people & performance / strategy & solutions
Are all managers psychopaths? ❋ Bringing your “whole self” to work ❋ Escape rooms and team dynamics ❋ Managing and measuring ❋ The importance of weak ties in job search ❋ “Thought leaders” ❋ Time and productivity ❋ Why it’s hard to manage different “generations” in an organization ❋ Workplace mental health and well-being
From the raw signal group:
Authors observe that a consequence of the great resignation is that people are walking into new jobs with a different attitude.
They didn’t come asking for meaning, or flavour, or for work to delight them. They came with boundaries and a list of expectations. And, listen: that’s a good thing. It’s extremely healthy for workers to want things like limits on working hours, competitive pay regardless of geography, and an ability to shut off work when they aren’t at work. We should hope that those gains, as uneven as they’ve been, outlast any pandemic or economic cycle.
Those changes are necessary. But they aren’t sufficient. Like a shopping mall food court, we’re surrounded by companies shouting about what a good deal they’re offering. Globally competitive salaries! 4 day work weeks in summer! Free dipping sauce! And in the midst of it, it feels like more people than ever before are finding their work really… bland. Like in the fight to compete for attention, employers have forgotten to build a culture worth fighting for.
So, insisting that we return to the office, to the same-old, just won’t cut it. And assuming that we’re all set because we are already remote or distributed won’t do it either. It’s not so much about the mode of work as it is the moment.
Their suggestion?
It’s time to tell the story again, bosses. Get your house in order on compensation and workload and expectations, for sure. But once you’ve done that, it’s time to remind yourself why anyone should care.
You may find this surprisingly hard at first. Why does your work matter? What impact does it have on the world around you, and why should someone who doesn’t care about the details of your industry give a shit? We don’t mean some sanitized corporate mission statement. We mean your own, real, authentically felt, dare-we-say-it-spicy sense of purpose.
Connect with that story. Tell that story. A modern one, with fresh spices. You want your people to feel it, to put the fire back in your organization. And you’re not gonna get there with the version that’s been sitting at the bottom of the drawer since 2019.
It’s not the overused and abused “Storytelling”. It’s creating clarity for yourself first.
Pat Kelly vividly remembers when he first knew he was a “thought leader”:
In 2005, I met another ‘thought leader’ and I asked him how he became a ‘thought leader’ and he said ‘I don’t know.’ It was then that I knew I could be one too.
Yes, a parody. Because it deserves it.
I love this definition by Ted Gioia:
that extraordinary interlude in American music when the smartest and most sophisticated jazz musicians were also the biggest selling commercial artists in the whole country.
Resilience is typically defined as a defensive capability that’s needed to “protect the house.” At Aon, we consider resilience a company-building capability, which is a fundamentally different orientation. We define resilience as the ability to take actions at scale that simultaneously defend the house and build the house, and we’ve seen many opportunities to do both during volatile times.
The most compelling and durable source of resilience is organizational. About 15 years ago, we recognized that our clients’ needs were outpacing our ability to innovate, so we took targeted actions to improve. This included making structural changes to operate as a truly global firm, which we call Aon United.
Our organizational ability to deliver the best of Aon to our clients globally through this strategy has proven critical to our success. It’s helpful in times of crisis, but, as we’ve learned from our clients, it also enables us to see opportunity where others may see only volatility and risk.
Greg Case, is CEO of Aon, a global professional-services firm.
Power doesn’t corrupt, but it is a phenomenon that is monopolized by the agency of an individual.
Power amplifies and exposes cognitive and behavioral predispositions that already exists within you.
It merely reveals your innate tendencies, but it does not corrupt.
for anyone trying to discern what to do w/ their life: PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT YOU PAY ATTENTION TO. that's pretty much all the info u need.
— Amy Krouse Rosenthal (@missamykr) March 15, 2013
Many responses to my post on communication.
I can’t address all of the conversations here, but I’ll share a quote and answer a question.
The quote was sent by reader Tom who writes
It jumped to mind as I was reading and I wondered if that quote was coming further down in the text.
It didn’t, but it’s a good one, so here it is:
The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place. [1]
My response to Tom was that
I was trying to answer the question: How do I know whether people got or understood what I told or wrote them? And I too often observed in my own life and in conversation with managers that the answer “well, I sent out an email” does not ensure understanding.
The question: How then do I ensure that I understood what the other person is trying to say?
A good place to start is Rapoport’s Rules of Argument:
a list of rules promulgated by the social psychologist and game theorist Anatol Rapoport (creator of the winning Tit-for-Tat strategy in Robert Axelrod’s legendary prisoner’s dilemma tournament).
They are meant to help one put together a “successful critical commentary” as well as “be charitable” to the person you are speaking with. Because the context of the rules is a discussion and possible disagreement, Rapaport calls the person you are talking to “the target”. Here are the rules:
- You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
- You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
- You should mention anything that you have learned from your target.
- Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism. [2]
In my work with managers I often invite them to seek confirmation that they understood what the other person is saying by prefacing the “re-express” with phrases such as “If I heard you correctly, …” or “What I’m hearing you say is…” followed by the “re-express” in one’s own words and not simply a repetition of the other person’s words.
Another way of going at it is by figuring out how the other person’s ideas came about. I hear managers say “I know where you’re coming from”. However, rather than assume that we know, spelling it out allows the other person to confirm that we are indeed correct. Bertrand Russell states it as follows:
It is important to learn not to be angry with opinions different from your own, but to set to work understanding how they come about. If, after you have understood them, they still seem false, you can then combat them much more effectually than if you had continued to be merely horrified. [3]
In other words, conversation is necessary… and as soon as possible. What avoids the talking at is the quick response that seeks confirmation or clarification. Without that response to the original statement or argument, and a response to that response, we simply do not know whether the other party understands what you are trying to say. In the original post, I called this
both parties making themselves co-responsible in creating a shared understanding.
In practice, the way to be co-responsible in creating a shared understanding is to co-respond: to respond to what the other person is trying to say. Communicating is not talking at people, it’s co-responding.
===
[1] The quote has recently been attributed to George Bernard Shaw. Apparently William H. Whyte should get the credit.
[2] Daniel C. Dennett, Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking (2013).
[3] Bertrand Russell, The Art of Philosophizing and other Essays (1942), Essay I: The Art of Rational Conjecture.
we’re a team not a family
what’s better than hiring superstars
making work meaningful
expressing support to people in need
a different type of cv
your management genealogy
… and more!
Find it here
and if you like it, subscribe!
Minouche Shafik in The Guardian:
Shafik has joined the campaign against a winner-takes-all business culture that offers the spoils of capitalism only to those that rise to the top, putting her in the company of some of the world’s most prominent political thinkers.
While she has come a long way from her Egyptian birthplace, her questioning of privilege has remained consistent. “The idea that you are successful because you are smart and hardworking is pernicious and wrong, because it means everyone who is unsuccessful is stupid and lazy,” she says. Referring to her friend Michael Sandel, the Harvard philosopher, she says the next phase of history should be characterised by a shared endeavour, ending the extreme individualism of the last 40 years.
“The discussion we need to be having asks: what do we owe each other and what are our expectations of each other?” she says. People who think they have climbed the greasy pole on their own misunderstand how much luck had a part to play and how society, directly or indirectly, also helped them rise.”