What's Wrong with Work?

Bring a Teddy Bear to Work Day

Evidence published in the September issue of Harvard Business Review reports that adults are likely to behave much better when there are reminders of children, such as teddy bears, in their presence. 

You will know that, chance are, you watch your mouth and your opinions when you are around your own children. Well, it appears that it isn't just ACTUAL children who bring out this better behaviour in us but the IDEA of children such as toys, crayons, balloons etc in our vicinity. 

An sample of the data from the research - 

The number of people who will cheat in a given scenario is 20% lower when subjects are near children's toys or engaged in children's activities

The more day-care centres and kindergartens there are in an area, the more likely a company is to engage in charitable behaviour

Neuroscience has shown that oxytocin is released when people are near kids and oxytocin is associated with pro-social behaviour

At a time when business ethics is so high on the agenda, anything which might help leaders be more socially conscious is a good thing, right? Just to be on the safe side, I am bringing my childhood Winnie the Pooh in to the office on Tuesday. Anyone else? 

Buy What's Wrong with Work? at Amazon

Follow me on Twitter
Become my friend on Facebook
Connect on LinkedIn
www.tamingtigers.com

 

 

 

Cause and effect

An article by Guy Kawasaki in the latest issue of Wired magazine got me thinking about cause and effect. 

Kawasaki writes about Steve Jobs and advises wannabe super-entrepreneurs to interpret Jobs' success not try to impersonate it. 

So - Jobs wears jeans to work. But is that why he's successful? Will you be more successful if you wear jeans too? Probably not.

But will you give better presentations if, like Jobs, you use slides with pictures rather than slides packed with text? Probably yes. 

It can be a powerful exercise to observe people we admire and notice what the causes of their success might be. But we'll end up with the wrong answers if we simply reverse engineer and assume "These are all the qualities of a successful person, therefore, that's why they are successful".

Remember - successful people achieve success because of a number of qualities but also in spite of a number of qualities. Just make sure you don't confuse one with the other. 

Follow me on Twitter
Become my friend on Facebook
Connect on LinkedIn
www.tamingtigers.com

Spotted

I've been travelling a lot recently, which basically involves taking things out and putting things in your suitcase repeatedly and figuring out how the hotel room television works. However, on the plus side I did see copies of my new book, What's Wrong with Work? in a number of airport WHSmiths stores.

  

This is great for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it means that the book is out there for anyone to see and, hopefully, be inspired by.

Secondly, it gives me a sense of pride. 

We often work with teams who are achieving extraordinary things (and are capable of even more). Yet they don't recognise what they are and what they do. I am talking about very senior people who run huge organisations who forget that they have influence, experience, ideas and the power to do something with it.

Perhaps it is cultural but it seems in this country we have forgotten how special we are. A reminder - a simple photograph of some books on a book shelf, a thank you from a colleague, a thoughtful gift or a memento of a special moment - may seem unnecessary for adults who, presumably are above needing a pat on the back.

But given how critical and, I go so far as to say, ignorant most people are about how talented, special and worthy they are, maybe these little reminders are more powerful than we give them credit for.

Follow me on Twitter
Become my friend on Facebook
Connect on LinkedIn
www.tamingtigers.com

 

My local coffee shop

Anyone who knows me, knows I like Starbucks coffee. When I say that I am reminded of Malcolm Gladwell's comment in a speech at a TED conference that most Americans, when asked, say they prefer their coffee strong and dark but actually buy weak, milky coffee (which is why Starbucks is so popular!). The lesson is: Don't take too much notice of what people say to market researchers!

Anyway, back to the point. It isn't just the coffee I like. It is the staff. Given the choice (even when it is clearly more expensive than the competition) I always choose Starbucks.

The first Starbucks I went to was close to the BBC where I used to work. I was regularly given a free muffin, a free coffee and a free smile by staff who recognised me and knew what I liked to drink. The same is true of my local Starbucks today in the small, market town where I now live.

They know my drink, they know my family ("How is your little girl doing at her new school?" I was asked today), they say hello if they pass me in the street.

And it turns out that "recognition" is authoritative. At a workshop I attended last week run by Sandy Ruddock of The Roaring Mouse (the website is being built now) Sandy explained that, on top of being well-groomed, being a good listener, being quietly confident and having good eye contact, showing recognition by using someone's name or remembering facts about them, gives you more authority in a room.

Not only is it good manners but it makes you seem more worthy of respect. It gives you gravitas.

What is encouraging about this is that it reinforces what we always hoped was true - being a thoughtful, considerate, polite person actually helps you achieve more in life than being underhanded, rude and thoughtless. The workplace culture may seem to demand that we leave our morals at the door and join in with the argy-bargy. But good sense - and overwhelming evidence - suggests that behaving with integrity makes the workplace a better place, and a more successful one.

Follow me on Twitter
Become my friend on Facebook
Connect on LinkedIn
www.tamingtigers.com

What's Wrong with Meetings?

We spend about 60 hours a month in meetings (although it feels like more). That accounts for about one third of our time at work. And 30-50% of that time is totally unproductive. It adds nothing to the business, nothing to us personally. We don't get value, we don't add value.

A question then - Why do we go to these meetings?

One reason, although we may not want to admit it, is that being at a meeting looks like you are working without really having to do any work. We might complain afterwards that the meeting was a waste of time but we didn't say anything when we had the chance to make a difference. We just went along with it.

It is far harder to consider how to make meetings work for you and for the business than to keep turning up to a waste-of-time meeting. The cost - in terms of the additional brain power required and the time it takes to rethink meetings - seems too great in relation to the ease of the current reality where you turn up, twiddle your thumbs, get a tick for being there and look as thought you are a productive member of the team.

Stop. There is a huge cost to the status quo. Not only are we paying employees to spend a day a week achieving nothing but we are missing out on a great opportunity. When you put the brains of a business in the same room you have the chance to capitalise on all of that expertise. A good meeting is more than the sum of its parts. It is where problems are anticipated and avoided (saving huge amounts of money), it is where robust debate takes place (ensuring you get genuine buy-in when a decision is made), it is where ideas are formed (which could make or save your business millions), it is where problems are brought out in to the open (avoiding much bigger problems down the line).

If your meetings aren't doing any of these things you aren't doing them right.

My challenge to you is - either stop going to waste of time meetings or do something to make them worth the time.

For more information read Chapter 1 of What's Wrong with Work?

People or business?

There exists in the business world a belief that you must choose between people and the business and, ultimately, when push comes to shove, you must choose the business over people. After all, without a business, you can't offer anyone a job. So the business must come first.

This is not an overt belief and, if you ask them, most senior managers will tell you that they don't believe this.

However, whilst most organisations claim their people are their biggest asset, they really view people as their biggest cost.

I don't believe you have to choose people over the business any more than I believe you have to choose the business over people. I believe that by prioritising the people in your business you actually do what is right for the business.

Recent research published in Harvard Business Review  and explained in more depth in my new book, What's Wrong with Work?, shows that when CEOs prioritise maximising profit, employees develop negative feelings towards their organisation. But when CEOs balance the needs of all stakeholders - the community, the employees, customers - employees are more willing to exert extra effort and company performance improves.

Don't chose between the business and people but do prioritise people as a way to create a more successful business.  

Who is this good for?

One of the five frustrations of work (as identified in my new book, What's Wrong with Work?) is what I call mis-leadership. We all want to have great bosses but most people cannot say they do. That means, if you are a boss - a manager, a supervisor, a business owner - chances are people don't think you are that great at it.

That doesn't mean you aren't working very hard, trying very hard, doing what you think is best. But it means that, somehow, the message isn't getting through.

And that isn't the fault of the people who work for you. And it isn't actually your fault. But it is your responsibility.

One question to ask yourself to get on the right track is "Who is this good for?". Before you tackle your emails today or head off to your first meeting or make your first phone call of the day, look at how your diary is looking today and, of every item, ask "Who is this good for?"

That's what the best leaders do. They ask whether what they are doing today is good for anyone - for the business, for their team, for themselves. So much of what we spend our time on is, bottom line, not actually doing any good for anyone.

At Taming Tigers, we always Head in the Direction of Where you Want to Arrive, Everyday (Rule 3). One way to do that is to ask this vital question - "Who is this good for?" and ensure the answer is one you can live with.  

Getting away from it all

I am about to go away for three days with some chief executive colleagues "on retreat". If this conjours up images of meditation, green tea and tai chi think again. It will be more "rigorous debate, black coffee and a trip to the pub".

Our purpose is to step away from our businesses to get some perspective. By inviting trusted colleagues from other businesses to listen, challenge, feedback and encourage us, we all hope to gain better clarity about an issue facing us in our business. 

Each of us will bring an issue we want to explore to ensure we all get something tangible and valuable from the retreat. But the real value isn't the time spent on your own issue. The real value is stopping and thinking for a change. Discussions over dinner may be more important ultimately than the "proper discussions" we have during the day. A revelation while someone else is exploring their issue may offer more value to you than the time you spend exploring your own issue.

Whatever happens, each of us is guaranteed to come away with a real benefit in terms of our mental well-being, clarity of thought and motivation.

It couldn't come a moment too soon! I feel very fortunate to have this outlet and look forward to it all year. But surely it should be the norm for teams, friends, business associates, to spend time away from their businesses thinking about life the universe and business. Yes, it can be a logistical problem - who will answer all the emails while I am away? What if there is a business related emergency? But the benefits far outweigh the difficulties.

Next time you get the chance to step back from your work, let me know. Was it time well spent? I think I can guess the answer.

It could be worse...

 

Call the expert

My secret shame (one of them, at least) is my love of reality TV. Not the Dating in the Dark type but the Location, Location, Location type. Grand Designs, Restoration Man, Mary Queen of Shops...the ones that you can learn something from (that's my explanation and I am sticking to it).

What never ceases to frustrate me though is why people think they can do complex projects like starting a business or building a house without consulting the experts. Architects study for 7 years before beginning at the very bottom of the career ladder and are only let lose on an actual building single-handed many years in to their career. So why would someone with absolutely no experience believe they could build a house?

I am a big fan of experts. I have someone I speak to about dog training, someone who puts up my shelves, someone who does my book-keeping, someone who manages my PR. I have a great deal of respect for professionals who have the experience to quickly solve problems (and anticipate problems) which would take me three times as long because I have to invent the wheel first. Why should I start from scratch trying to resolve a problem when someone else has been there and done that before?

Of course, I am sometimes disappointed. I get frustrated when a builder hasn't anticipated problems and then charges me for the wasted time. I get annoyed when I am told by someone claiming to have years in their field "I've never seen a problem like that before". I am short-tempered when an "expert" leaves all the thinking and problem-solving to me and then charges through the nose for the tiny bit they contributed.

However, by and large I think there is huge benefit to calling the experts. Why don't we do it more?

Well, in some cases we probably enjoy figuring it out ourselves. There is a certain pride in saying "I did my own conveyancing" or "I put that flatpack bed together myself". Nothing wrong with that. Sometimes we just don't anticipate how difficult a job is going to be until we try it ourselves. But sometimes we refuse to ask the experts to help us because we feel it reflects badly on us. There is an expectation today that you should be an all-rounder. You should have people skills and business skills and technical skills and creative skills...

In reality we are all rather one-sided. Admitting our weaknesses or holes in our knowledge or lack of experience in a certain area should not imply failure. It should not undermine what we do have to offer. It should be acceptable to say "This is where I am of more value. And this is where I bring in other people to help". It is only lack of confidence, actually, which stops us admitting when we need expert assistance.

In the workplace, it should be acceptable to admit to the gaps and seek other people to fill those gaps. Pretending they aren't there is a sure fire way to waste a lot of time and a lot of money.