You're Not All That

So they say that all sin is rooted in arrogance. 

We get too big for our britches and think we can do whatever we want including stepping on others and defying our maker. 

An interesting article in Harvard Business Review reminds us to beware of narcissism and hubris. 

Narcissism is a character disorder where because of feelings of inadequancy from childhood, people have to self-promote themselves every which way toSunday--they are "insufferably self-centered."

Hubris is a reactive disorder where due to past success and accolades from others, we become overconfidant, until the luck changes "toppling from their pedestals" and shrinking their ego back down to size."

I like the reminders from HBR cautioning about these:

- "Have more than thou showest; speak less than thou knowest." - Shakespear

- "Humble pie should be the only dessert served."

It's one thing to have decent self-esteem anchored in your knowing right from wrong and acting accordingly, and it's another to think and act like you have all the answers--none of us do. 

If your showing it off, it's likely a turn off. ;-)

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Jampa)

You're Not All That

Some Mighty Big Shoes To Fill

If you're ever feeling like a big shot--remember there are always others out there who are bigger than you. 

_________________________

We walk in the footsteps of the giants who came before us. 

We walk among colleagues who are superior to us.

We walk before future generations who will certainly humble us. 

We walk in the sight of G-d, our creator and master, who bestows all divine benevolence to us. 

_________________

Now those are some mighty big shoes! ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Some Mighty Big Shoes To Fill

Take Your Advice And Shove It

Great piece in the Wall Street Journal today on getting and giving advice. 

This was a funny article about how most advice comes not from the wise, but from the idiots trying to push their own agendas, make a buck off you, or bud into your business. 

When people try to tell you what to do, "the subtext is 'You're an idiot for not already doing it."

But who wants to do what someone else tells them to do--unless you a robotic, brainless, loser!

Every manager should already know that everyone hates a control freak micromanager--and that they suck the creative lifeblood out of the organization. 

The flip side is when you give people the freedom to express their talents and take charge of their work activities, you motivate them to "own it!"

Real meaning from work comes from actually having some responsibility for something where the results matter and not just marching to the tune of a different drummer. 

The best leaders guide the organization and their people towards a great vision, but don't choke off innovation and creativity and sticking their fat fingers in people's eyes. 

The flip side of advice not getting hammered on you, is when you have the opportunity to request it. 

People who aren't narcissistic, control freaks seek out other people's opinions on how to approach a problem and to evaluate the best solutions. 

This doesn't mean that they aren't smart and capable people in and of themselves, but rather that they are actually smarter and more capable because they augment their experience and thinking with that of others--vetting a solution until they find one that really rocks!

While decision making by committee can lead to analysis paralysis or a cover your a*s (CYA) culture, the real point to good governance is to look at problems and solutions from diverse perspectives and all angles before jumping head first into what is really a pile of rocks under the surface. 

Does vetting always get you the right or best decision? 

Of course not, because people hijack the process with the biggest mouth blowing the hottest stream. 

But if you can offset the power jocks and jerky personalities out there, then you really have an opportunity to benefit from how others look at things. 

While the collective wisdom can be helpful, in the end, all real grown ups show personal independence, self-sufficiency, and a mind of their own, and take responsibility for their decisions and actions. 

We can learn from others, but we learn best from our own mistakes...no pain, no gain. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Take Your Advice And Shove It

The Movers and Shakers

For a long time, I've heard of "The movers and shakers" as the ones who get things done. 

But I think there is another and more accurate meaning to this phase.

And it is related to the old adage of "those who can do, and those who can't teach." 

Note, there is no disrespect intended to good, solid teachers here, as they have one of the most important jobs in society in educating and molding our children, but the point is that there are some that can only talk theory, but haven't actually done the job!

Similarly, in the organizations, movers and shakers are often not one and the same, but two different types of people.

We have those who are "the movers"--who actually get things done, who break logjams, who overcome bureaucracy, who solve problems, who make things better.

And then there are "the shakers," those who do more jumping up and down and waving to get attention for themselves, their egos, their resumes, and their bogus brands, but don't or can't actually deliver the goods--real results. 

The movers are the genuine, hardworking doers and carers of our organizations; the shakers are the Billie Big Mouth Bass showpeople. 

The movers work the problems everyday and make progress and it is wonderful to celebrate their hardwork and successes, but the shakers are the attention-grabbers, boasting more about what they do, instead of actually doing much of anything. 

Beware of those that talk a good game, but can't actually hit the ball--and the recognition and attention they are bathing in may actually just be a good cover like from a tanning salon and not from the real beach. ;-)

(Source Photo: here with attribution to RedHerring1up)

The Movers and Shakers

I, U, Y Talk Like That

Already young children in pre-school learn that "Words have meaning, and words can hurt."

All through life, we refine our communication skills learning what works and what doesn't.

Here are three letter-words with which to beware:

- "I" (Use sparingly) - I is usually people's favorite word; they love to talk about themselves. I this. I that. I like. I hate. The problem is that "I" can also be selfish, egotistical, and narcissistic. Without tempering talking about I all the time, you run the very large risk of overdoing it.  All the I can easily end up boring other people to near death or simply make them want to run the other way to get some needed healthy attention for themselves.

- "U" (Use carefully) - U is most often used to criticize.  U should do this. U did something wrong. U are a blankety-blank. While it's also caring, loving, and empathetic to talk about U (i.e. taking a genuine interest in the other person), talking about U can easily go astray and lead to disapproval, denunciation, and censure. We should and need to talk about U, but more from the perspective of understanding U and how can I help U.

- "Y" (Use almost never) - Y is used to ask questions, but usually ends up being used judgmentally. Y did you do that? Sometimes we question honestly and with positive intentions to understand, but very often we end up using the response to evaluate their actions, and pronounce judgement on them. From all the interrogative questions (who, what, where, when, Y, and how), Y should be used the absolute least, if ever. 

 I, U, Y - are letter-words that can imply selfishness, criticism, and judgement.  

While, they can't exactly be banned from the alphabet or dictionary, they are dangerous words that can get you misunderstood, alienate others, and hurt people in the process, and therefore use them, but with extreme caution, please. ;-)

(Source Photo: here with attribution to id-iom)

I, U, Y Talk Like That

Who's The Boss (The Good and Bad) ?

Harvard Business Review had a helpful list of 8 leadership types: 

1. Strategists - (Chess game) - provide vision, strategy, enterprise architecture.
2. Change agents - (Turnaround expert) - reengineering the organization.
3. Transactors - (Deal-maker) - make deals and negotiate positive outcomes.
4. Builders - (Entrepreneur) - create something new.
5. Innovators - (Idea generator) - solve difficult problems.
6. Processors - (Efficiency expert) - run organization like a well-oiled machine.
7. Coaches - (Develop People) - get the best out of people for a high-performance culture.
8. Communicators - (Influencer) - explain clearly what (not how) needs to be done to succeed.

I would say these are the positive archetypes of leadership, but what about the negative leadership models?

Here's a shot at the 8 types of awful leaders (and wish they throw in towel and go away):

1. Narcissists - (Self-centered) - focused on stroking their own egos and pushing their own agendas, rather than the success of mission and people.
2. Power mongers - (Domineering) - Looking to grow their piece of the corporate pie, not the pie itself.
3. Competitors - (Win-Lose) - deals with colleagues as enemies to defeat, rather than as teammates to collaborate with.
4. Micromanagers - (My way or the highway) - doesn't delegate or people the leeway to do their jobs, rather tells them how to do it the right and only way. 
5. Insecure babies- (Lacking in self-confidence) - marginalizes or gets rid of anyone who is a challenge to their "leadership," rather than valuing and capitalizing on diversity.
6. Sadists - (Bullying) - use their leadership pulpits to make others squirm under their oppressive thumbs and they enjoy it, rather than using their position to help people.
7. Thieves (Credit grabbers) - steal other people's ideas and recognition for their own self-promotion, rather than elevate others for their contributions. 
8. Biased baddies - (Whatever I want) - manage arbitrarily by subjective management whim and playing personal favorites, rather than through objective facts and maintaining equity. 

How many of you have dealt with the good as well as the bad and ugly?  ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Who's The Boss (The Good and Bad) ?

Beating Social Media Isolation

There is a debate called the "Internet Paradox" about whether social media is actually connecting us or making us more feel more isolated.  

I think it is actually a bit of both as we are connected to more people with time and space virtually no impediment any longer; however, those connections are often more shallow and less fulfilling.

There is an important article in The Atlantic (May 2012) called "Is Facebook Making Us Lonely?" that lends tremendous perspective on information technology, social media and our relationships.
The premise is that "for all this [new] connectivity, new research suggests that we have never been lonelier."

The article is very absolute that despite all the technology and communication at our fingertips, we are experiencing unbelievable loneliness that is making people miserable, and the author calls out our almost incessant feelings of unprecedented alienation, an epidemic of loneliness, and social disintegration.

Of course, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that almost everyone can share, but there are also numerous studies supporting this, including: 

1) Study on Confidants (2004)--showed that our average number of confidants shrunk by almost 50% from approximately 3 people in 1985 to 2 people in 2004; moreover, in 1985 only 10% of Americans said they had no one to talk to, but this number jumped 1.5 times to 25% by 2004. 

2) AARP Study (2010)--that showed that the percentage of adults over 45 that were chronically lonely had almost doubled from 20% in 2000 to 35% in 2010.

Some important takeaways from the research:

- Married people are less lonely than singles, if their spouses are confidants.

- "Active believers" in G-d were less lonely, but not for those "with mere belief in G-d."

- People are going to mental professionals (psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, therapists, and counselors) as "replacement confidants." 

- Loneliness is "extremely bad for your health."

- Our appetite for independence, self-reliance, self-determination, and individualism can lead to the very loneliness that can makes people miserable. 

- Using social media, we are compelled to assert our constant happiness and curate our exhibitionism of the self--"we are imprison[ed] in the business of self-presenting."

- Technology tools can lead to more integration or more isolation, depending on what we do with them--do we practice "passive consumption and broadcasting" or do we cultivate deeper personal interactions from our social networks?

Personally, I like social media and find it an important tool to connect, build and maintain relationships, share, and also relax and have fun online. 

But I realize that technology is not a substitute for other forms of human interaction that can go much deeper such as when looking into someone's eyes or holding their hand, sharing life events, laughing and crying together, and confiding in each other.

In January 2011, CNBC ran a special called "The Facebook Obsession," the name of which represents the almost 1 billion people globally that use it. To me though, the real Facebook obsession is how preoccupied people get with it, practically forgetting that virtual reality, online, is not the same as physical, emotional, and spiritual reality that we experience offline.

At times, offline, real-world relationships can be particularly tough--challenging and painful to work out our differences--but also where we find some of the deepest meaning of anything we can do in this life. 

Facebook and other social media's biggest challenge is to break the trend of isolation that people are feeling and make the experience one that is truly satisfying and can be taken to many different levels online and off--so that we do not end up a society of social media zombies dying of loneliness. 

Social media companies can do this not just for altruistic reasons, but because if they offer a more integrated solution for relationships, they will also be more profitable in the end. 

(Source Photo: here with attribution to h.koppdelaney)

Beating Social Media Isolation

Speak Up or Shut Up

We've all been there--organizations that are run by the king or queen and their proverbial gang of 6 or 7 or 8 or 9.

These are the organizations that are dominated by powerful, but narcissistic leadership (notice I do not call them leaders--because they are not). 

According to Forbes, (11 January 2012) in an article entitled Why Narcissistic CEOs Kill Their Companies, in these organizations, the c-suite is dominated by those showing four narcissistic personality traits:

- Exploitative--They are in charge and everyone else had better respect--or better yet worship--them. Typically they are surrounded by "yes men" and eager beavers, ready to please at just about all costs. 

- Authoritarian--They insist on "being the center of attention," they always know better, are always right even in the face of evidence to the contrary, and with their people, it's their way or the highway. 

- Arrogant--They are full of themselves and usually something else :-) and believe they are superior and therefore entitled to their positions of power and stature.

- Self-Absorbed--They admire and and are preoccupied with themselves, and not focused on what's ultimately good for the organization, the mission, and its people. 

In such organizations, and with such pitiful leadership, generally we find cultures of fear and what Harvard Business Review (January-February 2012) says are organizations where people "are afraid to speak honestly."

In these dysfunctional organizations with inept leadership, the workforce is stunted--they cannot genuinely contribute or grow and where organizational candor, trust, and collaboration is low, organizational performance is predictably poor.

HBR suggests that greater candor and sharing is possible by "breaking meetings into smaller groups," assigning people to "notice and speak up when something is being left unsaid," and to "teach 'caring-criticism'"--where input is provided constructively and not personally attacking and where honest feedback is viewed as "generous, rather than critical."

I think these suggestions may help organizations that are fundamentally well-run by caring and professional leaders, but when narcissists and power mongers rule the day, then the culture is not speak up, but rather shut up. 

One of the things that I have been fortunate to experience and learn is that diplomacy from the top-down goes a long way in creating a professional and productive work culture. 

When people are given respect and the freedom to speak up constructively, when they can work in true-teaming environments, and when relationships matter more than winning the day, then the workforce and all the individuals therein have the opportunity to grow to their potential. In speak up organizations, people can voice their opinions, provide valuable input, and contribute to the mission--both the people and the organization thrive. 

In contrast, when the workplace is shut up, because of narcissistic and poor leadership, the workforce is essentially shut down--they are in essence muzzled in speech and ultimately in deed. These organizations choke off their own talent and lifeblood, while their head swells from the arrogance and power at the top.

Diplomacy is a skill not only in international relations, but in life and in the workplace, and diplomatic leaders are not narcissists trying to wield and hold power, but rather polished and professional leaders who foster a culture of speak up and team up--they are ready to take their organizations and people to new levels of productivity, growth, and meaning.

Speak Up or Shut Up

Weeding Out The Servant-Leader From The Psychopath

A number of weeks ago, I saw the movie Horrible Bosses, a dark comedy with Kevin Spacey who not only horribly mistreats his workers, but also ends up being a psychopathic killer. (Note: the film has already grossed over $170 million).

The UK Daily Mail (2 September 2011) reports that psychologists have found that "one in 25 bosses is a [real] psychopath' but hides it with charm and business-speak," and that this is 4 times higher than the prevalence of psychopathology in the general population.

According to Oregon Counseling, a psychopath "lives a predatory lifestyle. They feel little or no regret...[and they] see people as obstacles to be overcome and eliminated."

The position of a boss at work would seem like a comfortable perch for a psychopath to occupy, where they could feed off of vulnerabilities of their underlings.

Thank G-d, not all bosses are like this--I can vouch for some very good ones out there--who truly are devoted to the success of the enterprise and look out for their people. As one of my good bosses told me, "we are going to set up together to succeed!"

At the same time, there are other bosses out there, who as one of my best friends would say, "the wheel is still turning, but the hamster is dead." They are there purely for themselves--plain and simple. Their career, their success, their next promotion...everyone else is just part of the food chain.

If I had to guess, I would bet that narcissism is highly correlated with psychopathic behavior at work. Note--to organizational behavior researchers out there, please verify!

So how do the psychopaths achieve the positions of power?

According to the research cited in Daily Mail, they actually cover up their poor performance and climb the social corporate ladder "by subtly charming supervisors and subordinates."

In other words, boss psychopaths are chameleons--expert at hiding their true colors or as my father used to tell me if that person has two faces, why would they use that one? :-)

Boss psychopaths are NOT real leaders--they lack empathy, are callous, deceitful, and use others for their own gain.

When we are fooled by psychopaths into putting them into positions of power, we are falling prey to their manipulations, and are putting our organizations and people at the ultimate risk for failure.

One Psychologist calls psychopaths: "people without a conscience"--this is the complete opposite of who we need to seek out as leaders for our organization--to raise them up to higher standards of conduct, performance, and genuine teamwork.

A REAL leader is a caretaker of the mission and people of the organization who strives to see both outperform and thrive--while bottom-feeding is for sharks and psychopaths only!

There is a religious (Jewish) saying that from one good deed comes another--for the organization and it's people, focus on the demonstration of ethical and caring behavior and results.

When I see a truly great leader, I am am inspired and hopeful again.

(Source Photo: here)

Weeding Out The Servant-Leader From The Psychopath

Selfishness and The Paradox of Emotional Intelligence

I was fortunate to be in a terrific leadership development class this week held in coordination with University of Virginia, and one of the instructors shared this interesting explanation about the four levels of emotional intelligence (EI), which I have put into the attached graphic (note: there are other variants of this).


Essentially there are three levels of EI that have to do with “me”:

1. Self-Awareness: Being cognizant of one’s own emotions, thinking and behaviors

2. Self-Management: Being able to control negative displays of emotions, thoughts, and behaviors.

3. Self-Direction: Being able to positively choose emotions, thoughts, and behaviors.

These three levels are steps and maturity in the development of a person’s emotional intelligence.

Then, for those that are able to “breakthrough” to the next and forth level having to do with “others” (instead of “me”), there is a fourth level called:

4. Empathy: Being able to understand, share, and identify with the emotions and thoughts of others.

The idea here, as another instructor stated, is that “we close the [emotional] gap with others through empathy and disclosure.”

However, in order to get to the stage where we can genuinely connect and empathize with others, we must first work on ourselves.

From a leadership perspective, I think this model of emotional intelligence is very valuable, because it provide us the framework for maturing our emotional self-development starting with basic awareness and advancing toward gaining control over ourselves and ultimately being able to have meaningful understanding for others.

It is only with such understanding of and connection with others that we can create the foundation for successful teamwork, innovation, and improved performance.

Where are we failing on EI?

• Being so busy with “the daily grind” that we don’t have the time, energy, or capacity to do justice to the relationships in our lives.

• Lack of mastery of the “me”—we lack self-awareness and are not in control of ourselves.

• Narcissism that leads us to ignore the others around us and therefore leads us to have difficulty relating to them.

All of these, in a sense, represent a huge life paradox. We are taught that to succeed we must work on ourselves, and in turn we have become a self-focused society.


We have learned that success means being perfectly educated, thin, fit, married, earning a huge salary, and so on. But we are so busy thinking about these goals and looking at them as pure achievements to be marked off on a list that we lose sight of the process. And in doing so we actually become less effective at the things we are trying to do.


The process is about becoming emotionally intelligent—about learning the skills of self-control, self-management, self-direction, and ultimately empathy.


In fact, to succeed—and to find meaning in that success—we must give meaningfully to others in time and energy, rather than just taking for ourselves.

Ultimately, it doesn’t have to be a “breakthrough” event to empathize, give, and build healthy and productive relationships. Regardless of how much money or prestige we achieve in life, I believe that achieving the “us” rather than only focusing on the “me” is truly where the biggest payoff is at in life.

Selfishness and The Paradox of Emotional Intelligence