My world, your world and the world

Yesterday I was watching Devdutt Pattanaik talk on TED about East vs. West – The Myths that Mystify. I am a big believer in the power of stories and actually going through a process of understanding my own cultural mythology and basic stories these days. In a world that is turning more and more global where cultures clash almost on a daily basis, the understanding of our differences and the respect for the other is becoming more and more important. Pattanaik does a wonderful job in explaining some of the basic concepts that shape the Indian culture, and while theses are generalizations, I do believe that there are some truths in them (especially after reading Outliers). I highly recommended you watch this talk whether you plan to work in India and with Indian people or not as it casts a light on our own perceptions, assumptions and what shapes them.

However, one point resonated with me more than any other point in the talk. In the beginning of his talk Pattanaik tells about an Indian legend where the gods Ganesha and Kartikeya enter a contest. Who is the first that will go around the world? While Kartikeya flies around the world, Ganesha goes around his parents seven times. The he declares himself winner. When asked to explain, Ganesha says: “Kartikeya went around the world but I went around my world”.

The message that Pattanaik is trying to convey is that there is a difference between Indian and western cultures. While the west looks for rules and truth (the world) Indians have several truths (my world). We have to understand how these differences present themselves when these two cultures clash.

I think the idea of my world, your world and the world is even more profound and common. We actually deal with it every day. People tend to see the world through their own eyes. They perceive themselves and their actions as more important than they actually are. And they perceive things through personal lens. When they meet somebody else with the same disposition, they have a hard time to accept that there is a different world from theirs.

As managers, we try to create “the world”. An organization or team with culture, rules, assumptions and yes, even stories and mythology. This “the world” that we are creating is not only in a clash with our own personal world, but with other people’s world. Every day we experience a clash of cultures and worlds. Creating “the world” of an organization or team is a difficult job. We have to let go of our own perceptions of how things should be done. A world cannot be forced. It has to be developed. It has to be co-created. It has to grow out of partnerships.

As managers we need to remember that each employee has a world of his own. We need to remember that his world is different than ours and different than “the world” we are trying to create. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. Different does not mean wrong. The challenge is to acknowledge the differences and find similarities and connections between the worlds in order align them.

So, next time you talk to an employee try to think about this war of worlds. Ask yourself – what is my world, your world and the world.

Elad

My world, your world, the world

[TED id=686]

Yesterday I was watching Devdutt Pattanaik talk on TED about the myths that mystify. I am a big believer in the power of stories and actually going through a process of understanding my own cultural mythology and basic stories these days. In a world that is turning more and more global where cultures clash almost on a daily basis, the understanding of our differences and the respect for the other is becoming more and more important. Pattanaik does a wonderful job in explaining some of the basic concepts that shape the Indian culture, and while theses are generalizations, I do believe that there are some truths in them (especially after reading Outliers). I highly recommended you watch this talk whether you plan to work in India and with Indian people or not as it casts a light on our own perceptions, assumptions and what shapes them.

However, one point resonated with me more than any other point in the talk. In the beginning of his talk Pattanaik tells about an Indian legend where the gods Ganesha and Kartikeya enter a contest. Who is the first that will go around the world? While Kartikeya flies around the world, Ganesha goes around his parents seven times. The he declares himself winner. When asked to explain, Ganesha says: “Kartikeya went around the world but I went around my world”.

The message that Pattanaik is trying to convey is that there is a difference between Indian and western cultures. While the west looks for rules and truth (the world) Indians have several truths (my world). We have to understand how these differences present themselves when these two cultures clash.

I think the idea of my world, your world and the world is even more profound and common. We actually deal with it every day. People tend to see the world through their own eyes. They perceive themselves and their actions as more important than they actually are. And they perceive things through personal lens. When they meet somebody else with the same disposition, they have a hard time to accept that there is a different world from theirs.

As managers, we try to create “the world”. An organization or team with culture, rules, assumptions and yes, even stories and mythology. This “the world” that we are creating is not only in a clash with our own personal world, but with other people’s world. Every day we experience a clash of cultures and worlds. Creating “the world” of an organization or team is a difficult job. We have to let go of our own perceptions of how things should be done. A world cannot be forced. It has to be developed. It has to be co-created. It has to grow out of partnerships.

As managers we need to remember that each employee has a world of his own.we need to remember that his world is different than ours and different than “the world” we are trying to create. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. Different does not mean wrong. The challenge is to acknowledge the differences and find similarities and connections between the worlds in order align them.

So, next time you talk to an employee try to think about this war of worlds. Ask yourself – what is my world, your world and the world.

Elad

Devdutt Pattanaik, TED, myths, storytelling, managing people, differences, my world, India, perception,

How to use what is not there to improve what is there

Photo by Dano

Yesterday I was reading an intriguing Chnagethis manifesto by Matthew E. May called: Creative Elegance – The Power of Incomplete Ideas. May argues the there is a great power in leaving things out. A concept he calls “the missing piece”:

What isn’t there can often trump what is.

May gives examples from art, TV, film and business to demonstrate that sometimes, creativity can be achieved not by creating something new, but by deliberately taking something out or leaving missing pieces. And these inspiring examples got me thinking of other examples where this idea could be used.

Example one – the missing piece in the feedback process

When I teach and evaluate feedback skills I always emphasize to people the importance of asking and listening first and only then deciding on a course of action. I am constantly surprised to see smart people go into a conversation without first understanding the other side’s problem – is it lack of knowledge? is it misunderstanding ?or is a shortage of ability? Until you understand what the problem is you cannot really contribute anything to the other person. I just realized that what I am talking about is how the missing piece changes the conversation. How without this information, the conversation is a totally different one.

Next time I am going to give this class I am planning to use the example from the manifesto (which I am not going to ruin for you) to show how powerful the missing piece is and what happens the minute we discover it.

Example two – the unnoticed employees

Similarly, I remember when I was a course commander in the Israeli Air force I was leading a course which was comprised of participants who lacked motivation and had a lot of discipline problems. Usually, we spent a lot of time dealing with and giving attention to the people who were undisciplined.

Until one day we noticed something. When we do that, the phenomenon spreads across the course participants. By ignoring the “regular” soldiers, those who did not give us any problems and focusing on the trouble makers, we were not only unable to take care of troublemakers, we created more troublemakers. We were pushing those who did not act up to act up, as they, like any normal human being, wanted the attention and recognition for a job well done.

I think this relates easily to the workplace. How is your time divided? How much time you spend with you under-performing employees compared to others? How many times to you recognize, award or give feedback to the employees that are not overachievers or underachievers, but are simply doing their job. If, as Woody Allen says: “80 percent of success is just showing up“, don’t we need to make sure we do not ignore those people who are doing everything that is expected of them?

Example three – lack of friction

Lastly, it made me think of a post by Bob Sutton that I read a while back and left a lasting impression on me. The post was called on noticing what you don’t notice, and this is what he wrote:

It is one of those phrases that applies to all sorts of things, great customer experiences where good things happen and your feel no friction, organizational practices that are seamless and painless, and even government services that seem designed to reduce the burden on you.

Sometimes, Sutton claims, the really great services, are the ones that are transparent, that we don’t notice they are there. Or in other words: the missing pieces.

So, how can you use the idea of the missing piece to improve your business, teamwork or personal life?

Elad

Shorts: @daverendall on tradeoffs

Dave Rendall from The Freak Factor is so spot on:

The same thing that causes some people to like you, will cause other people to dislike you. The same thing that makes some people happy, will make other people unhappy.

I said it before – life, business, relationships. It is all about tradeoffs. The more we accept that, the happier and more successful we will get.

Elad

Shorts: Seth Godin and others on Rupert Murdoch

Isn’t it time our past will stop trying to prevent a better future?

Seth Godin writes:

You don’t charge the search engines to send people to articles on your site, you pay them.

Maybe Murdoch should learn from others how to re-invent his business model. Maybe we all will. Trying to resist is just futile. Hopefully, he wouldn’t be able to do it (link in Hebrew).

Elad

Do we really need flamboyant visionaries to run our companies?

Photo by Hamed Saber

The Economist decided to wage an all front attack against humility in leadership and management. One of Its recent columns discusses what kinds of leaders make the best CEOs. The argument?

In general, the corporate world needs its flamboyant visionaries and raging egomaniacs rather more than its humble leaders and corporate civil servants. Think of the people who have shaped the modern business landscape, and “faceless” and “humble” are not the first words that come to mind.

It looks like this claim comes just out of the best management books of the beginning of the last century. As Bill Taylor from Harvard Business Review Blog points out, most of the claims in the column are not only wrong, but plainly misleading:

The crux of The Economist’s argument relies on what’s known as the Great Man Theory of History. After trumpeting the virtues of business geniuses such as Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Lou Gerstner, and Jack Welch, it then generalizes from this handful of larger-than-life moguls: “The best ambassadors for business are the outsize figures who have changed the world and who feel no need to apologise for themselves or their calling.” It’s an intriguing essay and a good read. It’s also a false choice — and a bad reading of history. For one thing, when it comes to larger-than-life CEOs, I can name as many scoundrels and failures as I can geniuses and world-changers.

My view? Three things are wrong with The Economist’s view.

First, the assumption that there is only one way. Maybe, for some companies and in certain situations, the flamboyant visionaries are the best fit as CEO’s. But not in every situation. Some companies need the quiet leadership behind the scene, the steady hand that improves and creates processes that lead to growth and innovation. Taylor’s choice of the historic Great Man Theory seems appropriate. It too claimed that only certain people are fit for leadership roles. We know today that this attitude was plain wrong.

Second, the assumption that the flamboyant visionaries must be in the top of the pyramid. You can be in a leadership role and create change in your company, without being the CEO, especially if the CEO in that company needs to deal more with management issues, where the “raging egomaniacs” are just not cut out to do the job. Management and leadership are different things that require different talents. The column refers to Bill Gates. We need to remember what Bill Gates is doing today: As Marcus Buckingham and Donald O. Clifton: write in their book Now, Discover Your Strength:

“…[Y]ou will excel only by maximizing your strengths, never by fixing your weaknesses. This is not the same as saying ‘ignore your weakness’. The people we described did not ignore their weakness. Instead, they did something much more effective. They found ways to manage around their weakness, thereby freeing them up to hone their strengths to a sharper point. Each of them did this a little differently. Pam liberated herself by hiring an outside consultant to write the strategic plan. Bill Gates did something similar. He selected a partner, Steve Ballmer, to run the company, allowing him to return to software development and rediscover his strengths’ path…

Third, when you read the column you feel almost like there have never been hugely successful leaders that changed the world while acting humbly. Has humble leaders never brought change and created value to society? Michael Dell comes to mind as someone who succeeded doing both. The research and consulting advice that The Economist is complaining about did not come out of thin air and it is based both on empirical evidence and experience. But what does that have to do with anything. The Economist wants a good story. A flamboyant leader, even if he will be less effective.

I am amazed how even a respected journal like The Economist falls prey to the conventional wisdoms and continues to harbor management principles that are almost a hundred years old, although we have so much research and experience suggesting otherwise.

Elad

Shorts: Jim Hart in HBR Blog on communicating with your team

This is a quote from Jim Hart’s post in Harvard Business Review Blog titled In Tough Times, Help Your Team Remember Their Purpose:

In his book, It’s Not What You Sell, It’s What You Stand For, Roy M. Spence Jr. writes something we have been coaching CEOs and executive leaders on for 30 years: “A real purpose can’t just be words on paper. It has to get under the skin of every member of your organization….If you get it right, people will feel great about what they’re doing, clear about their goals, and excited to get to work every morning.” This is especially important in turbulent times…

Very strong statement. Reminds of the idea of Vital Signs I write about a lot. And this:

And I think, this can also teach us a lesson as managers and leaders. There is no doubt that one of the most important things we need to do as managers and leaders is to communicate. But we have so many channels. Just using one of them for all our communications is not enough. We need to create the right mix and to send the right messages using the right tools. We need to remember that some people are listeners and some are readers. We need to remember that some people like to get all the information online (on a computer and all the time) and some prefer to do it offline (not on a computer and postponed to a different time).

Elad

Earning not winning

Photo: Dave Bullock (eecue)

I am a regular reader of the Incentive Intelligence blog and enjoy it very much. Today, I read a really interesting post about the negative use of the word “but” titled: Incentives AND Recognition – Forbes Article AND Some Thoughts. You should read it. I was distracted by one sentence in the post, representing an idea Paul writes about in his blog a lot:

Incentive programs are NOT contests and awards are earned NOT won

The last part of the sentence is so important and so powerful I get blown away by it every time I read it. Some might say this only semantics. But semantics have power. I wrote this in my e-book:

In her book, “Mindset: The New Psychology of Success“, Psychology Professor Carol Dweck, describes a study she and her colleagues conducted with adolescences. They gave a few hundred students a non verbal IQ test. When the students finished the test, they praised them for their results. Some students were praised for their ability: “Wow, that is a really good score, you must be really smart“. Other students were praised for their effort: “Wow, that is a really good score, you must have worked really hard“. Both groups had equal scores to begin with, but after the praise the groups began to differ.

Students who were praised for their ability were not inclined to taking on new tasks. They did not want to expose their flaws. They wanted to keep their smart appearances. In contrast, the group that was praised for their effort showed a different behavior, they actually asked for new challenging tasks to handle!

After interviewing the groups, the researchers gave a new test, much harder this time. The ability group reported feelings of failure. Most of them, when asked to describe their feelings of failure, said: “We are not so smart after all”. More importantly, the ability group, who reported enjoyment of the first test, told the researchers they did not enjoy the second one. In contrast to the ability group’s reaction to the second difficult test, the effort group did not see their lesser results at the second test as failure. When confronted with their failure in the second test they mostly said: “we will just need to put in more effort in order to succeed”. More importantly, they reported enjoyment from both tests. Even the one they failed!

Later, both groups were given an easy test again. The ability group performed worse than it did in the first test. They lost their faith in their ability. The effort group actually performed better than it had done in the first test. They used the harder test to enhance their skill. Not only did they enjoy the ride, in the long run, it improved their outputs.

We need to acknowledge, everyday, the results are not a windfall. They do not just happen. They come out of hard work. And it is the hard work that we want to incentivize. Not every type of hard work of course, but hard work that leads, in the long term, to desired results.

A few days ago I wrote about the difference between decisions and outcomes. And while I believe in outcome management I am also a big believer in the idea of processes. Not standardized processes that confine people in bureaucratic prisons. Individualized processes that are the product of experience, thinking and the understanding of our own uniqueness. And the only way to do that is focus on the effort and the work we put in the created the desired results.

Nothing worth gaining is ever gained without effort. And the effort is the important part of gaining it. As usual, my epic fantasy readings give me another perspective. In Best Served Cold Joe Abercrombie writes:

…It was what you gave out that made a man, not what you got back…

Elad

Misguided self-perceptions and finding your strengths

Photo by Cambodia4kidsorg

I am reading Guy Kawasaki‘s book Reality Check these days. It is like reading many important checklists about how to do just about anything in business. Strange, but interesting. Anyway, in one of the first chapters he talks about why is it better to invest in young inexperienced entrepreneurs than in serial entrepreneurs. One paragraph in that chapter caught my eyes:

Serial entrepreneurs fill new roles in their next companies. For example, in the first company the person was an engineer who became the vice president of engineering. In the next company, she is the CEO and founder. Just because you are good at designing chips doesn’t mean you’re CEO material. You may end up not doing what you’re good at and doing what you’re not good at

I am constantly surprised how people have misguided self-perceptions. They are so good at something and they usually even enjoy and love doing it. Sometimes they feel a state of flow when they are doing it. But something, society, greed, conventional wisdom or something else I cannot fathom, tells them – hey – you should try being a manager. You should try doing something else. You are better than this.

I wrote about this in my E-book:

It is not uncommon to see someone who was very good at his job and is promoted to be a manager. When he was part of a team or even a solo player, he excelled at his job. But when you put him in a managerial position, which is not his comparative advantage, he just can’t handle it. This is interesting. Usually this man actually wanted the promotion even though he was happy with what he was doing and even though he does not like to manage people. We are so used to the Hierarchy Thinking Model and not the Comparative Advantage Thinking Model, that we actually want positions that our abilities are not compatible with. The reason being this is just the way we know the system works. Well, the system sucks! The problem is that not only this man can’t handle the job of a manager, he also can’t handle the truth … He does not have what it takes to be a manager. And I am not just talking about an application of the Peter Principle. This man is actually unhappy being a manager! It is not his comparative advantage. Bill Gates got it when he put Steve Ballmer to manage while he did software development, so why can’t it work for all of us?

I admit this is a natural phenomenon. You know what, it happened to me not a while back. I found myself looking for a career, I am not 100% sure was for me. I am actually struggling these days to find a career path that will allow me a better use of my strengths.

It is not always a bad idea to try new things. If we don’t try, we will never know. And sometimes, the only way to discover your strengths is to do something again and again and fail at it. As long as you enjoy failing at it (not being cynical here, seriously, read the post in the link).

However, if we can’t be true with ourselves we will never be able to reach our full potential. If we become managers and our most important job is to help our employees find what they are good at and help them excel at it, there is no way we can do that before we go through the same process with ourselves. And it does not matter of you are a serial entrepreneur that made millions of dollars or if you are just a novice trying to find your place in the world. You can do better, for yourselves and others, by finding and using your strengths.

Elad

Shorts: The Freak Factory on Teamwork

We so often forget where the real power of teamwork can be found. David Rendall, in his Changethis manifesto The Freak Factory: Making Employees Better by Helping Them Get Worse, reminds us:

Teamwork doesn’t mean that everybody does the same thing. It means that everyone contributes what they do best

Reminded me of what I wrote in my E-book:

There is the known proverb saying: “there is no ‘I’ in the word ‘Team'”. If you ask me, it is a silly notion because it takes to edge of the most important factor of the team – The teammates themselves. I think that a team is composed of a lot of “I”s. That is what makes it a strong team… A team is made powerful by using the comparative advantage of each team member and making it the team’s advantage.

Elad

Shorts: Customer Experience Matters on leadership

I read so many things each day that are relevant to the subjects I write about in my blog . However, I don’t always have the time or the ability to write a full blog post about them. Usually, there is one quote I like, which it too long to tweet about. Therefore, I decided to start a new series of posts called: Shorts. Each of these posts will have the word: “Shorts” in the title, with the name of the source I am referring to and the subject. These posts will only include a short introduction by me, and then a quote.

Today, I am going to start with a post from Customer Experience Matters. Bruce Timken Quotes a few people interviewed for U.S. News & World’s America’s Best Leaders 2009 list. Here is the quote I like in particular, as talks about the balance between team and individuals in management:

Roy Williams, head coach of North Carolina, listed his three guiding leadership principles:

“(1) Everyone on the team must focus on the same goal. It’s my job to effectively communicate those goals to the team; (2) Emphasize those goals every day; and (3) Understand that although everyone has a common goal, individuals also have goals, needs, and dreams that must be cared for.”

Elad