==================

“People have forgotten this truth,” the fox said. “But you mustn’t forget it. You become responsible forever for what you’ve tamed.” 

—–

The Little Prince

===============

“I cannot play with you,” the fox replies. “I am not tamed.”

“What does that mean – to tame?” 

“It means to establish ties. To me, you are still nothing more than a little boy who is just like a hundred thousand other little boys. And I have no need of you. And you, on your part, have no need of me. To you, I am nothing more than a fox like a hundred thousand other foxes. But if you tame me, then we shall need each other. To me, you will be unique in all the world. To you, I shall be unique in all the world…please, tame me!”

“I want to, very much,” the Little Prince replied, “but I have not much time. I have friends to discover, and a great many things to understand.” 

“One only understands the things that one tames,” the fox said.

==============

Ok.

Some people aren’t going to like the way I am going to discuss Leadership. Some people will not like the implication behind the word “tame” with regard to employees. Those some people should read before they dismiss the thought. t may just offer a different way of thinking about the responsibility of leadership.

Leaders have a tough job in that you manage skills, people, personalities & overall organizational purpose.

We call it managing, but in reality it is taming. You tame the independent wildness and tame the ability & potential so you can understand it, and it can understand itself, so that eventually there is a mutual progress to play the game as well as it can be played.

Please note that nowhere in there have I suggested “blind obedience.” Taming, in this view, is reaching true understanding so that real personal growth occurs.

That said … in that metaphorical expression of leadership … you own what you tame.

I say that because far too often we leaders & managers view management as something we do for the benefit of the organization and, hopefully, the benefit of the people … but we ‘own’ no responsibility for the individual in terms of actions or who they become — and certainly not ‘forever.’

Some of us view ourselves as shapers in some form or fashion but lean back against the belief we only dent the surface of who and what the person is and will become. We view what we do as possibly taming but within the purview of just a chapter in their lives … not an entire story.

In some ways we do this simply as an act of self-survival. The truth is that investing too much personally into your business; the organization and the employees can … well … kill you.

Okay.

Maybe not literally kill you … but figuratively it can become a daily strain on your psychological health. Many of us, out of pragmatism, eye our relationship with employees as a story with a finite end – be it positive, sad, joyful, disappointing or ambiguous – but it is, in reality, just the end of a chapter.

The story keeps going. Ours and theirs.

And while we may represent only a chapter in a larger narrative … well … we own what we tame. This is an inclusive way of leading & managing. You include yourself in someone’s Life and … well … you own what part you tame.

Uhm.

Of course … this can also swing to the opposite more dangerous side – an exclusive leadership side. This is ‘ownership’, not owning, of what you tame. You don’t become part of them you simply offer a voice to them – I sometimes call this ‘pack mentality leadership’.

These are the leaders who say “on my team <or in other words “mine”> forever.” It is possessive in a non productive way.

“Leave and my wrath is upon you.”

That eader’s attitude? “Not want to be tamed by me? you are “un” whatever it is I stand for.” And this is where exclusive leadership truly rears its ugly head.

There is little vision, there is a lot of ‘features’ in the offering <more money, more jobs, more titles, more wins, more whatever> and therefore the incentives do the work and not any persuasive direction or vision. The ‘pack attitude’ is a means to an end and a vision in and of itself.

—-

“Managers tend to use compensation as a crutch.  After all, it is far easier to design an incentive system that will do management’s work than it is to articulate a direction persuasively, develop agreement about goals and problems, and confront difficulties when they arise.”

Michael Beer, Harvard professor of business administration

—–

The features, the actions & behavior of those who belong on this team, are how they speak of unity and teamwork, i.e., “everyone should act this way … but we are the ones who do.”

Or how about this?

“The only important thing is the unification of the people – because the other people don’t mean anything.” <Trump used these words once awhile back> In other words … the only people who truly count are the ones who are in this leader’s team.

Even worse? They use the ‘us versus them’ polarization as a means to suggest “team personality & character” all the while these types of leaders actually do it to create their own power structure. They don’t desire to include anyone else nor do they tend to reach out to others <albeit they make some inclusive noises on occasion> they desire to build a construct where people ask to join <because they should, of course, have to ask> and are not asked to join.

“Excluding leader types” love the ‘us versus them’ aspect. They love being derided and they love opposition. All these things do is solidify the team’s belief they are different & better & know more than the others. The team becomes what represents what is real & right and the leader controls what is real & right. The leader’s people are truly the only people that count and the leader hasn’t tamed ability but rather attitude.

And here is where the ownership of what you tamed hits a dangerous spot.

This leader has tamed an attitude but feels little ownership of the people themselves. Therefore should the leader decide to move on or get tired of whatever it is they are doing at the moment they feel no remorse in leaving people behind <who still harbor the attitude he/she tamed>.

The pack remains, the pack mentality still seethes, but the pack leader is no longer there.

Anyway.

Let me close with some thoughts.

I think it is a healthy thought for every manager & leader to ponder ‘you own what you tame.’ Leadership and leading is never easy and I have the scars to show to prove it.

I found it naturally tempting to build a quasi-pack mentality in my groups as a younger leader & manager. I was, and have always been, a more aggressive business person – I am not fond of status quo and not particularly fond of ‘the safe road.’

I can absolutely state that as a manager you can feed off of the ‘pack mentality’ attitude. It is exhilarating and almost like a drug … and maybe more dangerous … it can feed into a self-belief aspect that can edge upon arrogance and obliviousness to the greater good.

I don’t think I ever fell off the cliff on this but I certainly got a glimpse of the edge. As I gained more experience I saw the danger in doing so <to my team members, to my organization & to myself> and sought to find some balance.

Just remember.

You can tame your people’s ability & attitude in an inclusive & “unearthing skill & talent” way and they, and you, will benefit at the time and in the future <whether you are still working together or not>.

Just remember.

You own what you tame.

——-

“The future is purchased by the present.”

—

Samuel Johnson

==

Well.

I recently had a conversation about being a ‘futurist.’ When it came up I admit … I kind of sat back and tried to move on to another subject.

Why?

First.

I respected who brought it up. Big brain. Good thinker. Said with good intent.

Second.

I wrote in 2011 <and just reposted> the whole ‘futurist’ career was bullshit … and, thankfully, suggested I could never be one.

——–

The “Manifesto of Futurism,” written by Filippo Tommaso Marinetti was published on the front page of the French newspaper Le Figaro on February 20, 1909. It proclaimed the desire of the author, and his fellow Futurists, to abandon the past and embrace the future.
The point here on the whole concept of a “Futurist” is that their very existence is disdainful of the present.

Anyway.

Should we have an eye to the future? Absolutely.
To not do so is to remain stagnant with regard to thinking.

Should we ignore the present? Absolutely not.

If there was ever a time that a Futurist discussed the present … now would be the time.

——–

I still believe the same now as I did then.

Future thinking is purchased in the present. In other words … something existing within the present – most likely some type of behavior … is the future opportunity.

Saying that permits me to say that I believe Futurists … or the label/title … is kind of silly. Suffice it to say looking at trends and envisioning ‘what could be’ doesn’t need a title.

And you certainly cannot earn a living doing it if you get paid for successful futuristic prognostication.

Why?

Because the probability of being right is very very low.

Pretty much every so called futurist <excepting maybe Toffler & Drucker … who never called themselves Futurists> has had an incredibly poor success rate in outlining future trends & behavior <and sometimes even attitudes>.

Moving beyond simply slamming futurists … in my mind … I believe futurists shouldn’t predict … they should inspire thinking <which could beget the future>. This kind of career activity is sort of like NASA.

Unintended innovations and learning.

<insert … ‘yikes’ … and how do you get funding for that these days?>

Speculating on future is all about inspiring thinking … thinking about possibilities and what ifs. And ‘what could be’s.’

This also means not get attached to any one idea or ‘trend’ too much but rather simply embrace the only thing you know for sure … things will change … and embrace change. And if ‘change is a’comin’ you always need to be thinking.

Oh. And not as predicting measured by success or failure.

Well.

Maybe the success objective is simply being in the realm of ‘not being surprised’ <or ‘well, that doesn’t surprise me’>.

Whew.

How’s that for an objective?

I imagine more companies really could use this type of futurist. The difficulty most likely resides in the fact a great thinking ‘futurist’ will typically not bear real tangible results in the present. Their present successes almost always reside in ‘working on ideas which will be used in the future.’

But.

Here is probably where I look at things more differently than any futurist in the world <which means I will never be a card carrying futurist because they will never give me a card> … the future is actually found in the now. Uhm. I mean that future ideas are actually found in the now.

Oh.

And ‘the now’ is not just in thinking … but in doing.

Thinking about what is happening now <attitudes>.

Thinking about what is being done today <behavior>.

Say what?

How can it be futuristic if it is just a derivative of something in the present?

<and feel free and insert a shitload of exclamation points in here if you would like>

Well.

To me real futuristic trending type thinking has to have a slightly pragmatic foundation residing somewhere in the minds of the rising generation. The real … the truly meaningful … behavior shifts occur not within a generation but within transition of generations. Therefore any pie in the sky type thinking has to be made up of some pie that <simplistically> the kids of the present have an interest in eating of. For any future type ideation will live or die not with existing attitude generations but more so in evolving attitude generations.

Now.

To be clear.

People’s attitudes do, and can, evolve as they age and experience things <and they are exposed to new and different attitudes and behavior>. But that isn’t futuristic thinking … that is simply critical mass thinking.

It’s a different ability. That is someone who can look at existing trends and attitudes … mostly looking at those that reside in fractions or in the minority of minds … and figuring out which ones will actually gain enough traction to attain the critical mass to ‘evolve’ the majority of attitudes.

I say that but also suggest that this is often a Sisyphean task.

Attitudes are imprints. They are almost like tattoos. Once established they are almost impossible to remove.

Think about what I would consider the ‘biggies’ of this generation … climate change and marriage <for everyone> … I could also add in equal opportunity.

Please do not get stuck on the examples … just focus on the fact that while I tend to believe the past minority point of views have shifted to a majority more mainstream view acceptance … there still remains a solid steadfast unrelenting minority attitude system in place.

Evolution of attitudes is like glaciers. And they also tend to follow generations … and not single generations.

Early adopter generation transitioning to a vocal minority generation to a majority acceptance generation and ultimately a 4th <and last> generation who not only has the attitudes but behavior is established.

Ok.

Back to what I consider a contrarian point of view on Futurists. I will begin with a quote … and a thought on character.

 ——-

“People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of their character.“

Ralph Waldo Emerson

——–

Most ‘futurists’ are pompous holier-than-thou vocal nimwhits.
Okay.

That was harsh.

I will take back the nimwhit part.

Most are pretty sharp. But claiming to be a futurist isn’t about claiming to be some intellectual … or some highly intelligent individual … it is more a reflection of character.

Their character is reflected in a view on how you see the world and how you think about the world … and frankly … how you see people. More futurists should be paying more attention to their character than their predictions. I don’t have research on this and because I am not a futurist I am not qualified to predict future behavior … but … I would suggest that if futurists would do a self character attitude tune-up their actual professional behavior would most likely improve <their predictions would improve>.

<note: I am fairly sure I just got kicked off the futurist campus with that thought … especially the nitwit part>

Second <and lastly>.

Futurists have to look forward but seek truth in the young. Their predictions will never come true if there isn’t a pragmatic realistic foundation to be found within the youth. With no traction … the idea … shit … any future type idea … will die.

As I type this it sounds so obvious.

But it seems like futurists and trend identifiers seem to focus on today’s people and gaze at the horizon.

Well.

Paradoxically … future ideas are actually best found in looking backwards … at those who are coming up behind … the young.

Ah.

Shit.

What do I know.

I am not a futurist.

I like to live in the present & make sure I have a future to be doing something in. Uhm. Isn’t that a Futurist?

============

“Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.

—-

Niels Bohr

============

Well.

I interact with behavioral philosophers, economists & scientists all the time. We are all truly in the attitude & behavior business constantly scanning the world for why people do the things they do & try and isolate things which they may be interested in doing in the future. None of them seriously call themselves “futurists.” Most think the term is kind of snake oily & slightly absurd. This leads me to discuss this whole idea of ‘being a Futurist’ through a book called The Futurist <by a guy named Ottmer>.

But before I discuss the book … this overall topic is one of my favorite. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh … let me clarify … one of my favorite cynical topics. I view the fact that there are these bullshit slinging presenters and trend watchers prognosticator wannabes, who call themselves ‘Futurists’, who make an amazing living off of sound bite thoughts quite cynically <and even slightly dismissively>.

Do I begrudge them the ability to find a sound bite? Nope.

What I do have a grudge against is that I, and many other people, then have to invest an inordinate amount of energy explaining to people that the sound bite is just that … a sound bite … a simplistic meaningless irrelevant concept in the real world. We have to spend gobs of energy explaining why the ‘future speculation’ isn’t even speculation but rather as likely as a herd of unicorns coming over the horizon.

And then I found a book with someone who apparently has the same cynical attitude with regard to these ‘trend spotters.’ <note: I wish I had written this book>

So.

The Futurist. In case you don’t want to read this well written quasi-fun, quasi-cynical fictional look at the “buzz creator” future trends world, here is nutshell look at these pop-culture bullshit artists using the opening speech at the Futureworld conference <a fictional conference> by JP Yates <a fictional person/futurist> in the book:

————-

I realized this morning over breakfast that I’ve spent a good portion of my life seeking the approval of people I can’t stand. 

Including myself.

The truth is, I know nothing. Understand nothing.

I try. I am not lazy. But the more I try to understand something the more intertwined and complex it seems. The more I realize I am out of the proverbial loop. The literal loop. The existential loop. The more I think of things the more I question whether anyone is properly looped. In fact, I challenge the very existence of the loop, proverbial, literal or metaphorical. So this is a fundamental problem, being out of a loop that I don’t even believe in.

Most books or movies or creation myths have a hero who knows all there is to know about at least one thing. And he uses that gift to overcome an obvious and blatant evil adversary. He has insider knowledge. Special gifts. Ingenious ways of getting to the core of things. The answer. The solution. The truth. He knows what’s right and wrong. He knows what’s next. And he knows what to do about it.

I don’t.

I don’t understand the present let alone the fucking future.

Yet we claim to understand. Pretend to. Some actually believe it, that they do know. You know the people. The ones who talk about such things with such cocksure passion that you think, shit, maybe they do know, maybe they really do. They speak in absolutes. Blacks and whites. They speak with soothing partisan simplicity. They speak with their hands and use Powerpoint like a sword. They quote people you ought to know more about. They work on a privileged higher plane and posit their views with a condescending subterranean confidence, convincing you not to worry, that forces are at work on other levels, levels that simple folks like us cannot even begin to fathom, so it’s best not to worry your pretty little head about it and trust them, the experts, that this is the way it is. And the way it will be.

People get rich and powerful operating this way, perpetuating the myth of the uber level, the exclusive loop. Dispensing their wisdom and opinions and edicts to the masses.  Breaking down the conflicting moral, political and economic issues of 52 billion people into a binary proposition. Yes or no. War or peace. Good or bad. With us or against us. Ginger or Mary Ann.

Presidents work on this level. And dictators. Talk show hosts. Professional wrestlers. Actresses on the steps of the capitol. Conservatives. Liberals. The members of VFW Post #442. CEOs. Madison Avenue. Wall street.  Sesame Street.

They’re all in the loop. All working on another level.

I’m not.

I don’t believe in the scared loop or the secret level.

In fact, I think the more people claim to absolutely know, the more clueless and insecure thery absolutely are.  Of course, I can’t be sure of this.

Which brings me to us. And to me. Who do we think we are?  Who did I think I was?

How can I call myself a futurist when I missed the most cataclysmic event of our time? How can I predict tomorrow when the world is on fire today?

How did I see reality TV coming but miss this?

And let’s be honest: we all did.

We make all these pronouncements but none of us ever goes back to check on their accuracy. Shit, if the people in this room were right just 1 percent of the time, we’d all be telecommuting from Tahiti, eating dinner in a pill form, and having literal sex with our virtual selves. But if you talk shit long enough, sooner or later you may actually be right, and if by some fluke that is the case, watch out, because any successful prediction is always followed by the cannibalistic scramble for credit – the blood grab to brand an original thought as your own.

We all want to be the first to be there to identify a “click moment”, but we live in a world that may never click again.

We’re great at telling people the future they need to buy into instead of the present they should be making the most of.

And what’s hilarious is that we all believe it. That we are geniuses. That we are all responsible for and deserving of our wealth. More deserving of the privileged life than, say, a teacher or a mason. A cleric or a hot dog vendor. Despite the fact that 99% of us did not create our good fortune. The markets did. Or luck. Or heredity.

I believed it.

But not anymore.

You see, we may be able to identify cool, but we can never invent it. Cool is never manufactured. You never try to be cool. It happens.

Same goes for goodness. And truth.

And the only truth I know …is that I know nothing. And even though you may dress the part – the missoni scarves, the yellow jumpsuits, the tiny glasses, the all-whites, the all-blacks, the Nehru’s, the sandals, the glittering gadgets – none of you know anything either. Sorry about that.

We are not innovators.  We are fucking abominations.

To paraphrase someone smarter than me, who still knows nothing, the philosophical task of our age is for each of us to decide what it means to be a successful human being.

I don’t know the answer to that, but I would like to find out.

In the meantime, I know absolutely zilch.

I am the founding father of the Coalition of Clueless.

————-

Ok.

Beyond the ‘coalition of clueless what captured my feelings about so-called Futurists is this:

“We are not innovators, we are fucking abominations.”

Cynical?

Sure.

Have I felt this listening, or reading, to some of the popular trend spotter ‘gurus’? You betcha.

Do I wish I had written this? Absofuckinglutely.

This book led me on my merry way in it’s Futurist bashing in a way reminiscent of Joseph Heller (Good as Gold and maybe a business version of Catch-22).

I think the whole Futurist label is bullshit. A ‘futurist’ is one of those nifty bullshit words the business world uses for those pop psychologists who identify trends and recognizers of ‘future cool.’

And the book permitted me a glimpse into why I could have never been a successful ‘futurist’ … well … beyond the fact I suck at identifying meaningful trends of course … and that is futurists need to be blindingly optimistic with regard to prosperity … and I would be screwed because I am too pragmatic.

That said.

If you are a cynical pragmatist like me and you care about this topic you will love this book. Each chapter has a paragraph summary of former achievements of the protagonist/Futurist.

Like:

“He once spoke before the graduates of a Bible college in Virginia about the future of God and one week later delivered the keynote address to the Adult Video Distributors Conference in Vegas about the future of porn, and received standing ovations at both.”

<awesome … and real life practical truth>

Another.

“He used to believe that things were getting better. He thought that science had a heart and that progress had a conscience. Then came doubts, followed by questions and alarming insights. Soon this high-profile, big-ticket trend prognosticator was prophesying doom and gloom.

He began to criticize the present, and he warned of a more damaged tomorrow if we refused to change. He gave heads-ups and watch-outs, supported by facts and scientifically validated forecasts and cautionary tales.

But this kind of outlook left his audiences feeling troubled, which was not the desired effect. It was suggested that he might want to put a bit more of a smile back on his work. So he switched gears and began telling those audiences what they wanted to hear.”

That is a truth.

I guarantee it.

With all due respect to the names I will now use … Seth Godin, Faith Popcorn, Tipping Point guy … they are smart people with an ability to articulate old ideas in a fresh way so that they appear to be ‘future thinking.’ I love listening to them & scanning their articulations but they are not sharing unique ideas. They are simply <mostly … just to give some ideas the benefit of the doubt> taking other people’s ideas … or thoughts … or portions/fragments of thoughts … and re-presenting them not only with gusto but also in a slightly different sound bite <sic: somewhat bullshit for people to drool over> way to capture the interest of whomever they are writing to and for.

As the book said:

“The futurist was never cutting edge or far ahead of the curve. He was often only just a few minutes in front of the pack, or a couple seconds ahead of the global zeitgeist, or at least of the middle american one. It is rare, and a gift, to be able to see something was going to be big in a mainstream way months and sometimes years before your hipsters, your early adapters, your so called thought leaders embraced it.”

–

The Futurist

Look.

I understand that Futurists are trapped in between telling the truth of today and the hope of tomorrow. And I do not begrudge someone making a living selling some hope … but … once you begin making a living doing something like this at some point you reach a place where you have a choice of telling the truth or simply selling “possible hope.”

Hey.

I say that and I am clearly in the “possible hope” guy category.

The trap gets more difficult if you actually get something right.

Here is how it works.

Once you get one big thing right people will tend to forget all the previous things you got so very wrong. Even better?

Sometimes the evangelical following will then step up and try to find ways to make all the wrong prognostications, past present and future, seem right.

The book protagonist tells his fellow experts, “If the people in this room were right just 1 percent of the time, we’d all be telecommuting from Tahiti, eating dinner in pill form and having literal sex with our virtual selves.”

So.

The truth of a trend spotter or a ‘futurist’ is that they steal <reassemble> the thoughts of others and repurpose them for slightly different purposes under the guise of ‘recognizing disparate facts that impact the bigger picture.’ Once again … I do not begrudge them. That takes a skill.

In addition they also benefit from the fact that in this world it becomes acceptable to not to know the answers to the questions that the world asks every second of the day. It’s okay to not know what you want, where you want to go and who you want to become.

It’s okay to wonder.

It’s okay to question and ask.

And it is okay to not to know<although those listening then take it as gospel>.

And what’s not okay is to stop wondering. So the Futurist steps in and uses all of those to create a made up future world everyone can think about.

Ok.

All that said.

Here is a truth <and Futurists clearly understand this>. The people they are talking to don’t really want wisdom.

Those people just want shortcuts to getting more. Therefore if the message doesn’t match the ‘more’ desires ultimately it doesn’t engage the listeners because it doesn’t contain the inevitability of something positive.

It may sound cynical but nowadays a message needs a sense of some guarantee that prosperity will never end <that is a thought from the book>. And therein lies my biggest issue <and my love for the Futurist book> … the fact that trend watchers are seeking future prosperity versus discussing empowering present prosperity.

That “seek future vs. empower present” is a big topic and I really want to simply suggest that everyone read The Futurist if you have any thoughts on this type of thing <although I have a separate post coming up where I use a fabulous quote from a really smart guy who suggests if we spent the same amount of time on present thinking as we do on future thinking our present, and future, would be a shitload better>.

Oh.

And … back to the ‘what do I mean about using old/other people’s ideas?’

Futurist is an old term.

The “Manifesto of Futurism,” written by Filippo Tommaso Marinetti was published on the front page of the French newspaper Le Figaro on February 20, 1909. it proclaimed the desire of the author, and his fellow Futurists, to abandon the past and embrace the future.

The point here on the whole concept of a “Futurist” is that their very existence is disdainful of the present. It suggests at its core there is something wrong with the present and the present should be discarded for something yet to be done in the future. Personally I hate that thought.

I like to firmly place one foot in the present and one foot in the future and go do great things.

Anyway.

Should we have an eye to the future? Absolutely.

To not do so is to remain stagnant with regard to thinking.

Should we ignore the present? Absolutely not.

If there was ever a time that a Futurist discussed the present … now would be the time. But i imagine a Futurist wouldn’t earn a shitloads of money or sell a lot of books if the said something like “the Future is in the now.”

It is an excellent book if you like this kind of stuff. It is cynical enough to make you ponder some of the mumbo jumbo you have probably absorbed over the past years. And I guess, in my mind, that is a good enough reason to read the book.

=============

“We should place confidence in our employee.

Confidence is the foundation of friendship.

If we give it, we will receive it.

Any person in a managerial position, from supervisor to president, who feels that his employee is basically not as good as he is and who suspects his employee is always trying to put something over on him, lacks the necessary qualities for human leadership – to say nothing of human friendship.”

—–

Harry Humphreys

============

“The conventional definition of management is getting work done through people, but real management is developing people through work.”

—-

Agha Abedi

=============

Well.

Leading and managing people is possibly one of the most rewarding things you can do in a business career.

Firing people is possibly one of the most unrewarding things you can do in a business career.

Unfortunately these two things are inextricably linked.

I could argue that once you assume responsibility for firing someone … you learn more about yourself, and I imagine others learn about you, than from almost any other responsibility you assume as a leader.

No one likes firing people. Well. No one who is any good at business leadership. I don’t care if you absolutely hate the person you are firing, if the person has actually committed a fireable offense and you are in the right to fire them, or even if you fire someone for good reason … suffice it to say … it never feels good to fire someone.

And because of that … a good business leader never delegates the tough termination. And they never send someone to terminate a direct report.

Generally speaking … you fire anyone who is a direct report, or you were directly responsive for hiring, face to face.

Yeah.

This may not be, logistically, the easiest thing to do but it is part of the burden of responsibility. It is the mantle you wear and it is what you are obligated to offer the person being terminated – dignity & respect.

Anything less than that and you are shirking your responsibility.  Anything less than that is … well … chicken shit. And you are a chickenshit business leader if you do not do these things.

Sure.

What I just shared is a hard lesson but one business people learn in young management.

I will never forget the first person I ever fired. Paul.

An absolute great guy in absolutely the wrong position and possibly career. But that doesn’t mean it was easy to terminate him. While I was 99% sure it was the right thing to do <and my boss and her bosses agreed> there was an extraordinarily loud 1% in my head that kept me awake that night.

Inevitably he chose a different career and went on to become an SVP of sales.

And he was kind enough to drop me a couple of notes to tell me it all worked out for the best.

But I will never forget firing him. I can honestly say I never forget anyone I have fired <and that is a semi-long list after years of management>.

However.

I would like to think my leadership career is measured more by the people I did not fire.

Not firing, in a larger organization, can be harder than you think.

I think I spent more time explaining to the most senior people why I would not fire some of the people I managed than I did ever discussing almost anything else about employees with them.

Well. That is … it felt that way.

The crap that floats upwards into senior leadership about individual employees is amazing. The littlest mistakes and quirks seem to take on exponential size when it arrives at the most senior people — and they do not hesitate to share their disproportional views.

Regardless. All of those views cut into the ‘trust belief’ … are they respected within the organization, do they have the trust of the organization and can they be trusted with their responsibility.

And that is when you earn your stripes as a manager. You do not cave in to the ‘easy thing to do’ but rather stand up for your people and let the chips fall as they may. Oh. And you learn it is totally worth it to not take the easy way out.

Let me be clear.

No one is perfect. I was not a perfect employee nor was a perfect manager. And, yet, when judging employees there sometimes is the ‘perfect measure’ of which becomes the absurd standard.

Yes.

We should judge senior people more critically but we should judge them fairly.

Anyway.

I didn’t fire a lot of people. And I can think of at least 4 who made me incredibly proud that I didn’t … despite some pressure from others to do so.

All 4 of these have sent me notes at different points, not thanking me for not firing them but rather for simply giving them a chance, believing in them and seeing something in them that they knew <because all employees know when they are under ‘the human resources microscope’>  many others didn’t.

All 4 of them have been professionally successful and, more importantly, are solid good human beings. Neither of those are because I didn’t fire them but rather vindicate the non-firing decision.

All that said.

Firing someone, despite the pain of actually doing it, is often the easy way out and is certainly a way to avoid looking at your own flaws.

Flaws? I sometimes believe one of the hardest things you can learn in your career is that your best is not particularly special.

Learning the fact that your talent, in reality, is matched by a shitload of people.

Learning that your best is relatively easily matched by a shitload of people.

It is an unfortunate truth that:

• Talent is talent.
• Smarts are smarts.
• And expertise is almost always relative.

At any given point in Life and your career you can look around you and, if you are self aware, you will note you are rarely the most talented, rarely the smartest one in the room and rarely the only expert.

Even on your best day you may not actually be the best.

I imagine that is a tough thing to get your head wrapped around.

But I also imagine if you do wrap your head around it evaluating employees and how you fire them is affected.

I always watch how someone terminates an employee.

You can learn a lot about people in that situation … and you can learn a shitload about how someone feels about dignity, respect and responsibility in how they terminate an employee.

===========

Postscript 1: under the general heading of “chickenshit” from a business perspective I will comment on a Trump firing:

There are hundreds of different viable reasons to fire someone and if you have the responsibility to hire & fire and it is ‘at will’ you can do what you want. But HOW Trump fired James Comey was chickenshit.

It wasn’t face to face with a direct report <or even face to face with anyone … just a letter delivered by a non-government employee>.

While there appeared to be no sense of urgency to terminate the action was taken with an absurd sense of senseless urgency which permitted Comey the indignity of being blindsided, in the middle of a commitment to the people who reported to him and not even in town.

This was a chicken shit way of terminating an honorable employee. It is indicative of Trump’s lack of character.

Postscript 2: Under the general heading of “this is some crazy shit” from a business perspective:

Firing someone for lack of confidence when the people who you are actually working for have a general lack of confidence in you is slightly surreal.

This may actually be the ironic point of this little postscript rant.

The stated “Donald J Trump fired his FBI Director because of ‘lack of confidence’ is … well … crazy shit.

Well. If that is a true criteria and I were to look at some national polling data I could argue Trump could be fired on the same criteria by the American people.

Most leaders do not defend their firing decision through childish name calling.

“Crying Chuck” .. “Richie” in quotes <instead of Richard>. Calling people diminishing names. Childish crap like that. I have been criticized as a leader for people I have fired, as well as people who I didn’t fire, and when appropriate I responded with some “why I did it” information but I never deflected my choice & decision onto others by suggesting they were not qualified to criticize … and I certainly always treated peers with a modicum of respect.

Tweet response rather than standing up in person

Sniping from the sidelines is not leadership.

Period.

‘nuf said.

=============

“A single arrow is easily broken, but not ten in a bundle.”

—–

Japanese proverb

=============

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed. It is the only thing that ever has.”

—–

Margaret Mead

================

So.

I was listening to a bunch of talking heads on tv speculating on a staff shake up in the Trump white house personnel.

One thing I heard caught my attention … “well, part of the president’s issue is that he has kind of a hodgepodge of personnel.”

And that thought is correct. And it made me think a little bit.

The truth is once you move past managing a group or running a mom & pop sized business every management team you manage will be a hodgepodge of people, skills, personalities and … well … loyalty. Not only is it impossible to hire in ‘your people’ in every slot … most good leaders do not want to do that.

All that said.

To be clear.

Trump is possibly one of the crappiest senior leaders I have ever seen and he appears to have no belief that words matter and has no understanding of the concept of ‘communication alignment’ <let alone any alignment> … however … he is what he is. And because he is what he is … inconsistencies included … the staff he surrounds himself matters a shitload with regard to overall effectiveness.

What do I mean?

Trump forces his staff to adjust in real time as he communicates, and thinks, in real time.

Trump has never worked in a large organization nor has he ever truly had to manage a larger group of people, let alone senior executives.

He has always been the spokesperson and the brand and the final word … surrounded by family who was more than happy to simply double and triple down on whatever dad said <and be loyal to even his craziest tactical maneuvering and craziest words and wordsmithing>.

Real senior executives do not work that way nor is it a particularly effective method outside of a mom & pop structure.

In a real business organization you don’t get to pick & choose everyone in your circle … most times it is a hodgepodge of skills, personalities and experience. And you know what? You learn to manage them effectively because that is what a leader does.

You adapt some of you to accommodate some of them <yeah … sure … envision Trump doing that … uhm … sure … ain’t gonna happen>.

Trump is being forced out of his mom & pop management model into a more traditional larger business management model <and he is going kicking & screaming>.

Most people learn this as soon as they move from group management to department management <you cannot fire everyone and rehire only your people> and absolutely learn this lesson as soon as you move into the C-level positions.

Another aspect is when you get a position you do not treat it as an “I won so you need to …” but rather “I now get to lead and I am going to have to …”

All that said.

You learn some management personnel tricks to help you out.

I always tried to bring one person with me wherever I went as I moved up. Depending on the structure of the organization I always wanted at least one person who could “translate” me to the hodgepodge team. This wasn’t necessarily done to dictate my desires & behaviors onto a team but rather to help them align to how I managed so they could adapt and move faster.

I manage nothing like Trump but let’s assume Trump is moving into the presidency … it almost becomes mandatory for effectiveness that he has a team aligned on “what to do when Trump does his crazy.” He need a management team that doesn’t argue about what to do he needs a management team that absorbs the blow and moves out doing what needs to be done as the true power brokers for getting shit done.

By the way … this is not about loyalty to Trump this is about loyalty to most effectively getting good shit done. I didn’t care if people bitched about me behind my back <I always assumed they did> what I cared about is that they respected the general idea and invested their energy in trying to figure out how to best effectively implement the idea rather than invest energy trying to defend anything they really would have preferred just bitching about behind my back.

I always preferred loyalty to “getting good smart shit done” and always believed I would ultimately earn some respect if I <Me> always remained loyal to the idea of “enabling good smart shit to get done.”

Before I finish this thought I will admit my preference was always to try an bring in two foundational team members in order to kind of create some pillars … but you can get away with one to align a hodgepodge of managers & executives.

Anyway.

In an organization the size of a presidency Trump needs a translator but more importantly he needs an aligned team with regard to what to do with him and his behavior <and not be arguing over it>.

……… a Trump management team ………

Trump’s inclination will be with what he feels most comfortable with — family.

His next inclination will be with what makes him feel the best — the ones who unflinchingly try and power-broke the crazy <he would call them unflinching loyalists>.

Neither of those have anything to do with effective leadership nor do they have anything to do with effective ‘management of getting shit done.’

He has never been in a large organization nor has he managed a large group of people nor has he tried to get a large group of people aligned to agree & do some shit.

He naturally gravitates toward employees who don’t deliver bad news and those who deliver flattery.

They may feel good to have around but they are the absolute worst people to have on your management team. You only build a team like that if you have no interest in improving, no interest in any intellectual conflict <which is what actually sparks better ideas> and/or you are so insecure or arrogant <yes, you can be both> you don’t want any ideas other than your own.

Most often it is the senior leadership who challenges you that prompt new insights and help propel the group to success.

 

 

“You need people who have different points of view and aren’t afraid to argue. They are the kind of people who stop the organization from doing stupid things.”

Harvard Business Review

 

Look.

All leaders assume responsibility for a hodgepodge of senior managers. That’s what we do.

And we learn to set what expectations are and align on vision and encourage some flexibility & adapting and get going.

And we learn that some of what we do and what we think works a little better in one place than anther and that some people are better than we think at first blush and some people we really liked when we met them are worse than we thought.

And we learn that you don’t demand respect but rather earn it and loyalty is gained through respect.

I would imagine that engendering loyalty to Trump is hard in that up to this point loyalty most likely centered on fame & fortune.  And most of us who have led in larger organizations understand that strong foundational loyalty is less about the tangible fame & fortune but rather respect.  He is gonna have some problems with that.

I would imagine that effectiveness to Trump is blind support for him and what he says. And most of us who have led in larger organizations understand that effectiveness is less about support for what the leader says … but rather in structured response to a leader’s guidance & thoughts. I never wanted people to do what I said … I wanted people to do what needed to be done.  He is gonna have some problems with that.

I would imagine that alignment to Trump is familial. And most of us who have led in a larger organization want the exact same thing … but we know we have a hodgepodge team who is ‘the family’ and we deal with it.

Would I shake up the Trump administration? Yeah. I surely would.

And I would do it almost exactly opposite of how I envision he is likely to do it.

He doesn’t understand there is a campaign team and now he needs an effective doing team. He bludgeoned us with his dull insights on the campaign trail and now he needs to focus more on action.

What would I do with his cadre of white men?

I, personally, would make Kushner my chief of staff. He has no fucking clue how to do the job but he knows the Trumpster better than anyone in the world.

Give him some deputies who have a shitload of government experience. Send Ivanka off to write a real book. And build a staff of Republican zealots who know how to get shit done. Trust the Kushner kid to translate what the Donald J crazy means to everyone.

Bannon can stay but he just needs to focus on feeding the Trump crazy and let Kushner kid deal with the crazy output.

Others <just off the top of my head>. I love Wilbur Ross. Mnuchin almost seems overwhelmed-giddy by being in the spotlight. I would find a sane version of Mulvaney to take his job. I would tell Tillerson to start hiring like a mad man and tell him he can fire whoever he doesn’t need once he actually has some staff to do some shit. Just get out of Mattis, McMaster and Kelly’s way. I can’t get rid of Sessions even though I think he is crazy <I think he thinks he lives in the 1950’s> but because he actually translates Trump crazy better than anyone other than maybe that little pit bull Lewandowski.  I would wake up Carson, Perry, and all the other Cabinet members we haven’t heard a peep out of and ask them if they would like to participate in this circus.

I imagine my real point is that to be an effective leader of a hodgepodge group it is more important that THEY can work together than YOU like them.

Because if they can work together well than there is a better chance that the organization will not do stupid shit even if you make a stupid decision, your crazy will come to life as not-so-crazy pragmatism and knee-jerk spontaneous crazy asshat tweets simply get absorbed into seamless actions which make the tweets look a little less spontaneous, a little less knee jerk, a little less crazy … but still asshat because that is who you are.

And that is the value of a non-arguing hodgepodge group. They tend to mute the mistakes and crazy and amplify the actual good ideas and thoughts you may actually have.

A non-aligned hodgepodge managerial team simply exacerbates the problem — your crazy looks crazier, your spontaneous looks more spontaneous <see: unhinged> and your asshatedness looks more asshatted.

If I were a management consultant for Trump <I would shoot myself> I would look at him as a lost cause … he is what he is. He is a flower <with thorns> and I would turn my attention to the environment the flower is growing in.

If I were a management consultant for Trump <I would shoot myself> I would find a team that maybe wasn’t on the “Trump train” but rather find competent people who can do shit that I want done <and let the chief of staff … who is on the Trump Train … get them doing Trump train shit>.

If I were a management consultant for Trump <I would shoot myself> I would turn to the Kushner kid and say “you wanted in … you are in. You are the Trump whisperer. Make shit happen.”

Let me be clear.

Trump will shake up his staff and maybe cabinet members and he will fuck it up. He has no idea how to manage a business organization other than in a mom & pop style and he has no innate leadership skills and his management instincts suck.

And he has no clue how to build an effective team <someone should tell him there is not enough room up his ass for all the people he actually needs to run a country let alone a viably larger sized organization>.

Oh. And he is a narcissistic asshat who believes no one knows better than he does.

In the end.

As I stated in my Trump 100 day piece … he did nothing in his first 100 days that would suggest the next 100 days <and foreseeable 100 day increments> would be any smoother, efficient or effective. I am 99% confident he will shake up his staff and management team and I cannot envision it proceeding smoothly, efficiently or effectively. Why? Because he has no clue what he is doing.

============

“The question is not what you look at, but what you see.”

―

Henry David Thoreau

===================

“Hell of a thing to have to experience, hell of a thing to have to see, to be reminded you’re a human being and all it meant to be one.”

―

Dean Koontz

======================

Projecting may be the easiest thing we do every day.

We see, we think about what we see through our own eyes … and project a belief.

We hear, we filter the words through our own experiences and how we felt about those experiences … and project a belief.

Projecting, in general, is easier for us and certainly creates some efficiency.

Now.

It doesn’t guarantee really accuracy … but it offers us all those gosh darn time benefits so … aw … what the hell … who cares if we are right or accurate? … we saved time.

The biggest issue with regard to projecting is most likely the fact most of us confuse ‘informing’ <the information a person actually provides us> and ‘judging’ which is more about responding by how we are affected by that information.

In other words.

We ignore most of the information we actually receive <or it gets blocked by our existing perceptions and beliefs> and just end up judging based on the few things we let thru to inform us which we then ‘bolt on’ to all the shit we already “know.”

Now.

99% of us … shit … 99% of the people reading this … will say “oh, not me … but I see people do it all the time.” Uhm. But we all do it.

It’s pretty easy to do it in a world where we seemingly know so much information which inevitably builds a sense of ‘personal wisdom’ which encourages us to actually believe it is never us who is projecting <just ‘other people’>.

Suffice it to say projection, which is a foundational element that all of us utilize, is one of the most difficult habits/actions to break.

In fact.

Since projection is a natural instinct we tend to see it as a natural defense mechanism for who and what we are as individuals as well as feeds our ego <even if we are actually wrong>.

Why do I say this?

When we are projecting, we actually believe that what we are seeing as ‘truth’ … in our beliefs as well as about another person.

This implies in some way we are better than they are and certainly different and incapable of their worst and aligned with their best.

———

We think we know what other people are thinking.

In some cases this means that we assume that they know what we know, in other cases we assume they are thinking about us as much as we are thinking about ourselves. It’s basically just a case of us modeling their own mind after our own (or in some cases after a much less complicated mind than our own).

Phrases associated with this:

Curse of knowledge, Illusion of transparency, Spotlight effect, Illusion of external agency, Illusion of asymmetric insight, Extrinsic incentive error

We project our current mindset and assumptions onto the past and future.

Magnified also by the fact that we’re not very good at imagining how quickly or slowly things will happen or change over time.

Phrases associated with this:

: Hindsight bias, Outcome bias, Moral luck, Declinism, Telescoping effect, Rosy retrospection, Impact bias, Pessimism bias, Planning fallacy, Time-saving bias, Pro-innovation bias, Projection bias, Restraint bias, Self-consistency bias

—————-

Maybe it is the last thing I just wrote “incapable of their worst and aligned with their best” that made me decide to discuss projecting.

The American presidential election is getting incredibly skewed by our projecting.

First.

Trump.

Because he is a famous brand and self-proclaimed billionaire people project their beliefs that he knows enough shit to run a company and manage decisions with regard to the economy.

But what truly concerns me is the second.

Second.

Clinton.

I have written in the past that ‘lack of trustworthiness’ scores didn’t really matter in this election. I am wrong about the lack of concern, or a belief that it was truly unimportant, with regard to her trustworthiness numbers. I believed that … what the heck … no one trusts any expert any more … so pretty much everyone would simply judge her off of competence and real information <not speculation>.

I was wrong.

What has happened is that this odd smokescreen of ‘lack of trust’ has created such a strong filter that even her good ideas, well designed policies & programs and the real truth she says about governing the country is all being ignored. But, here is what I know about projecting, it can be changed. You just have to shake the etch a sketch hard enough to clear the filters and redraw some aspects.

So here is what I believe Hillary Clinton should do <and Trump could do something similar but my suggestion is so far out of his DNA I didn’t even think about offering the thought for him>.

I would have Hillary Clinton do a “judge me” speech <this is not an actual speech just one I drafted out>.

=====

“Today I want to ask all Americans to do one thing – judge me.

I see the same poor honest & trustworthy numbers everyone else sees every day. I hear ‘crooked Hillary’ and ‘liar’ every day. I cannot lie … it stings. It stings because I know I wake up every day with the objective & intent to bring out the best of America and give everyone a chance to be and do their best. And I do know I will continue to wake up every day and try and show you I mean this. I will wake up every day and try to show you that you can trust me to make the important decisions for America as commander in chief and president. I will wake up every day and show you I do my best with the best intentions for America and the American people.

All I can ask is that you judge me. And judge me harshly and fairly. But, in the end, I ask you to just judge me.

Judge me as a person for my mistakes & regrets. 

• My state department personal server. I made a mistake and I regret it. And if I could go back in time and do it all over again I would have simply conducted all of the 70,000 personal emails on the state department classified server which handed the 550,000 classified emails I sent and received on that server <I made up those numbers but someone has them and everyone will get the point that her personal was one semi-classified email and the 99.9999999999% classified were handled on separate server>.
  
• Benghazi. I regret the loss of my good friend Chris Stephens and the three other Americans and if I could go back in time and find something that could have been done I would do it.
  

• Super Predators. If I could go back to the day I said super predators and change those words I would. I regret saying them. I should be better than that and you should expect me to be better than that.

Judge me as a person for my better moments. 

• the U.N. women’s speech <”women’s rights are human rights”>
  
• My 9/11 response for firefighters and first responders
• Maybe something from Secretary of State years? … but not Iran deal and don’t pick Libya.

And, lastly, judge me as your possible president on the real things, the real policies & programs that I have in mind to have us make America stronger together. 

My site has over 38 programs including climate change, criminal reform, childcare support & minimum wage increase as well as a 1^st 100 day plan but here are the three I would have you take note of:

• A jobs/ economy one – how it positively affects minorities, middle white America, and working mothers …
  
• The vets mental health program … how it addresses real veteran issues
  
• I personally would offer a ‘right sized government’ initiative <cut spending waste> but I imagine I would be happy with something that addresses debt/deficit/budgeting.

I ask you to judge me. Judge me harshly and fairly.

I am not perfect. I have regrets and I will continue to apologize, as I have done in the past, when my best is not good enough. And when I do my best I will wake up the next day and try to do even better.

I believe America is at its best when we work together, when we do our best, and even when our best doesn’t work out, we get back up and try and do better the next day.

Back in 1979 I said this when being asked how I felt about not being traditional …. “I think that each person should be assessed and judged on that person’s own merits. I’m not 40 but that hopefully will be cured by age, eventually I will be.” 

I am 68 now. 

So, go ahead, I ask you to judge me. Assess and judge on my merits and imperfections. You should. I am running to be the president and commander in chief for the greatest country in the world.”

<or something like that>

================

Anyway.

I am certainly not asking anyone to trust Hillary or vote for Hillary. All I ask is that we judge her fairly.

I sometimes think about something that Clinton, who earned a doctor of law degree from Yale, was the first female chair of the Legal Services Corporation, and was the first female partner at Rose Law Firm, the third oldest law firm in the US said in 1979:

“I think that each person should be assessed and judged on that person’s own merits. I’m not 40 but that hopefully will be cured by age, eventually I will be. <while I don’t fit the traditional image> …. that doesn’t bother me, and I hope that it doesn’t bother very many people. I think in a way it’s kind of a tribute to the state that someone who may or may not fit an image is accepted on her own terms.”

And to do that we need to accept most of us ‘project.’ And while I truly wish we all got better at managing our ‘projecting instincts in day to day life’ <mostly because I think it eliminates some opportunities to hear some really good stuff from some really good unlikely people> … today … and in this time & place … we are choosing a president. Therefore if someone is to actually try and affect their existing ‘projecting behavior’ I would encourage you to do so with the presidential candidates.

This is a big decision and we should … well … judge fairly and as wisely as we can.

—————–

“Don’t give me sob stories,” she ordered me with sudden vehemence, striking the key words for emphasis.

“Every day people appeal to my emotions.

You can’t govern that way.

It simply isn’t fair.”

=====

Margaret Thatcher to John Le Carre

—————–

Running a country is hard. Very hard.

Running a business is hard. Very hard.

It doesn’t mean you don’t have good days and it doesn’t mean that all the ‘hard’ doesn’t reap some benefits and joy but … well … hard is hard.

And maybe, just possibly, the hardest part is managing the emotional appeals you are faced with on an almost daily basis.

And I say that while ignoring the inevitable larger events & stories which compound the emotional aspects of leader decision making.

Leading is mostly about the day in and day out responsibility to the greater good and the greater whole. This certainly doesn’t mean you don’t look at the parts and how the parts & pieces are affected but you can’t get too close to individual aspects for fear of … well … a couple of reasons:

First is the functional responsibility a leader has.

The greater responsibility is to the whole and insuring the whole is fair, respected and healthy. There is certainly a responsibility to parts, the germs & healthy cells roaming the lifeblood of the whole, but sometimes I let a germ live because it has lesser consequences to the health of the whole than if I invest in something that makes the already healthier cells even more healthy.

Second is basic perspective.

Research studies clearly show that emotional decisions are often quite irrational and often quite … well … bad <or maybe better said … less than optimal>. A leader has the difficult responsibility to maintain perspective … even in the face of a crescendo of criticisms demanding ‘this situation is unique.” The optics of a good leader often looks bad.

Aloof. Disconnected. Unempathetic.

The greater responsibility is to the whole perspective and insuring what is fair and respectful to the whole.

This is going to sound bad … really bad in fact.

<… I am taking a deep breath here>

But good leaders have a sense for “this too will pass” and simply pass on engaging with the individual engagement demand of the moment.

Yes. You acknowledge it and then ignore it.

To be clear. You don’t always make the right call and you don’t always get it right but the intent is 99% of the time purposefully not engaging to maintain perspective.

All that said.

Disconnecting from the emotional sob story, while still remaining connected to empathetic reasoning, may be one of the most difficult aspects of leading.

I don’t care if its 350 million people, 350 people or 35 people this tug of war between caring but not caring too much is constant and challenging. In addition it is a constant battle for self survival.

When thinking about this … inevitably what I believe most of us every day schmucks struggle to understand is the perspective.

Most people view things “I” up … and a leader has to look “we” down.

In other words … “I” has specific needs and I am willing to think about insuring other “I’s” have the same needs met. There is nothing wrong with this and it certainly can insure some healthy altruistic attitudes & behavior. But it does not reflect good leadership thinking.

In other words … “we” have larger needs and I am willing to sacrifice some of what some “I’s” want <and even, unfortunately, need in some cases> to insure the “we” needs are met. There is nothing wrong with this and, when done well, the greater whole prospers and is, in general, happy.

But it isn’t easy.

It is really hard.

And suffice it to say “ruling” by ignoring emotional appeals is more fair but it is still emotionally draining to a good leader.

Whether the 350 million, 350 or the 35 recognize it … there are many days when the 1, the leader, leaves the office with a heavy heart. And it is not heavy because 349,999,900 people, 341 people or 34 people went to sleep that day feeling pretty good about their day and their needs & wants & hopes … but because the few with a true sob story went to sleep that day sobbing.

You govern and lead by what is fair to the whole.

That’s just the way it is.

And just as Margaret Thatcher did … I would vehemently emphasize this business truth to anyone.

But.

That doesn’t mean I don’t think she went home some nights with the weight of someone’s emotional appeal on her mind.

That’s what I thought about today after I read this quote from Margaret Thatcher.

Oh.

And I also thought about whether I was fair and maintained the balance as a leader. I am not sure. I take some solace in the belief that almost every leader wonders the same thing.

================

“Once we believe in ourselves, we can risk curiosity, wonder, spontaneous delight, or any experience that reveals the human spirit.”

e.e. cummings

===================

“Trust yourself. Create the kind of self that you will be happy to live with all your life.

Make the most of yourself by fanning the tiny, inner sparks of possibility into flames of achievement.”

Golda Meir

============================

Today I am rambling about the psychology of managing employees … specifically an aspect of managing that I would call “believe and non-believing management.”

No.

This is not about motivating employees.

This is more about unlocking employees – unlocking potential.

This is more about that seemingly nonstop discussion you have with employees where you curb the overreaching confidence in some … and instill some confidence in others. In my mind … this is the ongoing discussion you have with your employees with the intent to set the best version of themselves free.

To be sure.

If you talk with enough people who have managed groups & companies and you will notice that at some point someone will bring up “I have to be a psychologist.”

To be clear.

Do business managers have to be psychologists to be effective? No. not really.

But being a psychologist on occasion certainly doesn’t hurt.

I am fairly sure what I am discussing has some high falutin’ organizational behavior ‘management principles’ published and formal white papers with long esoteric discussions on employee personality types and some personality testing voodoo.

I am also fairly sure, okay … certain, it is possible to be a competent if not good leader without understanding all that personality crap. in fact … I could argue, and I have argued, that personality tests trap individuals into some defined box in which if any of their behaviors don’t fit that box from that point on they will be mismanaged because … well … they aren’t doing what the box said they would do.

Anyway.

Most good managers clearly understand that different people are motivated by different things and that different things can inhibit the potential of each employee.

Suffice it to say, in my mind, it really all comes down to one basic management principle: possibilities & pragmatism management. Unlocking each employee’s potential is almost always a balance of pragmatic doing and getting them to envision what they are possible of.

Simplistically your objective is always to free your employee to be their best and do their best. But in order to achieve that … well … sometimes this means stripping something away … and sometimes this means adding something.

And that is where my whole ‘believing & nonbelieving management’ comes into the discussion.

More often than not while you are teaching & coaching skills and pragmatic ‘here is what you need to do’ crap you will find yourself facing an employee who is either bursting with belief in themselves and their abilities or semi-frozen in an ‘unsure of what to do and if I can do it’ attitude.

Both need some attitudinal adjustments.

The ‘belief’ employees run the gamut from the young employee who is sure they are smarter and better than you <or others around them> to a senior sales guy who hasn’t met a sale he couldn’t make <doing it his way if only the company would get out of the way>.

The ‘nonbelievers’ also run the gamut from young & inexperienced to older doing it for the first time or even mid level employees dealing with something completely unrelated that has pricked their confidence bubble in some way.

And, no, I certainly do not consider any of this ‘cheerleader engagement.’ In fact … I would suggest that any manager who does needs to rethink their thinking.

Managing people certainly can contain some aspects of ‘enthusiasm management’ but one of the most basic manager self-survival techniques you learn <or die> is how to manage without too much investment of self. Therefore I have always viewed this aspect of employee management as simply assessing their ‘believe level’ and adjusting appropriately to enable the true potential to be there when it counts.

As a manager you always hunker down on the pragmatic aspects of what needs to be done first.

Always.

It is kind of your heuristic trick to assess any attitudinal challenges to getting the frickin’ pragmatic aspect done.

But you always keep an eye, and an ear, open during the pragmatic assessing the ‘possibilities of whether the shit will actually get done … and done as well as it can be done.’

This is the place where you look at the employee and assess the ‘belief factor.’

Some are easy to read. Some are a little more difficult. And, no, I cannot offer some trite generalism here.

Exuding belief believers can come in all shapes & sizes & behaviors.

Nonbelievers can come in all shapes & sizes & attitudes.

And it can get even trickier.

Tricky because the same employee who was bursting with blind belief one day will be the same employee sitting in front of you the next day discussing a completely different project or task … semi-frozen in non-belief.

Look.

The fundamentals of effective management are pretty much the same everywhere.

But this ‘possibilities & pragmatism management’ thing I am discussing takes some commitment. It doesn’t take being a psychologist … you just have to be committed to managing the individual ‘believe’ gauge. And this means being committed to both stripping away some unnecessary <or risky> belief and bolting on some belief where needed.

Unfortunately this can sometimes take a fine subtle touch … and most of us everyday manager schmucks aren’t always subtle. Nor are we particularly talented at balancing both possibilities & pragmatism.

I imagine I wrote this not to offer any “how to” guide to anyone. I wrote it because I just faced it and thought about it.

In one day I had to ponder the talented more senior sales person almost blinded with belief charging ahead <not particularly aligned with what the company thought was best practice> and an extremely talented younger person threaded with the burden of nonbelief.

In one day I had to ponder how to deftly encourage a little less blind belief and thrust some belief upon another.

And that is most likely a typical day for a manager.

I didn’t care about personality type.

I didn’t confer with any HR people.

I didn’t go online searching for ‘communications techniques.’

I didn’t do so not because I didn’t want to … but because managers mostly don’t have time for that shit.

You gotta deal with what is in front of you and get shit done and get the best out of your employees.

Believing and non believing management.

Possibilities and pragmatism management.

Kind of two sides of the same management coin.