The Best Advice for Delivering Bad News

I once listened to a coaching client describe (vent), in great detail, the multitude of deficiencies of one of their direct reports. This wasn’t the first time this topic had come up in our conversations, so I knew it was more than a “sore spot” for the frustrated leader. Bad news was more than simmering.

This time they meant business.

It was apparent that the “plan of attack” had been refined and rehearsed to ensure that nothing could dislodge the “facts.” Every objection covered, all evidence compiled, I even got a little rattled as my client grew more incensed.

But even hurricanes take a breather. Once the wall of my client’s fury yielded to an “eye” of tranquility, I asked: “Do you think this individual knows how disappointed you are?”

“Absolutely!” my client proclaimed. “There’s no way they can deny it.”

“And how do you think they feel about this?” I asked.

“I can’t see how they could feel anything but shameful” was the reply.

“So, let me get this straight. You intend to deliver negative feedback to someone that already knows they’re falling short of expectations? And, they feel badly about it?”

My client’s shoulders dropped and their once riveting eye contact broke off as they gazed toward the floor. It was obvious where I was going.

To meet the obvious, if regrettable, expectation, I continued, “Why don’t you start your conversation with them by simply asking, ‘How do you feel?’”

“I get it,” they replied softly, “And if I ask in that manner, they’ll probably talk about the performance problems I’ve been ready to unload on them?”

Probably so.

How many times has someone crammed something down your throat that you already knew? What was your reaction?

The great detectives — Columbo, for example, use riveting questions to tell of their knowing, “Oh, oh, oh, … just one more thing, ma’am. If you weren’t at the scene of the murder of your husband, then how is it that your beloved and loyal guard dog, Gunter, isn’t it, never barked? You see, your neighbors were recording a Youtube video on mindless tranquility at the exact time of your husband’s murder. He pleaded for his life – it’s on the tape – but, Gunter? No, Gunter never barked. Not a whimper.”

The same strategy is employed by the great lawyers, like – Perry Mason. “In closing, I ask the jury, ‘why would anyone actually go ‘coo-coo for coco-puffs?”

Let the jury connect the last dots. It’s far more powerful, psychologically, to come to one’s own conclusion (as it seems) than to have it shoved down their throat.

And the target of question or criticism? They know more than you’ve prepared for. (Incidentally, research proves that punishment is reinforcing to the punisher, so don’t believe your parents claims through your childhood, “this is going to hurt me more than you.” B.S.) Besides, going into the conversation with “both guns loaded,” will only invoke defense. And this usually doesn’t end well.

Find that moment of tranquility when preparing to enter a tough conversation. Is it possible that other/others know what you’re about to say or do concerning their behavior? If so, ask yourself, “Am I really teaching them a lesson?” or “Am I actually reinforcing my ego?”

Bad news needn’t be badly delivered. It’s usually not news, anyway.

(Favorable comments, only, please)

Want to stay ahead of machines? Think like a four-year old.

I was surprised, and disappointed, that the 2016 presidential debates never addressed the explosive growth of technology. Nothing. National borders, the economy, the environment, ethical behavior, etc. Same deck of cards. All important; none as imminently disruptive as the proliferation of technology. It would have comforted millions to hear candidates say, “Here’s what I will do to protect your job from technology.” But it wasn’t mentioned. Technology was summarily avoided like a port-o-pot with a moist seat; you just don’t go there.

I believe the candidates and networks/discussants worked out a deal to keep the topic out of bounds. Why?

Because technology is rapidly becoming more ubiquitous, unpredictable and disruptive than we thought. Restated in candidate speak, “It’s about the technology, Stupids.”

It absolutely amazes me to understand how one can run a campaign on job growth without addressing technology? News break: Undocumented immigrants, offshoring production and bad international trade agreements aren’t taking jobs. Technology is.

Culture may eat strategy for breakfast. Technology eats whatever it wants.

And one of its favorite appetizers is your job.

Continue reading Want to stay ahead of machines? Think like a four-year old.

Can’t we all just get along?

Nope. No matter how much we want or pray for peace; how much we want the yelling on cable news networks to cease; or how badly we want to end acts of violence taking place in our schools, we must recognize that aggressive behavior is hardwired in our DNA. We can’t “all just get along?”

As social animals, humans have immutable, instinctual, irrepressible needs: the need to bond with others “get along” and the need to dominate, or “get ahead” relative to others. That’s simply the way it is. We will ALWAYS relate to other humans in these instinctive ways. Even your most revered saint is subject to this reality. And you most definitely are, too.

The ONLY people apparently exempt from both of these needs are, in psychological terms, “crazy,” “nut jobs,” “whackos,” etc. Apparently, I say, because an argument could be made that they are labeled, “abnormal” for the very reason that they don’t have both needs met.

The “sticky wicket” here is how we define, “get ahead.” Here’s my crack at it.

The pivotal criteria between hippies who’d “like to buy the world a Coke” and cowboys who take evil-doers and “hang ‘em high” hinge on intent and intensity.

We can all identify with the good old rivalry of game-based competition (good intent, strong intensity), and the trivial “rounding errors” in tax returns (bad intent, low intensity). {I’ve only heard about these.}

A simple taxonomy of “getting ahead.”

The table, below, depicts one of the oldest, but strongest, means of influence due to its simplicity – even if a bit inadequate. (Hey, I’m a fan of tales of “ducks and bunnies.”) ANYWAY, in this case two variables (Intent and Intensity), each with two values (good/bad, high/low), are put together. Alas; the classic 2 x 2.

 

A simple taxonomy of “getting ahead.”

 

The labels in the grid are mine, but others would work just as well.  (However, if you disagree, you’re wrong. AND bad! – JK*)

BUT

“BOHICA” (I really shouldn’t say what this acronym represents, so I won’t say that it ends with, Here It Comes Again.)

“Intent” is particularly squirrely. It’s hard to ascertain the intent of someone else: “I did this for you, not me.” (hmm) “I didn’t mean to eat all of the ice cream.” (Not hard). And what if the act of intent affords no value to the one in question, “Yes, I drank all your champagne, but I didn’t enjoy it.” (Guilt by confession)

What isn’t so slippery: Few (sane) people proudly parade the image of being “Hostile.” Most don’t even like the idea of being “Mischievous.” We don’t like (allow?) the possibility that we may be “bad.” The more intense our point of view, the less we like (allow?) it to be anything but affirmative and decisive. “From now to eternity, I will NEVER vote for a ….”

Distinguishing good and bad is subjective. (Note the ‘wiggle’ room here) For the most part, our interpretation calmly flows with the “river of the rest.” For example, “You shouldn’t interrupt someone in mid speech.” (That is, unless they NEVER shut up or are an insufferable boor.) “Going with the flow” isn’t infallible. We can believe we’re absolutely good and right, but somehow do unthinkable harm. Many egregious atrocities have been committed in the vortex of popular thinking (e.g., slavery).

Some will take umbrage with my admittedly loose, but intentionally illustrated sense of right and wrong. “God determines what’s right and wrong.” I can hear from some. “Yes,” I respond, “She does.” “But…” our operational legal and moral systems are primarily determined by the populous. And, yes, they may be right or wrong about what’s right or wrong. (Huh?)

Anyway, the point I want to make has little to do with defining what’s right or wrong regarding guns, right to bear arms, whatever you like. I simply intend to give credence to the point that sometimes, some times, good people do bad things. I have my own opinions regarding what’s right or wrong, but who cares?

If you accept the conundrum that good people can do bad things, then the conflict between the person and their behavior must be addressed – more realistically, reconciled. Otherwise we have a bad person. And we don’t like this answer. So, we in effect, invoke the moral(feeling)/rational(thinking) equivalent of a psychological “get out of jail free” card.

Cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance. The “slight of mind” that allows us to sleep knowing that we held our nose and voted for ____. OMG.

Cognitive dissonance. It’s what you’d guess; mental conflict or disagreement. Cognitive dissonance looms large wherever disagreement lurks.

Take the maelstrom of shootings in US schools. Some say easy access to weapons is at fault,  yet the same people may have guns themselves, or at least want others to have them. Others believe that inadequate defense mechanisms are a weak link in our free society, thus allowing such tragedy. Furthermore, arming trained people with guns in schools is a good start to confronting these horrific maladies.

Who’s right? Who’s wrong? Obviously, the answer depends on who you ask. But both points of view, intensely debated, are staunchly justified by those who hold them.

Cognitive dissonance.

A singular event, with the same information available to all, is fiercely contested. Both “sides” have no doubt that they are right; the other side, dreadfully – dangerously, wrong.

How does this happen?

Cognitive dissonance.

Allow me to walk you through the examples of two potential cognitive processes regarding the two most polarizing points of view on gun control. For illustrative purposes, I’m going to make them super simple and extraordinarily extreme. I am NOT going to try to make them “good.” I speak for NO ONE here. I’m just making a point. Here goes…

“Guns are easily obtained and pose deadly force. If we eliminate guns, we’ll eliminate the problem.”

“Guns are our most effective defense in crises like these. By equipping our schools with guns, we’ll eliminate the problem.”

Both positions invoke cognitive dissonance because both are debatable and, moreover, both are obviously ignorant (as written). Note: we also don’t like to think of ourselves as “ignorant.”

Advocates for eliminating guns want to protect our schools by taking away the weapon of deadly force (guns), but know that two guns are better as long as one gun exists. (Unless they have complete trust in the wielder of the first gun.)

Advocates for the right to bear arms (guns) want to protect our schools by inserting the powerful weapon on site as defense, but know that guns carry risk. And more guns create more risk.

Now. Simmer down. The message is intended to make a point, not a point of view.

I say that both sides “know” these things, but that doesn’t mean they acknowledge them. This is where the BIG BUT comes in.

“Sure. Guns offer powerful protection, BUT at what risk to have so many; in our schools?”

“Sure. Guns pose risk and the more guns, the more risk, BUT at what cost do we allow armed attackers access to unarmed schools?”

When you hear someone pivot on a “BUT” they’re invoking cognitive dissonance.

It’s all about the BUT. When you hear someone pivot on a “BUT” they’re invoking cognitive dissonance. They’re creating a way to hold two conflicting beliefs (one, probably suppressed and unconscious) at the same time.

Cognitive dissonance allows both of these positions to ‘jump’ over the line between good and bad intent

Again. This article is not about gun control. The references are used only to make my point because it’s divisive. Both sides have intense beliefs. Both sides have valid points. Both sides have flaws. Cognitive dissonance allows both of these positions to ‘jump’ over the line between good and bad intent (or at least position one’s self in “the good box.”)

Wake up. We can’t. We won’t. Not gonna happen. We’ll never, “all just get along.”

We’ll never “all just get along.” In virtually all cases, cognitive dissonance justifies our unpopular (among some) position by giving us an “out” of the bad box.

BUT,

If we open our eyes and see this from a higher perspective, perhaps we’ll see some common intent – even if our “logic” differs.

Worth a try?

*JK= Just Kidding. That’s text speak I’m using. Cool, huh?

A good mood is better than being happy

Whether you’re at work designing plastic wrap that never wrinkles or at home washing dishes after the family reunion, your mood matters. I’m not talking about the obvious pleasure of a “good mood.” Your mood is WAY more powerful, more than you think.*

You probably know this. “I’m not in the mood right now.” Sound familiar? Sure it does. But I bet you’ve never heard it at work. Telling your boss that you can’t send out that customer email because you’re “not in the mood,” wouldn’t go over very well, would it?

Maybe it should.

Inspiration is more important than direction.

Creating a positive mood for your employees actually WOULD make them “work smarter, not harder.”

Inspiration is more important than direction. But which do you think there’s more of in the average workplace? Which do you do more? (If you answer, “inspiration,” ask one of your co-workers to tell you the truth.)

Excitement (i.e., inspiration) is magic. It stimulates creativity. Individuals are more than twice as innovative when they receive a good report (vs. a bad report) prior to a test of creativity. It even makes people smarter. Another study showed that by inducing excitement prior to a difficult math test, scores increased 8%. (If that sounds trivial to you, I’ll be happy to manage your money.)

Home teams have an advantage in sports. Gaming apps sell more than productivity apps. Advertisements feature smiling models and red sports-cars on the open road. (Ever wonder why there’s NEVER any traffic? It makes you anxious.)

Work.

Just the word makes you sigh. Know why? Because work causes anxiety, “I’ve got no time…” and sacks excitement, “I get to do it again?”

Warning: The following content contains explicit language and adult content. (Now I know you’ll keep reading.)

Sex sells. Need I say more?

You can open your eyes now. No joke. Open your eyes to see why approximately 87% of employees are less than engaged. (If you’re reading this while you’re at work, count yourself among the 87/100.)

Work isn’t exciting – at least not for 87% of all workers surveyed by Gallup. As a result, the biggest waste in any organization is what people don’t do that they could.

If excitement is magic, fear is poison.

Want to see someone work hard but get nothing done? (No, but I’m making a point here.) Make them scared. A study showed that by inducing fear, activity that was once fun and frequent, stops.

Fear, stress, anxiety, burnout, frustration, etc. They’re all bad and all related to lost productivity, a lack of creativity, unethical behavior and even physiological health.

Once again, you probably aren’t surprised.

So why do you over-instruct, or worse, take over when someone isn’t doing their job perfectly? (i.e., micro-manage) Why do you keep others working even when they’re on vacation? (“Smart” phones? Give me a break — literally.) These well-intended, but imposing behaviors are so prevalent they’re probably an instinct. (BTW: Telling someone to “calm down” actually makes them MORE anxious.)

If excitement is magic, fear is poison. It stifles good behavior, stimulates bad behavior and absolutely crushes creativity to dust.

Piling on the facts, the flames of fear can be lit in an instant but can take forever to put out.

In summary:

  1. Excitement improves productivity, intellect and innovation.
  2. Fear extinguishes productivity, intellect and innovation.
  3. The benefit/detriment of excitement vs. fear WILL transform an organization.

Key question:

What do you do to stimulate people’s excitement at work?

If you don’t see this as your job, it very well could mean your job. (Hope I didn’t scare you.)

* In a related post, I describe a simple task to create positive moods.

This simple hack* will reduce stress and improve health

Most {known} psychological research confirms what people already know. Yep. Most psychological research could receive the “No-duh”  vs. the “Nobel” award. Beyond the obvious, others are obtuse. Good luck with their titles, less the method (that consumes most of the article. But sometimes something else happens. Here, I share a study, well done AND revealing; useful for everyday application. This research yields a simple exercise that, if done, will reduce stress and improve health.

I’ve offered tips to manage mood before: 3 (easy) office tips to enhance your influence and 3 Surprising Motivation Killers and a couple more. But I must confess that these “tips” are mostly the result of personal experience or general knowledge acquired from multiple sources.

This is different. Or as Dorothy so astutely mentions to Toto, “… we’re not in Kansas anymore.” (Scariest movie I’ve ever seen…)

Although most research reveals the obvious, what’s surprising is what we do (or don’t do) with this obvious information. Just to check me, I bet you can’t think of three things off the top of your head that would make you or someone else a better person.

You did, didn’t you? (smirk)

No kidding: Why haven’t you done them? If you have, why aren’t you still doing them?

You’re probably wondering, “why is Chris shooting himself in the foot?” It kinda sounds like he’s “giving up” his own profession; “psychological research is unsurprising and insignificant.”

Not quite.

One doesn’t fold with a straight flush, and I wouldn’t with a pair of aces (or would I?). I’ve come too far (and learned too much) to give in now.

Most of you will see through my thinly veiled attempt to entice and titillate as an effort to stir up your emotions. (Not sorry)

Beyond the sarcasm, pointing this out to you is making you even more emotional, even a bit demeaned. (Still, not sorry)

There’s an old saying in psychology, “All’s fair that changes behavior the way we want.” (Well, that’s what it should say.)

No. I’m no martyr. Not at all. I’m “the Fool.”

Here, I re-present one of many findings from I-O psychology that, if applied, would help so many. But it’s buried in an academic journal that few will notice. (I won’t mention it’s not even a journal of psychology, but that’s another story.)

Per Issac Newton, … “a body at rest remains at rest unless acted upon by a force.”

Transferring to psychology, human-kind is a pretty big, “body.” Consider this, “the force.”

What follows is solid I-O psychology research with implications that can really make a difference.

Now that I hope to have gained your attention, here’s the simple activity that will make you happier and healthier:

At the end of every day, write down three (3) good things that happened and why they did.

That’s it. Easy as Pi. (What does that mean, anyway?)

Really?

Yes, that’s it. Record and reflect on three good things that happened. Your spirits will lift and your blood pressure will drop. Measure it.

Bono, Glomb, Shen, Kim and Koch. 2013. “Building Positive Resources: Effects of Positive Events and Positive Reflection on Work Stress and Health.” Academy of Management Journal, 56: 1601-1627.

Don’t get me started on why this isn’t published in a journal known for PSYCHOLOGY!

Just get on with it. Prove me wrong.

* Yes. I am cool because I used the word “hack” vs. “tactic.”

“Opposites attract” or “Birds of a feather flock together”?

Do “Opposites attract” or “Birds of a feather flock together”? This is a VERY popular question around the world with nearly as many “answers” as your “know it all” colleague. It’s a topic I’ve addressed before; the way things are going, I’ll address it again.

What’s up?

Sometimes a question is more revealing than its answer. This is one of those times.

So, rather than rushing to answer the question, I want to address it first. Specifically, I take up the question based solely on my experience in industrial/organizational psychology.

Two factors tell of its significance and a third factor implies its specific relevance to me:

It’s frequency. This may be the most frequent question I get in my work. It didn’t used to be, but lately it’s been coming up more and more, usually in group engagements.

The context. Factory floors, delivery trucks, board rooms, basically any place where people perform work is where my work is done. Do these seem like the kind of places folks would bring up a question about romantic relationships? Not to me; at least not initially.

The rise of personality. When I started in my profession, personality was just beginning to re-emerge as a credible concept after a 40 year moratorium. Today, personality is everywhere. And it’s a very large part of what I do every day. When I address a group on the topic of character assessment, I know I will get this question regarding personality’s influence in romantic relationships.

Still, I NEVER bring up the topic with my clients (who aren’t asking for romantic advice). Regardless of the connection to personality, the question seems out of place to my primary job – or at least it used to.

Why me?

Here’s why I suppose I get this question:

  1. Character (personality) counts at work.
  2. Character counts in romantic relationships.
  3. Matters that count (i.e., character) persist and influence behavior across contexts (e.g., work/non-work). Furthermore, character is my expertise. It really shouldn’t be a surprise that I become a human lightning rod for this question when talking “personality”.

Now to provide support for my logic.

Continue reading “Opposites attract” or “Birds of a feather flock together”?

7 ways to protect your job from technology

The machines are coming (oh my!). But what’s new? Machines have been coming since the invention of the wheel. Over time, machines have changed the way work is done, frequently allowing fewer people to do more, or, taking “share of labor”. For the most part, the emergence of machines, and technology in general, has been incremental. It’s also focused on the most routine and arduous jobs for now. So, workers have had time to adopt new skills to stay ahead of the changing workforce demands.

Not so fast.

Technological innovation has been changing in at least three ways:

  1. Rate: Despite misuse and interpretation, Moore’s law does model the increasing rate of change in computer capacity. Moore predicted that the technology underpinning the processing speed of computers would double every 18 months. Illustrations abound depicting his predictions of accelerated change.
Moore's law diagram
Moore’s Law – Logarithmic Plot
  1. Volatility: Disruptions, or rapid and radical developments in technology, have become more common. In essence, new technology can “go viral”, infusing and dispersing itself with surprising speed and impact. Digital cameras took film quite quickly.
  1. Magnitude: When globalization hit the scene, entire components of our workforce went away (pun intended). Call centers made the early moves with manufacturing and programing soon to follow.

Change plays right into people’s psychological weak spots.

The Perfect Storm

Three aspects of change unnerve people:

  1. Rate – As speed increases, accuracy decreases. If you want to really “excite” someone at work, pull out a stopwatch.
  1. Volatility – People do NOT like unpredictability, and that’s what disruptions create. Note the fate of network TV when digital cable came along. What happens when a new “system” is suddenly turned on in an organization? Better have a contingency plan.
  1. Magnitude – The bigger the change, the lower the likelihood that folks can, or will, adapt. Outsourcing and globalization did not really change jobs, it gave them to someone else. This has attracted the biggest reaction so far.

Note the pattern: Change plays right into people’s psychological weak spots.

Control and Trust are Crucial

These are the cornerstones of psychological health. When it comes right down to it, the most basic question we face has two answers: “I’m okay” and “I’m not okay”. Control and trust determine the answer for any situation. If you have neither, run! Most times you will have one or both.

So, what can you do to “weather the technological storm?” In short,

Focus on what you can control.

Here I list seven ways that you can protect your job from technology. As I write, I realize, though, that these steps are really more about protecting yourself from technology more so than your job. Either way, I hope at least one suggestion gives you an actionable idea.

  1. Seek to understand and predict where technology is going in your work. The better you can do this, the more time you have to ‘get ready’ for the change. Levy and Murnane (2004) devised a simple matrix to answer the question: “What tasks do machines do better than people?”
Protect your job from technology: Levy and Murnane's matrix showing routine vs. non-routine and manual vs. cognitive quadrants
Levy & Murnane (2004) Matrix of Automation

A) Routine jobs are easiest for machines and the first at risk:

i.  Manual routine jobs like stamping “received” on a brief are at high risk.

ii. Cognitive routine jobs like proofreading also are at high risk.

B) Non-routine jobs are more challenging for machines:

i.  Manual non-routine jobs like stocking groceries are at less risk.

ii. Cognitive non-routine jobs like writing novels are at the least risk.

Consider your job from this framework. Be prepared to move up (toward cognitive skills like solving problems) and/or right (toward non-routine skills like repairing machines).

… the likelihood {is} that you will be joined by technology, not replaced by it

  1. Understand what’s really happening or likely to happen as technology enters your work.

A) Is my job being replaced by a machine, or complemented with one? Most researchers and experience point to the likelihood that you will be joined by technology, not replaced by it (at least not as a first ‘move’). Learn how to work with the new technology and show that you like it. (Remember, someone with more authority than you probably brought it in).

B) If you’re highly skilled, you’re likely to be first in demand when new technology arrives. Your knowledge and expertise will be used to coach and train others. But this won’t last forever. Keep your eye out for new challenges.

C) If you’re less skilled, you will be more valuable after the technology has been around long enough for the trainers to move on. Keep the faith.

  1. If you lead others, communicate frequently about when and how technology will be used; position the resources necessary to educate and train the workforce to succeed.

A) You have control to build and support capability in the workforce.

B) How you communicate and address concerns will raise the level of trust.

  1. If you hire people, pay attention to their expertise and ability to deal with change.

A) Flexibility will be vital for all in order to adapt to our changing world.

B) Experts will be necessary to lead and embed technology changes.

  1. Consider the following job families, scientifically predicted as “least likely to be automated in the next 20 years” (Frey and Osborne, 2013). Even if you’re well into your career, there’s a good chance you can better secure your job by improving your social intelligence. (Robots aren’t good at jobs that depend on people skills – especially those requiring social intelligence).
Protect your job from technology: Frey and Osborne's table depicting bottlenecks to automation
Frey and Osborne (2013) – Bottlenecks to Automation
  1. Craft your work. As machines, or those who use them, eat their way into the social, political, educational and financial world, we consumers can exercise choice in our purchasing power. Just like some now are willing to pay a premium for products made in the USA, in the future the same will happen for “Made by hand” (and not just cigars). Seek to incorporate your personal brand in your work. The more labor-of-love, “crafted” works will stand out from the machine made stuff like the old, unvarnished desk does from the one finely polished on “Antiques Road Show”.
  1. Be nice to people. Research is clear that being liked at work (specifically, by your boss) results in better reviews (Longenecker, 1986). (If this sounds political, it is; but the same research also reveals a positive relationship between being liked and being good – seems to fit). Robots may be able to say “please” and “thank you”, and even do the job better, technically speaking. But they’ll never gain the authentic trust that you as a person uniquely can. Even as babies, we’re able to distinguish the most subtle facial expressions. Smile with your heart.

Take comfort accepting that your job is more likely to change than to disappear.

Yes, machines and robots and artificial intelligence are coming. Worrying won’t get you anywhere. Take comfort accepting that your job is more likely to change than to disappear. If you continue to expand and sharpen your skills, particularly those specified, above, you can relax — for a while!

My hope is that this article allays some of the ‘doomsday’ concerns raised by fear mongering media under the title: “Will a Machine take my Job?”

Renee Richel Steilberg presents, “Love Starts with You”

So proud of my wife!

Join Renee Richel and her fabulous team of experts at the Omni Hotel in Jacksonville on February 4 for a day filled with skill-building tips and activities to “super-charge” your love life.

Experience the difference she can make in your life.

The surprising characteristic of great leaders.

Humility.

That’s right. And this applies to both the attitude and the act. If you really want to lead others, embrace humility as a virtuous attitude. If you really want to lead your team to victory, be humble. Manage your ego, speak of your weaknesses and admit your mistakes. Follow others and point out where THEY excel (not you). And listen. Not to be polite, but to learn.

It’s profoundly simple:

If you really want to be a great leader, promote others.

Sound familiar? Just about every sustainable social, political or religious system is built on the premise of service – making others, or every-one better. Even better than you!

If you aren’t convinced by my as yet unsubstantiated statements of “belief,” the same can be observed in the more “hard” sciences of biology (e.g., symbiotic organisms, each depending on and strengthening the other), chemistry (e.g., catalysts, subtle agents activating massive reactions) and physics (e.g., levers that give small objects power over those much larger). These are a bit of a stretch on humility, but they do illustrate how simple or small agents can have a huge, even life saving effect on another. The point is, sometimes humble leaders make their teams significantly better just by being available and providing a little ‘boost.’

In fact, we’re wired (genetically) to do this. And it’s a good thing. If we don’t take care of each other, we go away. “I win, you lose” systems ultimately yield one … “winner”? We both need and lead each other. {There is no grammatical error in the preceding sentence.} We encourage our children for their effort. We help our friends in adversity. In healthy relationships, we praise our partner, not ourselves. And in faith, we honor a being greater than anything of which we can conceive. We do this for no obvious credit. We’re just built that way. (Mostly – keep reading) Continue reading The surprising characteristic of great leaders.

Online Dating and Online Job Search: Feel Lucky?

There are many parallels between online dating and online job searches. Both include multiple “candidates.” Both make use of resumes/profiles. And both operate with the goal of a prospective “match” based on selection decisions. Sure, the ultimate objective is different (we hope), but the means is rather similar.

We’ve all done it

With the growing role (dominance) of the internet in our social system, chances are you’ve experienced one or both of these “matching” services. (I assume that if you’re reading this, you’re probably “age appropriate” for at least one of the two).

So here’s the question: How’s that working out for you?

Of course, some will have success. The ‘rub’ is that both processes have become so packed with “candidates” that the services may be collapsing under what would appear to be their greatest strength – a large database.

So I did a little research to see what science has to say about online dating and job search.

Continue reading Online Dating and Online Job Search: Feel Lucky?