I wish I had taken my own advice from my most recent Upmarket Column, posted for Seth Godin’s newest online magazine.  Because that would have framed my weekend in a very different light.

So if you want to know how you can lead teams (or kids) in the midst of change, check it out!  And to tease you, here’s a blurb:

There was a time when people knew what was expected of them.  Their father had been a carpenter. Their grandfather had been a carpenter.  And they were going to be a carpenter.  They probably lived in the same village, if not the same house, for generations.  This is the way life was done.  It was predictable.  And expectations were set over generations.  People knew how to behave and how to fit into the group.

Today, this isn’t the case.  Factories close.  Employees quit.  Organizations relocate.  Change is the nature of the game.

Which means that virtually every day someone new is coming into your organization, your team, or your sphere of influence.  The problem with newcomers isn’t’ a lack of skill, but rather a lack of knowing the rules.  In almost every social context there are different rules.  Sometimes these differences are subtle (like who gets to eat first at the dinner table), other times they are obvious (like a suit and tie culture vs. jeans and a t-shirt.)

So how do you keep leading when everything keeps changing?  (Read More…)

Yet I can’t help but wonder: why does it take so much effort?

It’s not just government where this happens.  My daughter spends vast amounts of energy trying to define the phrase “go to bed.”  She wants to know if there’s a fire can she get out of bed.  How about if she’s sick?  Or needs to go to the bathroom?  What if she’s cold?  Hungry?  Thirsty?  Tired?  (Yes, she once told us she was too tired to go to sleep.)

She will spend hours finding reasons for getting out of bed, and then complain she can’t fall asleep.

We’re like this at work too.  We’re told to be at work from 9:00 to 5:00.  So we start asking, “what if I show up at 9:05?”  Or take an extra 15 minutes for lunch.  Or leave a few minutes early.  Maybe I can make a few personal calls.  And so we end up with 20 pages of regulations about what’s “allowed” at work in our HR manuals.

So much effort, so little back in results.

I was struck by this as I was reading the Federal Trade Commission’s definition of the word “endorsement.”

It took them 12 pages to define the word.

We all have a tendency to make our lives more complicated than they need to be.  And we do this because we want to leave ourselves wiggle room.  My daughter wants a way out of bed that won’t get her in trouble.  The FTC knows that advertisers will break the spirit of the law, instead of following the law.  And both Republican’s and Democrat’s know that whoever controls the purse controls the government.

It’s an issue that boils down to loopholes vs. trust.

Which means if your life is overwhelmingly complicated it’s likely because you’re busy trying to find loopholes in why you shouldn’t go to the gym, or how you can get off a work committee or skip out on a meeting.

Our desire to find loopholes, and the desire of others to stop us from exploiting those loopholes means we have 500 word disclaimers on email.  It means we can’t just walk up to a bank and withdraw money; we need 27 different forms of ID.  It means our life is more complex than it needs to be.

But complexity is not a solution.  At best it’s a Band-Aid.  At worst it stops you from doing what’s important.  If you want to be more productive in your work, then simplify it.  Let your “yes” be your yes and your “no” be your no.  Don’t create 500 word disclaimers saying that on Thursday’s your “yes” really means “no” unless it’s raining.  Then it means a “maybe.”

So where is complexity overrunning you in your own life?

picture provided by flickr user uberzombie.

Would you believe me?

In an experiment done by Ariely, Loewenstein, and Prelec (2003), that’s exactly what they found.  Our past choices influence our choices in the future.  They showed this by giving people a list of products they could “buy.”  The list was made up of things like a bottle of wine, a book, etc…  The catch was, what you could “pay” was based on the last two digits of your social security number.  So if your social security number ends in “68” you would pay $68.

Once people decided if they’d buy a bottle of wine (or a book) for $68, they later had a chance to actually bid on those same products.

What Ariely, Loewenstein, and Prelec found was that people’s bids were determined almost completely by their social security numbers. People with higher social security numbers routinely bid more on the exact same product than someone with a lower social security number.  In other words, simply making an arbitrary decision in the past (how much would you pay based on social security number) can make someone stick with the same arbitrary reasoning in the future.

What’s even more interesting is that people could still tell the difference between nice wine and cheap wine.  Yet they would still anchor their bid to their social security number.

So much for being in control of our choices.

Now there’s two lessons here.  First, don’t look at your social security number if you’re going to buy something.  Second, and more importantly, once we make one decision, we often feel compelled to stick with that decision, even if it makes no sense.  This has very practical implications for our careers.

Perhaps the reason you’re still in the same dead-end job isn’t really the economy, or family, or education.  Perhaps it’s because long ago you decided that you should stay there.  And every choice you’ve made since then has been anchored to that first decision.

So next time you’re about to make a decision, don’t just look at your current choice, look back on your past choices too.  You may be surprised what you see.

Ariely,  D.,  Loewenstein,  G.,  &  Prelec,  D.  (2003).  Coherent  arbitrariness:  Stable demand  curves  without  stable  preferences.  Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics, 18(1), 73–105.

photo provided by flickr user Hans van de Bruggen

Monocultures are great when they are thriving.  They can be hugely profitable, very successful, and influential.  But they have flaws.  The biggest is that if you rely on one thing you’re likely to be taken down as the world changes around you.

And if there’s one thing history has proven it’s that the world changes.

Monocultures present inviting targets.  The reason Windows is mocked as a security disaster isn’t that the fine folks in Microsoft are terrible programmers and the people at Apple are geniuses, it’s that it makes sense for criminals to target an operating system that is used by most people.  If the roles were reversed, we’d all be talking about how “buggy” Apple software is.  (And ironically we’re starting to see this a bit with the iPhone.)

If you rely on one crop, in one area, what happens when there’s a drought or a fire?

This idea of monoculture may be a problem for your organization.  It might be your product (how’s VHS tape sales these days?).  Or maybe it’s your market position (Google has been losing out to Microsoft’s Bing search engine for weeks now).  Or maybe it’s how your organization thinks.  (Isolated, singular thinking has brought down more Presidencies than probably any other factor.)

Cultures have a way of reinforcing the same set of ideas, values, and beliefs.  In fact, a healthy culture will do exactly that!  We want to pass along a culture of “no lying” to our children.  We wan to pass along a culture of “customer service” to our employees.  The problem is, sometimes we can become so insular that we completely miss the changes in the marketplace.

Where we were once the “hot” organization we’ve become stale and losing market share.  If you’re suffering from monoculture, you probably can’t quite figure out why this is happening.  Your products are just as good as ever, you tell yourself.  Ironically they probably are.  It’s just that the market has passed them by.

If you are a monoculture, enjoy the benefits (because there are many.)  Just make sure that you have one eye, and one ear, pointed towards the outside for the inevitable famine that will head your way.

image provided by flickr user InAweofGodsCreation

In a previous post on unrealistic expectations, we talked about all the harm unrealistic expectations can cause, and the fact that we rarely think about how they form. Here we’re going to look at how unrealistic expectations can be fixed.

It’s not surprising that stories are powerful. They have a way of lasting long beyond “just the facts.” They often transform how we view the world. So let me ask you, what kind of story do you want told about your organization? Because people are going to tell a story. Whether you like it or not!

Often these stories take the form of conventional wisdom. “You don’t need to work hard here, because they don’t fire anyone.” Or, “the company doesn’t care about us.”

But often times, the stories that are told are less obvious. In some cases it’s that “our company should be able to compete with Google”.

So how do we fix these stories? By telling stories of our own.

Now this isn’t to say we make things up. That’s only asking for disaster. Instead, we give employees a realistic preview of what’s going on. Their unrealistic expectations are countered by examples that are realistic.

I know that this seems too obvious. But it’s true. Research has shown that everything from job satisfaction to turnover hinges on realistic previews. And if we pause to think about it, this makes sense. We want to know what’s going to happen before it does. We want to know if promotion is a realistic possibility. We don’t want to be “promised” a manager position only to find out that such a promotion only happens to 1 out of 100 employees.

The best way to build a realistic story is to follow four guidelines:

1. Accuracy – We want our stories to be accurate. If they aren’t accurate people won’t believe them for long.
2. Specific – Vague statements may sound nice. They may be easier to come up with. But in the end they are not convincing
3. Credibility – How you send the message is just as important as what you say. If you aren’t credible because you have a history of setting unrealistic expectations, then no matter how realistic an expectation you set, people won’t believe it.
4. Importance – Your story needs to hit the things that are important to the job, the person, the position. Don’t waste your time on unnecessary detail. Focus on what matters.

By following these guidelines, you can turn the tide of unrealistic expectations. It won’t be easy, but it’s possible. And more importantly, if you don’t set realistic expectations, people will fill in their own expectations. Which almost never work out.

This is part 2 of a two part series on unrealistic expectations.  Part one can be found here.  Photo provided by flickr user Way Openings.

Take your own work for a moment.  Have you ever wondered why your work email can’t be as functional as your Gmail account?  Or why your company’s website search doesn’t work like Google?  Or maybe you just want a place for customers and employees to socialize with the ease of Facebook.

If you’ve had those thoughts, you are not alone.  Employees (and employers) often wonder why their IT departments can’t provide such “simple” solutions.  In fact, the unwritten expectation from customers all the way to coworkers is to expect your company to compete with the likes of billion dollar organizations.  Is that realistic?

Of course not!  But we are being shaped by these outside forces whether we realize it or not.

This poses an obvious challenge for organizations.  Research repeatedly shows that when people have unmet expectations at work bad things happen.  In a “best case” scenario employees simply quit.  They leave their jobs and move on.  But in reality, very few people just quit.  Especially in bad economies.  More likely they remain in the organization as angry, unsatisfied, and unhappy employees.  This in turn leads to complaints, lower quality work, and rising sea levels.  OK, maybe not the last one.  But overall unrealistic expectations have terrible consequences for organizations.

The sad reality is that unrealistic expectations can turn people against us.  The employees, who were once our biggest supporters, soon become our biggest detractors.  Organizations need to spend time thinking about how they deal with expectations.  Especially around technology.  Because organizations that avoid dealing with expectations will find themselves struggling with much harder problems to solve.

This is part 1 of a two part series on unrealistic expectations.  Next week we’ll look at how to stop the bleeding by creating realistic expectations.  (Part 2 of this series can be found here.)  Photo provided by flickr user Zyeneeep.

Naturally this means I’ve been looking at everything through an inefficiency standpoint.  What is wasteful?  What adds time and uselessness to my life?  What detracts value?

Trendnet does.  You see I bought a wireless internet card from them (which I love).  But it came with a rebate.  Now I understand the whole purpose of the rebate is to get you to not spend it.  That’s why it’s difficult to mail in the rebate, why it takes so long to get a rebate back.

I’ve sent in many rebates over the years but this is the first time I’ve ever received a debit card back.  That’s right they sent me a credit card instead of a check.  Why?  Because it will reduce the chance I’m going to use it.  It also means I need to spend that money instead of saving it.  In short it’s a con.

It’s also wasteful.  I am, by no means, an environmentalist.  But I can’t stand wasting things.  Now I’m forced to use a little piece of plastic that will sit in a landfill for the next 300,000 years.  All so I can spend my $8.68.

When you work with clients or students, don’t waste their time.  Don’t create a model of waste juts because it benefits you.  If the only way you can make money is by creating waste, maybe it’s time you rethink your business model.  Because at some point, people will become fed up with your wasteful ways, and stop going to you.

photo provided by flickr user net_efekt

The real problem with greasing the squeaky wheel is that we’re destroying our chances of creating change.

Whenever we create change, we’re going to produce a lot of squeaky wheels.  People aren’t going to want to change.  They might like the old systems.  Or maybe they are in charge of the old processes.  So they will complain.

If we cater our change to them, change will never happen.

Of course this goes against what your boss might be telling you.  Or maybe even what your client wants.  But you have to ask yourself the question: are you more committed to making a change?  Or more committed to not hearing people complain?

photo by flickr user ninjapoodles

We don’t fear change.

We fear failure.

This is why we don’t pursue our dreams.  This is why we don’t bring meaning to work.  If we did, we might not succeed.  Maybe our dream job would turn out to be a disaster.  It’s not that we fear the change to our dreams – it’s that we fear failing at our dreams.

For a long time I rebelled against ideas like “mission statements” or “culture calendars”.  But over the years I have seen just how useful these tools can be if used properly.

There was one organization in particular that made me re-evaluate my thinking.  This organization has a culture calendar that says, “If you haven’t failed in the last 30 days, you’re not trying.”

When you read that what does it tell you about that organization?

It tells me that they are about growth.

That it’s an organization that doesn’t fear failure – they embrace it as a key part of learning.  And you know what?  It pays off.  It’s the most innovative organization I’ve ever worked with.  With a staff of around 100 people they manage a multi-million dollar budget.  Organize events on multiple continents.  Provide an infrastructure to handle tens of thousands of items for emergency relief aid.  While continuing their main mission of providing core training for thousands of people on a weekly basis.

And oh yeah, that organization happens to be a church.

Don’t let people tell you that you fear change, because that’s not the real problem.  It never was.  The real problem is fearing failure.  If you focus on growing instead of always being perfect you’ll be amazed at where you can go.

photo provided by flickr user Xerones

But I must concede, not everyone seems to like stability.  Take, for instance, Scott Cassell who likes to swim with ravenously hungry squid.

While most of us want something safe and controlled, there are some people who seek out true adventure and danger.  These people appeal to us.  We dream about a life as exciting as theirs as we do our grocery shopping or take the car in to get it’s oil changed.

Even our entertainment is filled with excitement.  Star Wars wouldn’t have been much of a movie if Luke had decided he really wanted to stay home and farm.  Die Hard wouldn’t have become the movie it was if Bruce Willis had decided he didn’t really need the trouble of investigating the crime – he was off duty after all.

If we crave stability, why do we seek out these adventure stories?

I believe it’s because we know we are made for more than the mundane.  Yes.  We seek stability.  Yes.  We try to create a world that’s completely safe.  But what if we were never meant to live that way?  What if instead of seeking out adventure, we were supposed to seek out life?  How would your life look?  How would you look?

What if you made choices based on adventure and your potential, then playing it safe?

photo provided by flickr