If it's not illegal or immoral...

That's always been one of my mottoes. When I've been asked to do something I didn't like or I felt was distasteful, I would often say, "OK, I'm not really crazy about this task, but if it's not illegal or immoral, well, you're paying me so I'm bound to do what you want."

I think I used this line for the first time when my boss asked me if I would return a dress to the store for her. I didn't really want to do it, but it did get me out of the office...and I worked for her.

Some people get so worked up about being asked to do things they don't want to do at work. What do our wants or likes have to do with anything at all?

So, what if what we're told to do is S T U P I D, I mean bone-head stupid? What do we do then? For me, I would most likely tell my boss that I didn't recommend performing whatever task he or she had for me and then I proceed to explain why. If, after my boss listened to me, I was told to carry out the assignment anyway, I would do my best to make it my own...regardless.

What about you? What do you do when you're given a task that you don't want to complete, especially if it's stupid?

Saturn...out of touch and going out of business

Did you ever see the ads? I would laugh every time I saw them. A man in a bright green shirt said "Saturn builds cars that people want to buy" as argument against the idea being professed that America couldn't build cars that people wanted to buy.

Are you kidding me? I was supposed to believe that Saturn built cars that I would want to buy just because some employee said so? There was nothing compelling in that ad; nothing touched on what I would get out of such a purchase. Instead, the ad seemed to be saying that if I was smart, I would know that Saturn was the brand to buy.

I'm not saying anything good or bad about Saturn or the cars they make. I know plenty of people who've been very happy with their Saturn vehicles. My point is that, in order to stay profitable and moving forward in business, we have to stay in touch with our customers. We have to understand what they want. Consumers buy based on their perceived value (their WIIFM -- see my post on WIIFM here). If they feel what they are purchasing is of value to them, then they're happy to move forward.

Inside any organization that has customers, it's our job to help the customers imagine the value they will receive when they purchase what we're selling. We have to help make their imaginations come to life (like "if I buy that car, I will never have to worry about breaking down again" or "if I buy that car, there will never be another person as cool as me...everybody will want to be like me"). Many experts will tell you that most purchases, especially large ones, are made based on emotion (the heart decides and the brain rationalizes) and we have to tap into that. If we're not providing the value that our customers want, we need to realign our value proposition to meet the wants and/or help the customers realize (imagine) why they need our products or services.

I'm sure there are a lot of very smart people at General Motors. They know all the right business ideas and probably know way more than I will ever know about marketing. It's just that this knowledge doesn't seem to have translated into reality.

What am I missing here?

Revisiting Laid-back Management

I use a web counter called Site Meter to see how many hits I'm getting on this blog as well as see the geography of the people who visit. By more than 2 to 1, the entry page to my blog over the last few weeks has been to the article I wrote on 8/8/09: The Opposite of Micromanagement...Laid-back management?

I can even see the searches people entered to get to this post. The most common was:

• "Opposite of micromanagement"

I wonder why there's such an interest in this.

Are people looking for tips on how to manage a certain group of people, like laid-back individuals? Are bosses afraid they might be micromanagers and want to think about their alternatives (highly doubtful...I really don't think that when we micromanage, we realize we're doing it). Are supervisors trying to figure out how to rein in a "boss gone wild"?

Why do you think people are so interested in the opposite of micromanagement?

"Two Kinds Of People"

I ask that you to read this poem by Ella Wheeler Wilcox (see her bio here). Then I will finish up with a few comments.

There are two kinds of people on earth today,
Two kinds of people no more I say.
Not the good or the bad, for it's well understood,
The good are half bad, the bad are half good.

Not the happy or sad, for in the swift-flying years,
Bring each man his laughter, each man his tears.
Not the rich or the poor, for to count a man's wealth,
You must know the state of his conscience and health.

Not the humble and proud, for in life's busy span,
Who puts on vain airs is not counted a man.
No! the two kinds of people on earth I mean,
Are the people who lift and the people who lean.

Wherever you go you'll find the world's masses
Are ever divided into these two classes.
And, strangely enough, you will find, too, I mean,
There is only one lifter to twenty who lean.

In which class are you? Are you easing the load
Of the overtaxed lifters who toil down the road?
Or are you a leaner who lets others bear,
Your portion of worry and labor and care?

Do you see yourself in any part of this poem? I sure see myself in there. If we are servant leaders, those who put others before ourselves and work to help our people flourish, then we must take heed of these ideas.

We can either be givers or takers. We're human beings so we at least spend a little time doing both. I challenge each of us, me included, to reflect on the words above and be ever vigilant to ensure we don't spend the majority of our lives as the latter.

Can we ever break the 80/20 rule?

Is it possible?

You know the rule, right? It's the Pareto Principle and it is used as a guide for everything from wealth (20% of the people have 80% of the wealth...although it's probably more like 99/1 now), to land ownership (what the original principle was showing in Italy), to the relationship between computer problems and crashes, to what percentage of customers are going to provide the most business.

However, I digress. My question is regarding our teams and their work. Since conventional wisdom says that 20% of the employees perform 80% of the work, as leaders, can we break the Pareto Principle? Is it possible to attract the best talent and hire the best people so we can change the rule?

Another way to look at the Pareto Principle is that 20% of the people are being highly productive and the other 80% are exhibiting less productive traits. What if we could change the percentages to 50% of the people do 50% of the work or even 80% of the people do 80% of the work?

Wouldn't it stand to reason that if 80% of the people were doing 80% of the work, we'd be able to get a lot more work done because more of the employees would be productive?

I believe the Pareto Principle is a guide or a norm. It's where most teams and most companies lie. However, if we are great leaders and bosses who surround ourselves with the best talent and give them outstanding training, guidance, direction, and leadership that allows them to flourish, we are not bound by that principle.

What do you think about breaking out from the norm? What do companies and teams have to do to push the Pareto Principle out of the way? Is it realistic to try?

Backing up your people

Scenario: Your boss gives you a job to head up. Maybe the project is a little controversial and some leaders aren't terribly bought in on the idea of what you're doing. Still, your boss gave you the project and you're bound to roll it out.

Then, all of a sudden, there's a ground swell of negative chatter about the project. Regional managers are up in arms. They think it's stupid. They say it won't work. Who came up with such a bone-headed idea? "That person should have his or her head examined." Next thing you know, people are coming after you because your name is listed as the project manager. Some of the naysayers are pretty high up and you're starting to really feel the heat.

You look for support from your boss. You wait for him or her to back you up. After all, they're the one who gave you the project in the first place. What do you end up hearing? You may hear either:

1. The boss trying to downplay the controversy or trying to shift the focus of the attention to something else going on, but no verbal support of you...no acknowledgement that the project came from them.
2. "Bob's over there...go get him" as they step out of the way.
3. Silence...nothing, nyet, nada, nicht...the boss is MIA.

I hope this scenario has never played out in reality for you. It has for me. It's a terrible feeling. So, what should your boss have done? The CORRECT option is:

4. "I put Bob in charge of that project. It was my decision to move forward with that and if you have problems, come talk to me."

I play out this mock scenario, not to tell you about some of my past experiences, but to remind each of us how important it is to back up our people, especially if they're just doing what we task them to do. Even, if our people are screwing up, it's our responsibility to deal with them, not someone else. And, if our people are being attacked for trying to be good followers of ours, we should ensure we take care of them...regardless of the heat.

Our people are counting on us.

Have you ever experienced anything like I detailed? How did it play out for you?

Connecting with Strangers

Some people are just naturally outgoing and have never met a stranger. I said, "some people". I don't think most of us could be considered naturally outgoing.

So, for those of us who need or want to connect with others, be they strangers or just people we don't know very well, there's a quick, easy way to accomplish our goal. The answer is to talk about the other person's favorite subject. 99% of the time that favorite subject is them and their lives. We probably can't connect with that other 1% so let's focus on the majority of the people out there.

I was at a family reunion a couple of years ago. I found myself sitting next to the husband of one of my cousins (we'll call him Barry). I didn't know the man very well at all. Pretty much, all I knew was his name. I guess I had a few choices. I could move to another spot on the patio and speak with a relative who I knew better, I could just sit there, or I could engage the man in conversation. I chose the latter.

I let the spotlight (as author Leil Lowndes calls it) shine on Barry. We talked about his work, family, hobbies, etc. and it was a pretty enjoyable conversation. I just made up my mind, at the beginning of the conversation, that we weren't going to focus on me. Every time the "spotlight" shifted in my direction, I gently pushed it back at Barry. Like CBS correspondent, Steve Hartman, says in his feature series of the same name, "Everybody has a story." So did Barry.

Before I knew it, Barry and I had spoken about 2 1/2 hours. I learned a lot more about a relative and he seemed to like it that someone was interested in hearing about his life (we all would like it, right?). I felt like we both came away from the conversation with a better understanding of the other and that's a good thing.

We can use this approach with just about anybody. We just have to be willing to NOT be center-stage for a few minutes. The results can be huge whether our conversation partner is a client, a colleague, a relative, or just a stranger.