural fictions are usually elastic concepts capable of reinterpretation—and that, as anyone who’s seen The Social Network knows, is true of these values. Still, the simple-minded jerk who thinks that there’s talk and then there’s action is out of touch with reality. Language is action. The belief that there is a distinction between talk and action is false. Sure, some talk is a waste of time. But a lot of work is also a waste of time. In short the real business of business is talk and that’s the subtext of Zuckerberg’s statement—in many different ways.  

Zuckerberg explained Facebook’s philosophy in terms of five core values.

1. Focus on impact. Recognizing the crises of the data explosion, with this value Zuckerberg emphasizes the importance of priority issues. As he emphasizes, a lot of companies and people waste time on issues that may need resolution but fail to resolve the really serious problems.
2. Move fast. Clearly the firm worries about the fear of mistakes. Thus, their proverb, “move fast and break things,” and “better done than perfect,” a riff on Voltaire’s popular statement that perfect is the enemy of the good.”
3. Be bold. In short, this is what he thinks about risk in a world that is changing so quickly. Again, a proverb: “The riskiest thing is to take no risks.”
4. Be open. The strategy of openness is key to their competitive success. It is viewed as an absolute need if the company is to continue to make effective decisions and have the greatest impact.
5. Build social value. Zuckerberg ignores the potential regulatory issues of making the world more open and connected. Instead, he goes for social responsibility and its transforming power. It’s amusing to notice that journalists (see the NYTimes or Wall Street Journal, etc.) continually chide him for overstepping the bounds between social value and corporate value. I suspect that he’s been coached to stay out of that black pit. After all, silence goes a long way toward silencing potential detractors.  

 FYI:  Zuckerberg’s statements about social value are an accurate representation of his earlier comments that the public and especially journalists don’t understand that his interests and business are not primarily about money. That’s an exceptionally wise truism, supported by overwhelming research. It finds, for example, that Goldman Sachs executives are more interested in power than money. Indeed, when the rubber hits the road, executives are a lot more interested in their power than in the survival of their company. Plenty of execs deny both those ideas. I usually roll my eyes and suggest they think a bit deeper.

Kissinger is famous for declaring that power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. But Kissinger’s comment refers to people power, the kind of magisterial power that was typical of his generation. In contrast, Generation-Y, reflecting Zuckerberg’s “hacker philosophy,” is strongly oriented to intellectual power. The rewards come from intellectual smarts far more than people power. When the game is tied to intellectual power rather than people power, hierarchies get flattened. That makes collaboration far more possible—and inevitable. Those distinctive generational differences bode well for the continued superiority of US business innovation. 

Values, proverbs and organizational behavior

Although Zuckerberg’s letter did not reveal a proverb for every value, my assumption is that they’re floating in the Facebook ether. Proverbs--and company stories--are key to understanding a firm and even predicting a firm’s success or failure. Proverbs do not come into existence quickly, nor by executive fiat, and certainly not by slap-dash thinking. As anyone with a theological or rhetorical understanding recognizes, proverbs are the accumulated wisdom of a people or an organization—in short, pithy form. They are the result of a lot of experience, reflection, and conversations--a lot of talk. They’ve been tried on by employees and managers, revised, rephrased, and finally institutionalized.  Proverbs are inevitably created after the fact. In other words, they only surface after conflicted experiences which force an organization to give thought to where it’s been, what it’s learned, how to succeed, and who it is. Proverbs make demands of people. Although I’ve worked all over America, none of our major firms have inculcated their culture with much in the way of proverbs. Thus, Zuckerberg’s proverbs, growing out of his core values, are highly indicative of the actual behavior of his organization.

How do 21^st century values differ from the past?

Facebook’s values differ significantly from older, more mature firms. In a comparison with GM, Fidelity Investors and 3M, a cursory study revealed a number of significant value distinctions—and not merely those tied to their specific industries.

All three firms emphasize the importance of integrity, respect and honesty in the workplace and with customers. GM builds its entire values statement around personal integrity, referring to the Global Sullivan Principles created as a means for dealing with apartheid. Amazing that they were adopted as late as 1999. By that time, it was well known that the Sullivan Principles had little impact. They are essentially protective of the firm rather than behaviorally assertive for its employees. They emphasize staying within the law and function, in my mind, as a CYA, public relations instrument. Surprisingly, 3M’s sound little different than GM, emphasizing legal and ethical business conduct. The CEO positions the values as a means of enhancing the firm’s reputation. Fidelity is similar to GM and 3M, however, its values statement begins by stressing long-term relations (they are a financial planning firm, not a brokerage) and a “hunger for innovation.”

These 20^th century statements all give advice in such abstract form that it is difficult to take action, yet they are written as though that is not the case. Ultimately, rather than provide insight into how, specifically, to behave, they are written at a level of inference that is not operational. They make possible a lot of defensive routines, fancy footwork and malaise. In short, they are not a tool of governance. I’m not certain what they are, but they ain’t governance.

In profound contrast, Facebook’s values are a basic tool of governance. The level of abstraction is limited, and the proverbs focus on daily behavior. They are lacking in gobbledygook and as straightforward as rhetorically possible. They reinforce specific, concrete behaviors. An employee knows what he/she should doing. And significantly, they open the door to risk, creativity and innovation, something that the last century’s values will not impact.

They are as simple-minded as a parent saying to her high-schooler, “get your homework done, pick up your room, practice your flute, fill the dishwasher or take out the trash, and the rest of the evening is yours--except be in bed by 10:30.” That kind of family governance creates the boundaries for social, academic and career success. Similarly, Facebook’s values, “focus on impact, move fast, take risks,” etc., create specific boundaries for personal success. The parent and the organization that enforces definitive values will inevitably gain far better results than the organization or the parent that says “be good, be nice and don’t get into trouble.” It’s not a stretch to say that the focus of GM, 3M and Fidelity’s values are fundamentally, “don’t get into trouble.” They are a wasted tool. 

So, Mr. Wolff, Zuckerberg’s values are other-planetary? Nahhh. They’re a different animal than anything else you’ve ever seen. They won’t protect Facebook from regulatory issues, but unlike old-fashioned value statements of the 20^th century, they’re not meant to. They’re brilliant and they obviously get the important jobs done. 

Photo from Flickr: Girisimicinin Galaksi Rehben

"Selling Out, Or Buying In?" Three Keys for Decision Making

There are few things we hate more than uncertainty. When our work situation is ambiguous and not clear to us, it’s easy to feel uncomfortable. Just being “different” from others may cause you to wonder whether you’re “selling out” when you join a new company. Those “differences” may be the result of race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation or language. You know the feeling: uncomfortable, unaccepted, different and unique. 

The more different we feel in an organization, the more we look for someone to explain—or some rules that make sense. Renee Blank and Sandra Slipp have identified three very useful guidelines for helping you decide whether you’re “buying in” or “selling out.” Their guidelines will help you determine what you’re trying to do. 

• Your basic value system. Those values that you hold close to your heart are the final “decider.” If your values—which you learned as a child and solidified as an adult—are in direct violation of the organization’s values you’re in trouble. If you have to discard those beliefs that are important to you, you could be in danger of “selling out.” 

• If you know yourself—you’re certain about your talents, skills and abilities and you’ve validated them over time—and you’re performing a function or accepting a position well beneath them, you could be in danger of “selling out.” 

• If you accept the culture of an organization that flaunts its discrimination against or disrespect for your culture, you could be in danger of “selling out.” 

These are very personal matters. The organization is trying to help you become a part of their culture, but you must decide if that organization is asking you to give up too much. 

You’ve got several options in that kind of setting. If you decide that becoming a part of the organization means you’re going to have to give up too much of your own culture and that you will not be accepted no matter what, you can leave and seek employment elsewhere (if the economy and your skill set will make that possible). More and more, the quality of your skill set is the determining factor for work success. There are jobs out there—if you’ve got the skills for them. 

 You can also remain in the organization and drastically change your style. Finally, you can adapt to the organization’s values while maintaining your own values and political views. That’s schizophrenic, but it’s a possibility for many of us. 

In today’s economy, seeking employment at another firm is not always an easy task. You may find yourself splitting your personality between work and home. Some of us can do that for a long time, but eventually it catches up with us. It’ll impact our work productivity, but more than that it’ll affect our emotions and personal life. Our family and friends may notice it before us, so you’ll want to pay attention to them.  

One of our favorite family stories was the result of my decision to leave a job where the organization’s values and mine were just too much in conflict. Unlike her husband, my wife has no history whatsoever of using expletives--aside from one single situation. So I’ll never forget sitting on the living room sofa, telling her that I was going to leave my decade-long position and go elsewhere. Without missing a beat, she said, “It sure as hell took you a long time to make a damned obvious decision.” Two expletives in one sentence. So out of character, she got my attention instantly. She had refused to make a recommendation prior to my own decision because, wisely, she knew the decision had to be mine. But she had known all along that my job was causing deep, personal conflicts in my life. 

I suspect that most of the significant people in our lives can tell rather clearly when we’re facing a serious value conflict in our work setting. So. . . when deeply conflicted about your job, . . . get on with whatever.

Blank, R. & Slip, S. From the Outside In: Seven Strategies for Success When You're Not a Member of the Dominant Group in Your Workplace, AMACOM

The Surprising Relationship Between Work Communication and Personal Health

Research is increasingly establishing links between the quality of communication a worker receives and that worker’s personal health. Worker satisfaction has been tied to productivity for years, but extensive research has now found that interpersonal communication has a surprising impact upon personal health. Sounds like there’s more than one reason to get rid of asshole employees and managers. They impact not only productivity, but also the cost of employee health coverage. 

The research shows that persistent messages of hostility, domination, not caring and avoiding issues are examples of patterns that create stress and impact more than productivity. They also negatively affect a person’s immune system. Indeed, when stressful interactions occur repeatedly, they are more likely to lead to physiological problems and even shorten one’s life span. That’s one reason blue collar workers rarely collect more than a couple years of social security after retirement. They have little control over their work situation, so they die young. Life span is clearly a class-based issue. 

Bob Sutton reports on a recent study on the impact of nasty interactions. Andrew Miner, Theresa Glom, and Charles Hulin did a clever study in which each of forty-one employees carried palm-size computers. Each completed a brief survey via the device at four random intervals throughout the workday, over a two-to-three week period. The device would alert the employee, a short survey would be presented on the screen, and the employee would have twenty minutes to report (among other things) if he or she had a recent interaction with a supervisor or a coworker, and whether it was positive ornegative. Employees completed a checklist about their current mood, whether they were “blue,” “contented,” “happy,” and so on. The employee had more positive than negative interactions; for example about 30% of interactions with coworkers were positive and 10% were negative. But negative interactions had a fivefold stronger effect on mood than positive interactions—so nasty people pack a lot more wallop than their more civilized counterparts. 

So which kind of relationship communication is better for your health? Those who experience helpful, instrumental relationships and emotional support are more likely to experience greater physical well-being. That’s true outside of work as well. A person’s immune system profits from satisfying social ties. 

Related research also studied whether married people are healthier than single people. There’s widespread belief that being married somehow makes you live longer and enjoy a healthier life. But people in troubled marriages with dissatisfied spouses tend to experience more health problems. And surveys show that the health and longevity of people who get married and stay married isn’t all that different from people who stay single. So the issue is not marriaghe per se, but the quality of the interaction in that marriage (or single life) that makes the difference. People who are happy with their relationships, whether married or single, are more likely to have a health advantage.

I'm O.K., But You're a @!%$## Narcissistic Arse

Studies show that only about 1 in 100 persons is a psychopath, but there is a higher proportion in prisons and corporate board-rooms. But a more relevant fact on the other end of the psychological spectrum is that studies show that narcissism is on the rise. That means a lot more narcissists in the board rooms and the workforce.

A study released by researchers from the National Institutes of Health, in a survey of 35,000 Americans, asked about narcissistic symptoms. It found that only 3% of people over 65 had ever experienced narcissistic symptoms,but that nearly 10% of people in their twenties had. A 2009 study by Jean Twenge of SDSU and Josh Foster of the University of South Alabama showed that narcissistic traits are increasing even faster than previously thought. From 2002 to 2007, college students' scores on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory rose twice as fast as in an earlier study covering changes between 1982 and 2006.

The traits that were studied included an unfounded sense of entitlement and overly high self-regard. In business, narcissism results in a serious lack of empathy for others and an exaggerated sense of the person's own importance and abilities. People with this trait believe themselves to be uniquely gifted and often show up as arrogant and egotistical. They tend to be very critical of other people. They'll also push for special benefits and status. In addition, most narcissist managers won't give credit where due and won't support their workers. Unless there is something in it for them, they won't work on behalf of their team and others' career development. I've found that in corporate America narcissists can't listen, aren't coachable, always think they're right, keep score and can't collaborate. You'll also find that many narcissists are masters at sucking up. As one exec said of a colleague narcissist, "He can play the CEO like a violin."

Sure, some of these people make great actors for the entertainment world (think Mel Gibson and Britney Spears). And many of them are able to perform at a high level for their organizations (I won't name those familiar names). But as many of you know, they're a terrible pain to work with. They are a category among the group of difficult people that Bob Sutton (Stanford Business) labels assholes.

So how do you best deal with a narcissistic manager?

I want to go at this from two perspectives: short term and long term.

Myra White, a psychologist and clinical prof at Harvard Med School, who also teaches in the field of organizational behavior, has four suggestions:

1. Since they like to be associated with high status people, keep your distance and demand the respect your position deserves. Get wired to other status people, and keep dropping their names in front of the narcissist.
2. Since they're not good team players, whenever possible make certain to get people on the team whom they admire and consider high status.
3. Since they're liable to push you for special favors and bend the rules for them, stick to the rules. Make sure you don't cave in to their demands.
4. Since they're liable to claim credit for other's contributions, protect yourself and others. Speak up for the colleague who's really made the contribution and don't let the narcissist get away with bullshit. When you're not comfortable speaking up to the narcissist, it's valuable to go around to team members and point out that your colleague made the contribution, not the narcissist. That'll be good for future relationships. But more significantly, it'll educate your team members to what's going on. Eventually, as a number of people become more aware of the narcissistic behaviors, that info filters up to higher levels. That strategy can result in a termination for the narcissist--at least in the better companies.

At a more profound and long-term level, Bob Sutton's very practical recommendations in The No Asshole Rule (listed on the left side of my blog site) are masterful. Sutton goes at the subject in his chapter When Assholes Reign with recommendations for all kinds of difficult situations--recommendations you'll want to memorize and act on.

A basic way to deal with narcissists is to reframe, to change how you see things. Psychologists have found that if you can't escape a stress creator, the first step is to change your mind-set about what's happening to you. Martin Seligman (Learned Optimism) has found that when people view difficulties as temporary, not their fault and as something that will not pervade and ruin the rest of their lives, that way of thinking, that frame, protects their mental and physical health. Reframing a narcissistic situation is a step in liberating you from that person's clutches, and will sustain your physical and mental health.

A second step is to hope for the best, but expect the worst. Unwavering hope that that narcissistic arse is going to someday be transformed into a nice person sets you up for one disappointment after another. Lowering your expectations, focusing on the few good things, and becoming optimistic about how it will all end can help you endure a horrible situation.

A third step is to develop indifference and emotional detachment. Sutton is one of the few to wisely point out that passion in organizational life is an overrated virtue, and indifference is an underrated virtue. Business books, all caught up in naive success and optimism ideas and illustrations, never say this. But it needs to be said. Even shouted from the rooftops. To quote Sutton: All this talk about passion, commitment, and identification with an organization is absolutely correct if you are in a good job and are treated with dignity and respect. But it is hypocritical nonsense to the millions of people who are trapped in jobs and companies where they feel oppressed and humiliated--where their goal is to survive with their health and self-esteem intact and provide for their families, not to do things for a company that treats them like dirt.

The ability to gain control over seemingly trivial things, to look for small wins, even trivial things, is the hallmark of people who survive horrible and uncontrollable things. Indeed, as I've noted elsewhere, Karl Weick has found that aiming for small wins is both more comforting and more effective than aiming for big wins. Feeling that you are in control, in even the smallest things can reduce the feelings of helplessness and hopelessness that a narcissistic ass can engender.

Finally, it's important to build pockets of safety, sanity and support. Learn to hide from the jerk and hang out with decent people. That'll provide you with both a bit of control over your life and also reduce your exposure to jerks. Supportive colleagues and even thoughtful clients can buffet you from working with a slew of narcissists.

The point of all this is that you can manage even the flaming narcissists that you'll inevitably encounter in business. Learn how now, because it's obvious that the good old USA is becoming a nation of narcissistic assholes. During the depression of the 1930s, depression was the national disease. In the technological age, narcissism is going to become more and more the national disease.

Can a Job Change Change Your Politics?

In an article by Gardiner Harris of the NYTimes, the writer says that as physicians' jobs change, so do their politics. Although doctors were once overwhelmingly male, usually owning their practices, more than 50% of the younger generation of physicians is now female and more and more physicians, male and female, are taking salaried jobs. That's especially true in the NorthEast, but even so in the deep South. What this also means is that as doctors switch from private ownership to shift worker, they are changing from Republican to Democrat.

In the last two paragraphs of the article, Harris quotes the former president of Maine's Medical Association who describes himself as "very conservative." The physician's summary is a classic example to add to my store of beliefs, by otherwise astute people, who get caught in the "fundamental attribution error."

That "error" is the belief that our decisions are made primarily on the basis of our own psychological nature. Here's what the "very conservative" Dr. Kevin Flanigan of Maine's AMA has to say:

People who are conservative by nature are not going to go into the profession because medicine is not about running your own shop anymore.

Amusing--and wrongheaded. Especially the notion of "conservative by nature," or even the unstated, "liberal by nature." Far more important in how we make decision is not our inherent nature, but the situation in which we find ourselves. Although the trait psychologists would like us to believe that there is such a thing as our "inherent nature"--it would help sell more psychological tests--it just ain't true. What's true is that our situation has far more impact on us than any so-called "inherent nature." Actually, some of the well-known proverbs admit to that. And generous proverbs tend to reflect part of reality, so they do have importance. "What would you have done if you were in his shoes?" or "There, but for the grace of God go I." Each of those maxims points in the direction of role demands or situational determinants of behavior. Each also counsels against inappropriate interpretations of a person's "inherent nature."

You can always explain away the exceptions. But I don't expect most people to toss the notion of "inherent nature" in the garbage can. It has some use, but not nearly as much use overall as many think.

So what does this mean?

If you're an HR person and someone isn't performing, perhaps rethink that's person's situation--and try to work out an organizational change before a pink slip.

If you're unhappy or bored in your present role because you haven't been learning anything new, switch to a new setting with new demands.

If, in spite of your recognized performance, you're stymied in your attempts to get a promotion, move on.

If your role doesn't offer a promotion, either decide to accept the regular raises and reconstitute the role, or move on.

In the final analysis, your work situation is more impactful on your success and health than your own psychological disposition.

One of my best friends, a former faculty colleague, left our school after three years. When I asked him why, he responded that he didn't like what the situation (the school's values and attitudes) was doing to him and his wife. It took me far more than three years to make that decision, but since then I've realized how really thoughtful and wise his decision. So pay close attention to your culture and situation. Over the long run, it will have more impact positively or negatively on your career--and your health--than anything else.

Newsweek: "The Most Useless College Degrees."

The latest career nonsense comes from a Newsweek "Perspective," summarizing a "survey" from the Daily Beast.  The "top ten majors that don't pay" included journalism, horticulture, agriculture, advertising, music, child and family studies, fashion design, mechanical engineering technology, chemistry and nutrition.

The first problem with this kind of stuff is that parents, students, and even academics take it seriously. The obvious assumption is that your degree equals your earning power. That's pure, unadulterated bullshit. It's a classic example of wrongheaded, early-20th century thinking applied to a 21st century world. I'd ignore it, except that there is widespread acceptance of the perspective. 

FYI: Your degree does not equal your earning power.

To an unfathomable degree, most thinking about careers is profoundly linear. It assumes a direct path between a person's major and that person's career. That assumption is powerful and deeply embedded in our thinking. From the time you played with fire trucks and told people you wanted to be a firefighter, the linear path has been assumed to be the natural state of things. As a consequence,nearly everybody thinks that you pursue a major that would become your ultimate career. Engineering majors become engineers. Law school grads become lawyers. Business majors become business people. History majors become . . . ? Hmmm . . .

As Katherine Brooks points out in her brilliant work, You Majored in What? (See "good books" on my blog sidebar), the linear path between your major and your career came out of the trait-and-factor approach of 1909, designed to determine the best career choices for people. As America evolved from an agricultural society to an industrial society, early psychologists sought ways to determine the best fit between individuals and their jobs. Career tests, like the famous Strong Interest Inventory or the Meyers-Briggs, were designed to match persons' interests with potential vocations. 

Brooks has an enlightening analysis of college majors and jobs. She draws from alumni surveys from three institutions:

        MAJOR                JOB

• art                   cartoonist
• dramatic arts    MTV program director
• economics         bond trader, Wall Street
• government       Republican national committee
• religion             minister
• psychology        psychotherapist

There's only one problem with the above list: it's all wrong. Here are the actual careers of those grads:

        MAJOR                JOB

• art                    special prosecutor, DA's office
• dramatic arts     Republican national committee
• economics         veterinarian
• religion             MTV program developer
• psychology        cartoonist      

Reality just doesn't match up to the traditional career path. It isn't that the linear path has disappeared. Some psychology majors do become psychologists, etc. But linear thinking keeps people from thinking broadly about options and being open-minded to new opportunities. 

I begin at a slightly different place than Brooks, but end up at the same place. I absolutely refuse to look at college degrees from the perspective of a specific vocation. I believe that the purpose of a college degree is to learn how to learn and how to think so that a person can make an informed decision. Choose a major that interests you so you can dig into that subject. But remember, the purpose of that major is to provide you with subject matter in which you can explore how the subject works, how it's put together, how to think about it, and how to learn it.

I'm a firm believer with that anonymous college career counselor who said that "it's ridiculous to ask liberal arts students (or any other college student) what they plan to do in five years. They don't even know what they plan to have for dinner."

After four to six years of college, you're ready to take on your first job. If you were smart, you spent your summers exploring jobs, or even served an internship, so you've got a bit of a network. Most aren't going to make much money right out of college anyway, so grab an interesting job and go from there. The market is chaos, and your thinking and your career are going to evolve. Keep your options always open and don't burn bridges. Keep learning and adding new expertise as you see opportunities.

My own career has followed the pattern I've just described. I used to say that I had vocational menopause every eleven years. At those breaks in time, I made major career shifts. Those shifts, however, were the result of evolutionary career processes that had been going on throughout the weeks and months of my work. Adapting, changing and growing. Unsatisfied with life and very curious, I was always writing a new life for myself--and continue to do so into my seventies.

That's not to say that some don't follow a direct path. My son-in-law decided when he was eight years old that he was going to be a scientist and a doctor and teach at Harvard Medical School. I'll be damned--he did it, in spite of the fact that he grew up poor as a church-mouse. However, like many professionals in their mid-forties, he left the Harvard position and has taken advantage of several options. He has what I think of as a multi-career: research, teaching (another university), consulting and contracting. Like me, he'd be bored on a one-way street. You're going to see more of that as global demands begin to be felt in all the professions. 

Brooks takes today's cultural and economic chaos, and spells out a thorough-going process for career development. She argues, rightly, that careers follow chaos theory, the complex theory and practice that grows out of the mathematical formulas that were originally designed to develop a better weather prediction model. So think about it: how successful are we at predicting the weather? Sometimes we're pretty good. When the conditions are foreseen, when nothing changes, and when we know certain physical laws are being followed, we can predict the weather. If we see a front moving across the map, we know a storm is coming. But what happens when something interrupts the pattern? What if the front coming from the west suddenly encounters another storm coming up the East Coast? When and where will they meet? How well can we predict a tornado's path? Not too well generally. . . . Chaos theory helps us understand that too many variables in a complex system make it hard to predict the outcome. 

We also know from chaos theory that the greater the distance between now and the future, the weaker our prediction will be. For instance, we're pretty good at predicting the weather today. Maybe even tomorrow or within the next week. But after that our prediction gets shaky. We may notice trends, or make logical inferences. . . but chaos theory helps us understand we can't predict the future in greater detail.

So, as Brooks rightly points out, career paths can be highly complex with all sorts of intervening variables, including family of origin, level of education, individual skills and talents, the job market, and so on. And like weather forecasting, career planning is a form of prediction, right?

Brooks doesn't say so, but I happen to know that meteorologists are the most accurate predictors in the world. Business people, lawyers, physicians, economists, etc, all pale when compared to the predictive ability of meteorologists. That'll drive you nuts, but it happens to be quite true.

So what's a person to do about his/her career? Chaos theory holds that systems ultimately reveal patterns and an order. What looks like chaos isn't always chaotic. Once again, I’ll use Brooks to make my point:

• use your knowledge of chaos theory to create a resilient career strategy that will serve you throughout your life,
• adapt to change and not be defeated by it,
• be open to possibilities, without simply going any way the wind blows,
• know you are in charge and can create each and every day of your life,
• have a direction, even though you're not arrogant or mindless enough to think that life will be served up in one neat linear package,
• embrace the chaos of your life and take it as a source or of pride.

So You Think Your Boss Should Give You the Straight Skinny? Fat Chance.

Openness and clarity are the keys to effective communication.  Or at least, that is what is taught and encouraged by most educators, especially in business schools and HR departments.  You ask a clear question, you should be able to get a clear answer.  And so when you go to a management meeting, you expect to find out what's really going on in the company.  Well, that ain't necessarily gonna happen.

Before I  explain why you won't get the straight skinny, I need to clear out some of the underbrush.  I'm not talking mostly about deception or outright lying.  Sure, that takes place, but most managers understand that if they deceive often they're going to earn a reputation for it.  That'll make it especially difficult for them to communicate a straight message when they need to.  Also, they know that the trust of people is a key incentive for organizational productivity and team motivation. Besides, it takes a lot of energy to keep your lies consistent which means that you'll eventually get tired of it--and be found out. Deception is not an effective path to work and team success.

But if you critically examine the communication of most managers, execs and government officials, you'll notice that the usual definition of (effective) communication as clarity and openness is sometimes, well . . . just bullshit.  So beware of the leadership literature and the HR department.  As a matter of fact, recent research in organizational communication finds that intentional miscommunication is often as prevalent as intentionally clear communication.  I'd argue that often "effective communication" is intentionally ambiguous.

Why is this?  

On many, many occasions, managers and leaders are caught in multiple, conflicting constraints.  Rather than maximize the achievement of any one goal in particular, the leader winds up in a catch 22.  He's caught in numerous conflicting situations, but has no real control over the final outcome.

Although any senior business manager can recite numerous examples of ambiguity, a great example comes from Tom Friedman's article in which he opines on President Obama's ambiguous statements explaining the intervention of America and its allies in Libya. These were the conflicts Obama faced, detailed by Friedman.

In Libya, we have to figure out whether to help rebels we do not know topple a terrible dictator we do not like, while at the same time we turn a blind eye to a monarch whom we do like in Bahrain, who has violently suppressed people we also like -- Bahraini democrats -- because these people we like have in their ranks people we don't like: pro-Iranian Shiite hard-liners. All the while in Saudi Arabia, leaders we like are telling us we never should have let go of the leader who was so disliked by his own people -- Hosni Mubarak -- and, while we would like to tell the Saudi leaders to take a hike on this subject, we can't because they have so much oil and money that we like. And this is a lot like our dilemma in Syria where a regime we don't like -- and which probably killed the prime minister of Lebanon whom it disliked -- could be toppled by people who say what we like, but we're not sure they all really believe what we like because among them could be Sunni fundamentalists, who, if they seize power, could suppress all those minorities in Syria whom they don't like.

Sometimes, as Friedman coments, the truth is too hot to handle.  It's too displeasing, too frustrating, too messy, too tentative, too incomplete, and so on.  In those situations, inconsistency can't be avoided.  Still, inconsistency is not necessarily a bad thing.  Making a hopeless impasse clear may be unwise and likely to make things worse.  Inherently, many readily succumb to personal, often destructive biases such as the drive for immediate decisionmaking, either-or decisionmaking, or even that the most colorful, vivid option is best.  

Inevitably, therefore, the wise leader often chooses ambiguity. And rightly so.  He understands that the downside of ambiguity is a lot better than the downside of a very tentative set of strategies that may or may not succeed.

Effective communication as "strategic ambiguity."

Academics have a technical term for that form of presentation: "strategic ambiguity."  In a seminal piece of research, Eric Eisenberg argues that clarity and openness are not the only definition of effective communication.  Sometimes, he argues, the truly effective leader has to be strategically ambiguous.

• Ambiguity can provide the leader with a great deal of flexibility and creativity, not limiting that leader to a narrow resolution of a problem.  In politics, it's just good PR.  Ambiguity can promote a great diversity of ideas and actions.
• Ambiguity facilitates organizational change.  It gives the leader permission to make various moves that a single objective would not permit.  He can pilot numerous initiatives and not have to engage in full disclosure.
• Ambiguity also preserves privileged positions.  If there's no single objective that can be readily measured, you've limited the critical options of your public, whether subordinates, commentators or journalists.  The ongoing complaint, for example, that Obama hasn't revealed his strategy or endgame is reflective of a governmental or business leader's smart, purposeful use of ambiguity.  It limits the criticism that can be leveled at him.  "he won't tell us his strategy and endgame" is not much to critique or write about.

There are plenty of situations for which the dumb thing is for your boss to be candid.  Smart bosses refuse.  That's the nature of effective organizational communication.

Eric Eisenberg, Ambiguity as a strategy in organizational communication.