Stuck between mediocrity and excellence

A question that can commonly come up in an interview process is, "Describe your ideal work environment."  My answers would be one where: I can wear many hats I can make decisions  I can lead people I have the support to grow personally and professionally I am always learning something new I am improving or making something better each and every day People are collaborative I work with others that are smarter than I am  Schedules aren't hard coded The one-liner is a work environment where I belong and don't just "fit." Because more than likely what I've done is mutated myself to make myself fit into the environment and the system.  In a world where nobody holds down one job for an extended period of time anymore-- that's a lot of square peg fitting into round holes. Do it long enough and you'll eventually end up not knowing what shape you are.  Isn't it worth it to define your ideal work environment and pursue that ...

Inherent in any organization is a system.  You can call it culture. You can call it the people. You can call it beliefs and values.  It's still a system.  The solopreneur has a system.  A group of partners running a small business has a system.  A multi-functional global organization has a system that is made up of many systems.  I'm not talking about technology.  I'm talking about how people behave. How decisions are made. How people treat other.  A system for how things get done. If you work in a large, global organization, the system is defined as "heavily matrixed," or "bureaucratic," or "influencing and persuading through relationship building."  People generally move ahead because they've figured out how to effectively work the office politics.  If you work for a small organization, the system is defined as "chaotic," or "one has to wear many hats," or "filled with growing pains."  ...

"Your biggest problem is that you were honest and that isn't what they [leadership] wanted to hear." Of all the things that my replacement told me, these are the words that made an indelible impression. For those of you that have been unceremoniously thrown under the bus, remember that it's partially your fault even if you think none of it is your fault.  But given the fact that there are a fleet of buses and more than enough drivers in corporate America to begin with, the odds really aren't in your favor.  If you aspire to work in an environment that is organizationally healthy, here are a few things to look for: Responsiveness - How long does it take a leader, peer, or co-worker to respond to an email? And when they do respond, does it move your project, solution to a problem, or management of an issue forward?  If you have to follow up an email with a phone call with a text and an IM, you are probably not in a very responsive environment.  Timelin...

This past weekend one of my good friends got married and he had a big get together on the day of The Kentucky Derby. As part of the festivities, everyone could put in $5, draw a number from a hat, and get assigned a horse. If the horse wins, you're rich. If not, you're out 5 bucks.  There were two pots. I picked one number out of one pot.  My 4 year old son picked another number for the other pot.  We both picked Bolo . (Odds at the time of the race- 31 to 1) Odds of us picking the same horse -- obviously better than Bolo winning the race. For a lot of us, we may be working on projects that are like Bolo -- a long shot to come out a winner. However, for those of us in them, we have to believe that we'll win even though we're not set up for success.  In Bolo's case, the competition was just that much better.  In the case of project work, it's not necessarily the competition - it's a combination of biases in decision making, capability (or incapab...

The problem with bad bosses is that they spawn more bad bosses.  Just as Dr. Evil created a Mini-Me -- a bad boss will create many  protégés.  They will then go on to create more bad spawn and the compound effect begins to take over.  Or does it?  The only reason bad bosses end up procreating is because they are in an environment that allows it.  Just as mold grows and thrives in dark, damp places -- bad bosses will grow and thrive in environments that promote bullies, narcissists, and political animals .  The simple reason is that all of the people trying to move UP the ladder think that that's the way that they need to be.  The worst part of the story is that bad bosses don't even know they are bad and companies don't even realize that this is the type of environment they foster.  It's why there are so many books on organizational health and leadership.  The gap between what it really is and what it should be is enorm...

More times than not, when you start a project or new job in a management capacity you don't get to pick your team members.  Depending on what level you are, you may actually get team members assigned to you without your say.  It can be frustrating. Deep down, you know that you need to play with the cards that you've been dealt.  It becomes even more frustrating because you can't follow Jim Collins' rule of getting the wrong people off the bus to become great .  In my experience, you'll know within a few seconds whether you've inherited a good team member or bad one.  Part of my problem - if you want to call it that - is that I am quick to judge. The other reason is that I ask myself two questions about the person during a 10 second assessment.  (I guess that's really one reason).  Question 1: Is this person open to a different way of thinking?  Many times, you inherit people that already think they know everything about everyt...

A general rule is that for every pocket of excellence in an organization there will be a corresponding pocket of mediocrity.  If your company is great at sales and marketing, then it's probably not so great at operations.  Just like people have strengths and weaknesses, organizations have not only core competencies, but competencies that could be categorized as "needs improvement." To understand whether you work in either a pocket of excellence or one of mediocrity take a good look at the leaders in the company. Is it a team of people with complimentary skill sets?  Or is everyone a better clone of the other?  Take a look at the business model. Basic, I know. But if the only people you see running the organization are "sales people" without any deep content, you have a pretty good idea of what the organization thinks its pocket of excellence is.  Alternatively, if your current leader recently came from IT, or he or she came from operations, then you ...

Whether you are a running a supply chain or designing software, there is one thing that has to be true -- your operations and design must be focused on meeting customer requirements.  Whether it's a desired service level, an ease-of-usability, or just pleasure of doing business-- how you do things and what you deliver must make the customer happy.  So why do some organizations produce products that people aren't happy with?  As organizations grow, more people get involved in processes.  As more people get involved, a middle occurs where literally nothing gets done.  The middle is filled with meetings.  The middle is filled with no action items.  The middle is filled with executive charisma and management posturing. The middle has lost sight of the customer and has 20/20 vision when it comes to individual objectives.  It's this swirl in the middle that slows down overall progress -- puts a stop to organizational excellence if you ...

A universal truth is that politics exist within every workplace environment.  You may read about workplaces like Zappo's and Menlo Innovations . And to many of us that read about these places, there is a certain degree of skepticism because we have experienced no such nirvana.  However, the truth is that such places exist and the leaders of these companies have learned to minimize or eradicate the office politics that can drag down the productivity or efficiency of a company. Worse, office politics can keep the organization from coming close to realizing it's potential.  In the majority of companies, office politics abound and it's primarily driven by the leadership that's in place.  Here's how to tell if you are dealing with a leader that is a political animal. This is dangerous, both for employees and the company. When talking to your peers about a person they either say, "Watch your back," or "He / she is dangerous."  Red flags sho...

If you are a conspiracy theorist like I am, you believe that your company is either for you or against you. It's a ridiculous thought because a company is not a living, breathing, biological organism with intelligence. But how many times have we referred to our organizations as "the man." (For those of you that can remember that term.)  Because companies are made up of people and run by people. And because people naturally judge others and label them, it's only natural, by the transitive property, to say that companies judge and label their people.  Whether it's under the guise of the performance review or just blatant nepotism, all of us in an organization of measurable size - say greater than 100 people - see and are a part of factions, cliques, and social groups.  From an employer perspective, employees are probably on one list that's associated with one thing - cost.  But from an employee perspective, you probably see yourselves on one of these t...

When you are in a challenging personality situation at work, is it a good idea to bring all of the right people together and lay all of your cards out on the table? For example, you know that you are not in a good political situation and from a career perspective, there is limited upward mobility, or any mobility in general, because of it.  What do you do? Any smart and aware person knows and feels when the situation is not a good one.  Any smart and aware person would instinctively want to have that difficult conversation with the right people in order to clear the air and either affirm what he / she perceives to be true or work to close the gap between the perception of the situation and what others think. Unfortunately that is a very, very bad idea.  Many of the environments that we work in are not safe environments. Or, as Simon Sinek likes to refer to in Leaders Eat Last , there is no circle of safety. Many leaders, when put in a ...

Which is more important when it comes to climbing the career ladder?  Loyalty or capability?  The idealist in us would say that it's up to our company's management and leaders to recognize potential and capability and promote accordingly.  The Peter Principle states otherwise.  Look around you. More than likely, your peers are like you.  Look above you. More than likely, your leaders are not like you.  Therefore it's your job to try and be more like your managers and leaders and less like you if the gap is as wide as you perceive it to be.  The dilemma arises when becoming more like "them" distances you from your true self.   So do you continue the cycle when you get promoted and pick loyalty over capability?  Or do you break the cycle because it's the right thing to do?  Choose the latter. You and your company will be better off for it. 

Who you tryin' to get crazy with ese? Don't you know I'm loco? Cypress Hill - Insane In The Membrane    Sometimes the only way to deal with people you think are crazy is join them in the craziness.  The one thing about company culture is that you can't fight it.  The more you fight it, the more of an outcast you become. It's draining.  Fighting it can become toxic. Toxicity becomes negativity. Negativity can lead to ostracism.  If you think that everyone around you is nuts, guess what? You are probably the crazy one.  And nobody likes to be around the crazy people -- the ones that just.don't.get.it.  Therefore it's decision time. Decide if you want to join in and pledge, or keep your head down and waste time in the quagmire.  The choice is yours. 

In Bizarro World , I am starting a business with some of my best friends and colleagues.  It's a place that works with clients that want our products and services. It's a place that does meaningful work.  It's a place that inspires me and the company's employees to wake up each and every morning to do great work. For many of us, the true definition of Bizarro World (not mine) is the one that we are living in today.  If that's the case, we need to ask ourselves "why?"  Then we need to ask ourselves if there is anything we can do to fix it.

Toxicity is the degree to which a substance can damage an organism.  In business, look at your organization as an organism under a microscope.  There are a variety of ways that toxins can get in, but the primary way would be through the people that you hire. Companies that have lax hiring standards, no real onboarding program, and free-for-all processes have a higher risk of absorbing negative toxicity.  Companies that have very stringent hiring standards, an in-depth and prescriptive onboarding program, and a culture that helps its employees thrive are usually toxin-free. A person that is a stimulant in one organization can become toxic in another organization. Is that the fault of the employee or the employer?  Culpability lies on both sides of the table. The problem is getting both parties to admit it. 

In my stellar career of management, I've had a couple of memorable quotes from my team members.  I had one direct report tell me, "Don't manage me!"  I had another one say, "Leave me the f*ck alone!" (Acronym of the title of this post.)  Ben Horowtiz has WFIO (We're f*cked, it's over).  I have LMTFA.   Many organizations today have created a LMFTA environment.  Or, maybe it's not the organization, but the employees that view the company they work for as a means to provide for things like benefits , or work/life balanc e, or a paycheck .  If that's the case, then it should be no surprise that apathy and indifference are in abundance in the workplace.  God forbid people work to make an impact or doing work that matters.   Whose responsibility is it to create a job or career that's enjoyable?  Yours or your employer?  That's probably a discussion for another post and one wher...

For those of you raising children, ages 4-5 are when your child is establishing his or her independence.  It's a period of reward because you are watching your little one become a person.  It's a period of frustration because your pride and joy begins to test boundaries and push buttons because he's known you all of his life. It gets worse when it's someone else's kid.  As an example, I coach an Under 6 soccer team and one of the kids clearly wasn't listening to me. So I told him to go run a lap around the field. He proceeded to look at me with disgust and sit down on his butt making it a point to ignore my directions. Fast forward a few decades and being a manager is not any better.  Direct defiance is replaced by passive aggressiveness.  Tantrums are replaced by "escalation" to an executive.  In the world of middle management, you have absolutely no leverage-- just like my situation with someone else's kid.  I...

In Zero to One , Peter Thiel refers to a law that his friends named after him that states, "A startup messed up at its foundation cannot be fixed." When looking at the company that you work for, what elements of the foundation have to be absolutely on point?  Leadership? Management structure? Communication architecture? Talent management and recruiting? Organizational health and maintenance? Operating model?  Some, or all of these?  As many startups that fail because their foundation was cracked to begin with, I think that there are many companies in existence today that are built like a game of Jenga .  You pull that one piece out and the whole tower comes crashing down.  Question is -- what is that one piece?  Leadership? Management structure? Communication architecture? Talent management and recruiting? Organizational health and maintenance? Operating model?  You get the idea... 

Why is taking the high road so hard?   It's because we are ruled by emotion.  Everyone demands a certain level of respect and professionalism.  When we feel that trust has been broken, that we've been disrespected, or the level of professionalism is just plain amateurish, our natural instincts to say, "Hold my stuff, I'm about to bust someone..."  Other triggers that make us want to take the jacket off and put on the brass knuckles include--  playing office politics in a self-interested manner, not communicating the whole story- only the part that is self-promoting, and taking credit for other people's work.  For once, just once, take a day and be real. Be direct. Be transparent. Be authentic. Show some vulnerability.  There would be a lot less drama and a lot more productivity in the workplace. 

These are the three most dangerous words in the business world today. The direct report says, "Well, I could do that, but I have this, this, and that to do."  The IT developer says, "The system should do that, but it's really designed this way because we worked around it."  The boss says, "I would   escalate that issue, but the time isn't right."  All three of these words reflect inaction and sub-optimal organizational performance. Remove these words from your vocabulary in the workplace and replace them with "can", "will", and "must."  The workplace will be better off because of it.