People. Influence. Results.

Moving Right Along...The Competence Dimension

2011-10-13T13:50:00.005-04:00

1) Novice: Rule-based behaviour, strongly limited and inflexible
2) Experienced Beginner: Incorporates aspects of the situation
3) Practitioner: Acting consciously from long-term goals and plans
4) Knowledgeable practitioner: Sees the situation as a whole and acts from personal conviction
5) Expert: Has an intuitive understanding of the situation and zooms in on the central aspects

This came from the work of Dreyfus and Dreyfus.

Sales Success -- Key #10 Genuine Stewardship

2010-06-10T13:40:00.015-04:00

If you want to sell to me, don’t put your interests in front of mine.
It’s that simple.

Most salespeople wrestle with this "whose team am I on?" issue. It's built right into the job description. They must sell, but at the same time they are somehow supposed to be stewards--taking responsibility for their customer's interests.

Some ask themselves, Am I being too pushy? Others wonder from the opposite perspective: Am I forgetting my job? Many go back and forth depending on things like the pressure they are under and how well they get along with the customer.

Self-managing which of your motives is front-of-mind is a skill. The idea is to know and embrace your goals, but in conversation, and even during some of your planning time in advance of conversation, put your noble intention first. Serve. Nature does take its course.

As my grandmother, who didn’t like the way I buttered toast, once said: “Arthur, Arthur, Arthur—when you butter the toast, just butter around the edge; the middle will take care of itself.”

Sales Success Key #9 -- Memetic Mastery

2010-05-19T16:43:00.013-04:00

The best salespeople are what I would call natural ‘memeticists’. They package ideas and spread them like mad.

The system of thought that explains how ideas spread is called “memetics”. Thinkers in that field (e.g., Dawkins, Hofstadter, Dennett) use the word ‘meme’ to refer to an “idea that spreads”.

Salespeople “position” their products and their pricing. A position statement is a meme. Leaders provide followers with a “frame” or view of how to see a situation. A frame is a meme. Slogans are memes. Memes are, well, memes (after all, we both know that, as of at least now, they’ve spread all the way to your awareness).

Genes are to genetics, as memes are to memetics. Genes are not fussy about whose genes they get paired up with (intra-species, at least); any genetic pattern will do. They just want to reproduce. Neither are memes fussy. And they too just want to reproduce.

Yup, ideas spread, especially when they’re nicely packaged and exposed to lots of people.

For example, you don’t want your kids introduced to drugs or sex or, darn it, even rock and roll, because even exposing them to the notion might start them on a path of no return. You KNOW those particular memes are nasty. On the other hand, surely you’ve packaged up a few favourable memes for the kids around you: “do a good deed for somebody every day”, or “let’s use our 'inside voices' please!”. Just this morning I heard someone at my office spread a client’s meme: “profitable volume”. Memes are everywhere.

Salespeople are one medium through which (hopefully) commercial memes spread. Really good salespeople spread memes like wildfire via the frequency, consistency, clarity, and allure of their utterances.

When you’ve come up with the right response to a price objection, and it seems to work for you, you’ve created a meme. When you and your colleagues say it again and again, it jumps from person to person and thereby reproduces itself — customers believe it and they even learn to justify your price to others.

When a customer is playing “hard to get” (that’s a meme), highly skilled salespeople know the most powerful response (another meme). When a customer complaint scenario arises, it too is a meme. And there is undoubtedly a series of memes to deal with it. “Been there, done that”.

So why are some salespeople better at meme spreading than others? The best salespeople seek, practice and master the phrases that work, the conversation steps that push the right buttons, the responses to challenges, the multitude of magnificent memetic maneuvers that make merriment and money for the masses. Mmmm good. That’s what Campbell’s soups are.

Sales Success Key #8 -- Building Rapport

2010-05-18T17:09:00.010-04:00

Twenty-five years ago I was on a canoe trip pondering a name for a new sales model. I came up with “One Mind Selling”. It was meant to highlight the need for a salesperson to establish such finely tuned rapport with a customer that the two of them would become one. Their values would be aligned, their conversational direction would be mutually satisfying, and their pacing would match up perfectly. They would hum right along with the tune of the transaction.

Ultimately I dropped that name for the model because it sounded like hooey.

But it’s been in my heart ever since.

I think I also gave it up because of a deep frustration that when you teach someone a beautiful way of "being", and it sings for them, it eventually gets normalized and devolves into a simple technique. That’s a real problem.

It’s one thing for rapport to flow naturally from multiple dimensions of commonality; it’s another thing for somebody to be "doing" commonality on purpose. I have the same problem with the notion of "making friends"; if you try to make friends, then it's just not natural.

I swear on my life the resolution of this problem in the world of sales comes from integrating – not balancing – one’s self-interests with a genuine interest in helping the other.

Not that scientists can actually touch motives yet, in terms of motives being measurable, observable thingys, but it seems to me that motives define one’s integrity. For what it’s worth, this notion gives me hope in the possibility of commercial authenticity.

Sales Success Key #7 -- Work Ethic

2010-05-18T16:37:00.004-04:00

If the Platitude WORKS...

Work, tactics, strategy: A bicycle does its thing when effort turns the pedals, the back wheel actualizes the energy, and the front wheel steers the way.

Omphalopsychites (naval gazers) violate their wonderment via their sustained inactivity.

Requisite for work: work.

Knowledge is only half the battle.

Steam is to heat, as success is to industry.

Sales Success Key # 6 -- Pattern Recognition Skills

2010-05-06T12:02:00.001-04:00

You recognize patterns all day, every day. When a situation you’ve seen before arises yet again, you probably know what’s going on and you probably know how to address it. If a colleague says there’s a certain problem that pertains to your area of expertise, you know what to do about it. Perhaps your child comes crying to you about something that’s happened time and time again—you know exactly what’s going on and you know what to say or do. Or your friend plays out behaviour you’ve seen before, you recognize it for what it is, and either address it or go about your day.

I think it was the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead who once said, “Civilization advances by extending the number of operations we can perform without thinking about them.” In other words, when you get good at something, you don’t rethink it every time the matter arises; you address it somewhat on automatic pilot so your attention can go to bigger and better things.

Similarly, experienced salespeople recognize patterns in client situations or selling opportunities and can crank out success with their eyes closed. Really good sales people recognize more complex patterns—situations filled with nuance—and they stickhandle with ease around all the obstacles and the details.

Some salespeople are better than others at recognizing patterns and responding appropriately. How come?

Basically, smarts, experience, and training. There is ample evidence that somebody with a high IQ is faster at recognizing patterns and more able to detect complex ones. It’s self evident that experienced people have, well, experience going for them. And when a salesperson is well trained on the patterns of client situations, in terms of what they are, how to uncover them, and how to address them, that salesperson will be more effective.

For example, a salesman who “gets it” might recognize through a quick conversation with a prospective customer exactly what features and benefits of his products he’ll need to highlight in a formal proposal in order to differentiate himself. He’ll also, from that one conversation, be able to predict what objections the buyer is going to get from her own organization and what it will take to equip her with ammunition to counter those objections.

Of course, recognizing patterns is also the root of bias. When we too quickly judge something to fit into one pattern, we might miss critical details. “Oh, I’ve seen this before,” our unconscious minds quickly conclude. And bingo, we screw up.

When sales trainers go to cocktail parties and get a little tipsy they are known to chat with each other about the trade. One might ask another, “Do you teach salespeople to go looking for certain problems or d’you teach ‘em to go in with an open mind?” The other might reply, “Upsides and downsides, my friend; upsides and downsides. But it sounds like you’re new to the game. Hey Billie,” he hollers across the room, “this guy’s a newbie!”

Sales Success Key # 5 -- Goal Orientation

2010-05-02T19:21:00.022-04:00

Let’s face it, some people don’t really want to get anywhere. And that’s totally fine with me. Sometimes I think trying to get somewhere just takes my attention away from what’s important in the here-and-now.

That being said, the best salespeople I’ve met do want to get somewhere. They effectively steer sales conversations, they tend to be deliberate in their customer relationships, and they guide their careers towards long-term targets. They are goal oriented.

Think of goal orientation as motivation-with-a-sense-of-direction. It’s emotion, put somewhere. It’s not just having a goal; it’s the disposition to go after it.

Where does goal orientation come from? Desperation can be a motivator. Even the most rambling conversationalists get a whole lot more focused in a threatening atmosphere, such as with a tough boss, big financial needs at home, or a suffering marketplace in a bleak economy. In the carrot and stick motivational paradigm, desperation comes from the stick.

Compensation plans and opportunities for recognition and career advancement are examples of carrots. They move people. They lure people.

Notwithstanding the power of these somewhat externally-based sources, there’s also the goal orientation that’s hardwired right into the human brain. Some people are just more competitive by nature and many people are quite inclined to hunt and farm like crazy—all of which are conducive to sales success. In fact the predisposition to move towards goals is something a good interviewer can uncover during the recruiting process.

What happens AFTER somebody is on board is one of the challenges of sales management. Beyond the standard carrot and stick strategies, what kind of education is called for? For that matter, how can YOU improve your goal orientation?

For one thing, you can’t reach goals if you don’t have them—so, as cliche as it sounds, set them. And create time-bound, tactical plans to achieve them. Be sure they are genuine goals (as opposed to objectives to which you give “lip service”) or they won’t really motivate you.

We become more goal-oriented when we officially commit to goals so it helps to tell others exactly what you are committed to accomplishing. When there’s “skin in the game” we become very focused.

One biggie on this: mindfulness helps a lot. It's a corny word. I know. In one sense the word 'concentration' applies here, but concentrating is about work. In fact many of us find it difficult to sustain concentration over a 2 minute period, let alone a whole career. Mindfulness suggests that when you get really good at it, you don't have to concentrate so much anymore. As with other things, being goal oriented can become second nature with proficiency.

What's it look like? Well, if you start a conversation knowing exactly what you want out of it, and you keep your eye on that ball, effectively juggling all the diversions that naturally arise in a dialogue, you become the true agent of your goal. That’s a beautiful thing. Throw in some authentic empathy and integrity, and, well, you’ll be famous.

It's those diversions that will challenge you. They work against goal orientation. There's the jumble of ideas in your head, and there's the jumble of ideas being thrown at you. Effective jumble management allows your will (you) to come to the fore.

And the essence of jumble management? Well, in the case of customer conversations, knowing the essential dialogue steps helps; it buys you some bandwidth so you have brain-space to concentrate. Knowing what your reactions are while you are having them helps because it allows you to self manage. Knowing how to respond when the other party wants to veer off your planned conversational path also grants you presence of mind. Oh, and and then there’s the goal itself; there’s got to be a purpose.

That’s why they call it capitalism.

Sales Success Key #4 -- Empathy

2010-04-23T15:13:00.010-04:00

If you tied me up, put a knife to my throat, and demanded that I pick one and only one key to sales success, I would probably blurt, “Empathy!”

And, if you put the knife down and casually began to untie me, asking, “What’s empathy?” I would say it’s your ability to identify with the perspectives and feelings of another person. It’s not just about understanding the person, or being able to describe what’s on their mind; it’s about allowing yourself, in some sense, to BECOME the person—to take on, at least for a few moments, their orientation, values, stance, concerns, emotions, desires, worldview.

Some salespeople find the task particularly difficult because they get so obsessed with the goal of selling that they forget to listen. Paradoxically, the intensity of the obsession is inversely proportional to the ease of satisfying it. It’s not like running where the harder you try the faster you go. The paradox explains why salespeople are perceived to talk too much, be too pushy, not listen, and even sell features rather than benefits. They know better, of course—we all know it’s important to listen, but pressure from things like the economy, the boss, the competition, and the need for success get in the way.

Empathy doesn’t just inform a salesperson about what the customer seeks and avoids, it also helps the customer to FEEL a connection. That’s actually the biggie here. Think about it. Think of a salesperson you really trusted and from whom you enjoyed buying—one you would gladly buy from again. I bet that person made you feel heard. You sensed that he or she fully understood your stance on the product or service you were considering. You shared something, yes?

Can empathy be learned? Many people say no. You’ve either got it, or not. But I disagree most wholeheartedly. Except for certain psychotic people, we are all born with circuitry for compassion built right into our wiring. The challenge is to learn to switch that circuit on, to keep it on, and to integrate its contribution into the moments of a dialogue.

Now let’s you and I put away the tools of aggression and be friends.

Sales Success Key # 3 -- Creating Great First Impressions

2010-04-20T09:55:00.015-04:00

Today my daughter is being interviewed for a short-term role at New York’s Museum of Modern Art.

No fooling here: I am proud. Whether she wins the opportunity or not, she got exactly this far—and that’s proof enough for me of her star quality.

We were in Philadelphia so I took her to the train station and she would make her own way from there. That seems to be the formula.

When we unloaded her bag from the back of the car there would only be time for a few words and a hug. We’re not really a long-goodbye kind of family. I dug as deep as I could for my best fatherly advice.

One thing that came to mind is a blog post from a couple of weeks ago—Sales Success Key #1—about mustering the right attitude. “As you’re walking into the office or boardroom, wherever the interview is going to take place, give yourself a shot of positive attitude! Let there be an energy about you!"

The other little offering might be seen as two things because there are two traits involved. But they need to be in balance, and that’s the key.

Here it is: don’t forget that first impressions are made out of quick assessments of your warmth and your credibility. If you have warmth and not enough credibility, you’re undoubtedly lovely, but not quite good enough. If you have credibility but lack the warmth, you may not play well with others.

Indeed, I think this advice is good for salespeople too.

It sounds easy, I suppose. But I don’t think it is. I think the warmth and credibility one projects tend to derive from years of complex personal programming. The good news is that they are also self-programmable. We all have the circuitry for compassion and we all have whatever our left-brained cognitive functioning can offer; it’s a question of whether we can flick the right switches at will. Managing to be genuine while keeping those traits front-of-mind is an art.

Which is why my own daughter will wear the badge of modern art, if I say so myself.

Sales Success Key #2 -- Numbers Orientation

2010-04-08T11:55:00.002-04:00

Sure, “sales is a numbers game”—but that usually refers to the idea of throwing spaghetti against the wall with the knowledge that inevitably some of it will stick. That’s the simple part of the numbers aspect of selling. There’s a much more rigorous part too.

In my opinion the most successful salespeople think in terms of volume and rates. I don’t just mean they sit with a spreadsheet and crunch and study those numbers—though they might. I’m suggesting that their brains have been trained to actually work that way. Or, they were born that way; the style of thinking is, after all, basically rational. In the same way that you seek to invest your money in accounts with the biggest return, or pay off credit cards that charge the highest interest rate first, salespeople too must invest their primary asset—the minutes of their day—into the activities that yield the best return. In a capitalistic environment, a salesperson ought to sell as much as possible (the volume part), with as much profit per sale (the rate part) as possible. And to do all this in the finite amount of time available.

We don’t want volume alone; we want profitable volume. We don’t want as many appointments as we can get, or to give as many presentations as possible; we want them to be qualified appointments and presentations to audiences who are most likely to proceed with a commitment. It’s a balancing act; we seek to optimize both.

If I have a geographical sales territory, I want to be efficient in my travels. If I manage big accounts, I want to apportion my time based on where I’ll get the biggest bang for my minutes. If I generate leads, I want to know the rate at which they convert and make a science of measuring cost per lead and cost per sale by lead source. If I focus too much on volume, then I might blow it on efficiency. If I focus too much on efficiency, or profitability, or productivity, then I might not get the volume I need.

Every business has its mathematics. The best salespeople think mathematics. In retail, for example, the game is to get as many customers into the door as possible, maximize the rate at which they walk out with a shopping bag in their hand, maximize the average cash register transaction value, and optimize the average profit percentage per transaction. Volume and rates. Volume and rates.

It takes a person with honed left brained intuition to succeed at this game. Or natural skills in differential calculus such that you dream of minimums and maximums. Or a boss who harps.

The problem with all this, of course, is that integrity and compliance with laws and policies need to be woven into the picture. All this striving must be done within certain parameters. Therein is the clash between capitalist values and, well, other stuff.

We’ll save that for another day.

Sales Success Key # 1 -- Resilience

2010-04-02T20:13:00.018-04:00

In my promised list of 10 keys to sales success there is only one item that’s comes from the realm of personal psychology. It’s pretty straight forward: resilience. Do you find you give up too easily? How low do you go when you are rejected? How quickly do you recover?

Disappointment, frustration, and hurt are built right into the job description. After all, the role of a salesperson is to influence. People often don't want to be influenced, so hearing the word ‘no’ is inevitable. As Sartre put it, “Hell is other people.” Interestingly, statistically speaking, the more you ask, the more often you get told no. Almost paradoxically, the more you get told no, the more successful you are (assuming at least a steady rate of yeses).

Resilience is critical in order to contend with the day-to-day struggles. You can have problems finding a customer, keeping a customer, and getting a customer to like you. You can be beaten by a competitor, miss sales targets, and be told your ideas or products or services simply aren't good enough. You can easily be perceived by colleagues and customers as over-promising, unrealistic, too hard, too soft. But you have to keep going or things get worse. Resilience is a necessary ingredient.

Just how resilient you are depends on a lot of factors -- things like: whom you hang around with, the frequency of letdowns, other life pressures, how you were raised, how you are compensated, your physical condition, the strength of your hopes and dreams, the negative consequences of failure, your level of pigheadness, your habits around self-soothing (e.g., babbling, bathing, buying). All these things impact your response, the duration of your recovery period, and your ability to lift yourself up by your own bootstraps.

But if you want more resilience and “sticktuitiveness”, where can you get it? Juicy question. Many people have spent a lot of time trying to figure that out.

Self esteem is considered a biggie. That pertains to the extent to which you believe that you are generally able to do what you set out to do, and that you are valuable or worthy, in and of yourself. People with high self esteem tend to be able to override their impulses. Accordingly, the impulse to shy away from rejection, for example, can be overcome if self esteem is high enough.

Managing your own inner monologue or self talk is another means of getting past the impulse to “go to sleep” after a letdown. Actually, what you mumble to yourself can be the cause of a negative attitude as well as a cure. For example, have you heard yourself say, “Yup, that proves it, nobody wants this stuff”? Or, “Our prices are too high,” or, “The competition is much tougher than it used to be,” or, “I’m not very good at this,” or, “I blew it,” or, “We don’t do enough marketing,” or, “There is a lack of internal support,” or, “That customer was a doinker.” Indeed, a negative inner monologue can actually create a negative emotional reaction in your own head. And slow down recovery.

But quick recovery can come from how you reframe your circumstance. Self awareness is the key to this. Recognize yourself responding to rejection. Get really familiar with how you process it. Know what you are saying to yourself, where it comes from in your past and present, exactly what triggers it. Put your finger on how your response might not be rational or might be doing you a disservice. Work hard at overriding that habitual response and replacing it with something like a clenched fist, flexed arm muscles and, in your own private, whacky way, declaring to the universe, “Whoooaa.”

To some extent we’re talking about getting oneself reoriented. For example, when you overcome an impulse (and, in so doing, either manifest or elevate your self esteem), you are essentially reorienting. When you manage your self-talk, you are reorienting. When you talk to your boss after some misfortune, hopefully her leadership reorients you in some way.

Or even change the whole darned paradigm. That’s reorienting at its best. One of the biggest things I’ve learned about mental health or emotional savvy is that one can’t free oneself from negative feelings; but one can either manage one’s life such that hurt is less likely to be the result, or one can try to see things differently.

One of my favorite examples of reorienting is a trick I learned from a group of life insurance sales reps I trained 20 years ago. It was about handling the slings and arrows of cold calling and was called the paperclip technique. It’s pretty much an industrial age kind of thing, but that’s how darned old I am.

If you have to call 100 people today, then make a pile of 100 paperclips right in front of your phone. The goal? Move the pile 12 inches over to the right -- one paperclip at a time. One for each dial. “Hello, Mr. Smith, got a minute? No? No problem. Have a good day”. Click. Move a clip. Next call. Next clip. Watch your pile move. Stop when you’ve reached your goal. It’s about moving the paperclips, not about getting rejected.

Get it? It’s not about you.

Top Ten Keys to Sales Success

2010-03-31T13:11:00.004-04:00

At the core, I am an educator. Ten years ago I calculated that by that time in my career, I had trained 8000 salespeople. I stopped counting, but for a while I kept conducting sessions. Then I stopped that too.

This does not mean I am no longer immersed in the world. Every single workday I talk about selling, think about the theories, mathematics, and pseudoscience of selling, and lead teams of designers and facilitators who are steeped in the sales training world. Fifteen years ago I wrote a book about selling. Although my views have changed a lot since then, I am still flattered each time I hear that the book got cracked open.

The interesting thing is that most of what I learned about selling comes from training salespeople rather than from time spent “carrying a bag”, as they say. When I sold, I used MY model, my methods; but when I was in front of groups of learners I learned about their models, their insights, and their objections to my contributions. To prepare for those sessions, I had to research content—no sense reinventing the wheel. I also had to learn about the world of my target audience and create content to meet their needs.

One thing I never would have guessed when I got started is that there are a lot of different types of selling (14, at my last count). And they are very different. Selling in a retail environment is very different from being a territory manager for a consumer packaged goods manufacturer. Selling a service to a large institution is profoundly different from carving out a bigger chunk of a category manager’s sphere of influence. Convincing doctors to write YOUR script might sound similar to getting an architect to specify your light fixtures, but, trust me, it’s different.

So, if one were to venture into a generic list of the 10 keys to sales success, one would have to make the list pretty high level in order to make it universally applicable. Yet, I think there are very specific things that all salespeople need to have going for them in order to be hugely successful. I’m going to have a go at such a list over the next ten posts. So, stay tuned.

Earth, the Guy

2010-03-21T19:40:00.016-04:00

Even 30 thirty years ago in my university residence yearbook I wrote about how people should participate and observe at the same time. They would get the most out of residence life, I claimed, if they fully engaged in, and periodically kept an eye on, what they were up to.

It seems that I’ve always been into this meta-stuff -- like, how at one point in time you are just doing something, such as reading this post, and then at some later moment, such as now, you can attend to (put your attention on) the simple fact that you were/are doing it.

Feel that flip thing going on? Eating this chocolate, I am aware of eating this chocolate. Back and forth we go.

It reminds me of those optical illusions such as the diagram with the old hag and young lady, in which you see one or the other, but not both. I love the flip thing.

Anyway, back to the participate/observe advice. Apparently we humans only have the ability for two kinds of conscious experiences. The philosopher Sartre called them “pre-reflective consciousness” (as in when we participate or are engaged) and “reflective consciousness” (as in when we interpret, or have removed ourselves such that we are able to self reflect). Pretty basic, really.

Buddhists have their own version of it; they say the best way to spend your time is to direct all of your attention to what you are doing -- that the reflective piece is pretty much “nothing”.

Here’s the thing: When I, and Billie-Bob, and Lucille, and the rest of us write our little blog posts and our tweets and our little Facebook tales that tell what we’re up to and what we’re thinking about, when we put our thoughts out there in the instantaneous electronic medium, and when we read the instantaneous reflections of the global others, are we not engendering a global reflective consciousness -- such that there’s this pulsing, growing, global sense of self?

I think so. There could be a NEW being that results from its reflective thought. An “I think, therefore, I am” kind of thing. A “we is”, if you’ll forgive the syntax.

So . . . humanity swooshes into a galactic bar, and the bartender asks him, “New in town? What’ll you have?” “Just got here," he says. "Gimme somethin’ to take the edge off; it’s been a long, boring ride.”

Big and Fat

2010-03-13T14:47:00.019-05:00

I can't tell you what leadership is.

I think about it all the time. I'm on a team that designs and delivers courses about it. My word, I've even published 2 books that deal with aspects of it. But, truth be told, I still don’t know what leadership really is. And, while I think we all sort of know what it is, I don't think anybody has ever put their finger on it.

Is leadership about going first? Sometimes the leader is simply the one in front of others, like firemen going down the dark basement stairs, all following some guy named Dirk who’s shining his flashlight one or two steps ahead. He’s “leading” the way.

This applies to being the fastest thinker too. I've often noticed in group discussion that the person who comes up with the first workable answer ends up being the de facto leader of a conversation. The others, almost by definition, “follow”, just because they're not the first out of the thinking gate.

I suppose the "going first" thing might also show up as being innovative or creative. The creator of sticky notes sure made 3M the leader in its field!

Being proactive instead of reactive could also be a manifestation of "going first". When you can regularly cut problems off at the pass, you're charting the course of leadership.

I think most of us would agree that the leader is the person with the vision, the one who "sees" the future or has some other exclusive understanding. After all, if the ruler of the universe spoke to Moses, then, well, let’s follow Moses for heaven’s sake; he seems to have made it to the “in crowd”.

Of course, there's the courage/confidence stuff. Great leaders might be fearful, but I believe they try not to let it show too much or they effectively "self manage".

And we can't leave out the mysterious "personal power" aspect of leadership. This can take many forms: intensity, charm, or charisma. Even humility, though it seems the opposite of what we usually think of as "high powered", can be a force in and of itself. Same goes for authenticity, integrity, and that weird balance of compassion and focused decisiveness.

The best leaders I know really seem to "own" the mission, if you know what I mean. They are engaged. I don't think you can show true leadership if you're only partly engaged.

On some days it’s clear to me that leadership is the ability to bring people along. That is, you can engage others by establishing commonality with them and then showing them a new way. That's leadership in day-to-day practice

So is there a basic recipe? Let's see what we've got here. There's this "out front" thing. A clear vision of a desirable future, or of how stuff works. Confidence. Some sort of personal power. Ownership. A certain ability to enrol others.

I am positive this list is incomplete. And it doesn't even touch some of the juiciest questions about leadership, such as: Are the best leaders born or made? How can one optimize one's leadership style? What's the role of the leader? What are the differences between leading, managing, coaching, mentoring, consulting, facilitating? What's inside a "vision"? What exactly IS charisma? Where does confidence come from?

It'll take a leader to lead the way on these things. A big, fat leader.

Swooshing

2010-02-11T13:19:00.003-05:00

Three-dimensional things exist in time. For example, consider the monitor you are looking at. It was there a minute ago, and it will be there a minute from now. Some day you won’t have it anymore. Time marches on.

My understanding is that objects like that monitor, or you, or I, existing over time, are swooshing through yet another dimension. Physicists call it space-time. Einstein demonstrated mathematically how that dimension could explain gravity.

I’m neither a mathematician nor a physicist. I’m just a ruminating doinkus. Here’s something I’ve been mulling over.

Back to your monitor: it’s a thing, yes? A three-dimensional thing. And it exists in time. It’s a thing in time. It’s a thing traveling through time—not in the sense of a time traveler going back and forth, cum Jules Verne, but in the sense that the monitor is traveling along the road of time as seconds pass.

Let’s call that thing-traveling-through-time a thing itself; that is, not just the monitor, but the monitor traveling through time—in fact, we’ll call it a ‘ting’.

Now visualize that ting traveling through some other dimension (it’s already in space and time, so the whole space and time is moving along now).

If three-dimensional things swoosh through time, then tings swoosh through this next dimension.

What could that dimension be?

What comes to mind for me is the big bang theory. Presumably, from nothing—boom—there is a unidirectional outpouring of reality, creation, expansion. It’s still flowing. All the dimensions flowed from that.

Personally I think there is a value inherent in this outflow. In fact, I think value IS the dimension through which tings flow. For example, evolution isn’t just change over time for the sake of change; it’s improvement. People don’t just crave sex, they make babies, and it’s a good thing they do. Cuts don’t just stop in time; they heal. People get wiser, they don’t just get older. Things head towards more order, more creation, more goodness, more value.

But, you might argue, don’t things break down? What about entropy, the thermodynamic law that, over time, systems break down. People go crazy, for heaven’s sake. Businesses go bankrupt. Marriages break down. Water seeks its own level; it doesn’t go up hill! The world is killing itself, not “healing”!

Okay, but here’s the thing. I argue that as things move forward through this dimension, and they appear to break down, some larger equilibrium is created, at a “higher” level. When the steam engine runs out of fire or water, it stops, but in so doing some new, higher level value is created (e.g., it forces folks to find a more effective fuel). When a partnership breaks down, new opportunities open up. When we screw up the planet, we’ll find another place to live and inch our way out of the ever-expanding solar system and galaxy.

For me, there’s a spiraling-up thing going on; things go round and round, and back and forth, sure—but they are getting bigger and better. The dialectic inherent in life is about progress, and it involves the creation of new meta-levels as former tensions are resolved and from which new tensions emerge.

This core philosophy of optimism being embedded in the fabric of the universe is not really foreign. It sort of follows from the big bang itself. The big bang moment didn’t just get time going forward; it galvanized exponential expansion towards bigness and, thereby, the possibility of notions like bigger and better.

We participate in space and time, and take them for granted. Similarly, we participate in, and take for granted, the basic principle of value—that some things have greater quality or value than other things. We’re swooshing towards higher quality, one way or another, even when things go wrong, right now. Enjoy.

The Fishing Derby

2010-02-02T14:06:00.003-05:00

I remember as a youngster waking up on a Saturday morning and wanting to go out to play. I went to my parent’s bedside to get permission. Nudging my mother, knowing that I would get her vague, sleepy attention, I pitched some version of my regular summer morning speech: “Mom, I made my bed, had breakfast, cleaned up the family room, and did the dishes; can I go out to play?” I knew such a list would likely win her approbation.

This performance-based formula was an essential dynamic in my relationships at the old homestead and later in my life too. Though it had its price, it paid off in some surprising ways.

One time, when I was 7, my parents went for a month long trip to California. Just to get away from regular life in Windsor, Ontario, I suppose. I’m sure they were grateful they had my grandmother to baby sit me and my brother and sister.

During their absence I went to a fishing derby. It wasn’t easy to get permission. My grandmother was very reluctant to let me go; she was too old to accompany me (that was the official reason, anyway) and, by god, what if I fell in or something?

So to ultimately gain her approval I had to put the performance-based formula to work. A 7 year old doesn’t really bring much consciousness to decisions such as this. Let’s just say the methodology had been well-“conditioned”.

On the day of the derby itself, after plenty of unsuccessful pleas and nagging, my grandmother had assumed the matter was put to rest. But not I. I got up very early and picked worms in my backyard. You can always count on early morning worms to wiggle their way to the surface to enjoy the dewy grass in Windsor’s summer months. After my empty Campbell’s soup can was full of wigglers, it was time to try my luck with my grandmother.

I swept the driveway. I don’t just mean I gave it a “quick broom”; we’re talking about a veritable toothbrush job. And it was no short driveway either. I’d estimate 40 yards.

When I was done I went into the house where my grandmother was making her morning tea and toast and I proudly said, “Hey gram, c’mon outside and look at what I’ve done; I’ve swept the driveway!”

She came outside after her breakfast. She had forgotten about the derby.

Her eyebrows went WAY up when she had a look. “My goodness, Arthur, look at what you’ve done!” I knew she would be impressed.

“Can I PLEASE go to the fishing derby, gram? Please?”

Permission granted.

I called my buddy Jamie Lengyel and gave him the news. I grabbed my rod, reel and can of worms and rode my bicycle to Jamie’s house as fast as I could.

By the time we got to the derby, it was well underway. We were probably the last to arrive. There were hundreds of people lining the banks of the Detroit River at Pillette Park. In the middle of the grassy area of the park was a big trailer set up with balloons and banners and an audio system so they could control the crowd and make announcements and whatnot. I think participants of the derby were supposed to register at that picnic table, but Jamie and I didn’t worry about that. We just squeezed ourselves into a space at the edge of the water, baited our hooks, and cast our lines.

Nowadays the Detroit River is dirty. It was dirty then too. You can’t swim in it today, and you couldn’t swim in it then either. In fact, nowadays fish can’t even handle in the water, except maybe for carp and other scavengers—the fish with stomachs of steel. But in those days there were small sunfish and the odd lazy perch.

I suppose we got to fish for about 45 minutes before the event wound down. Didn’t get a bite. Neither did anybody we could see on either side of us. No surprise, I suppose. But it was fun in its own way.

The hosts of the event told everyone over the loudspeaker that it was time to announce the winners of the contest. Everybody began to reel in their lines and head towards the picnic table at the centre of the park.

I got a snag. What luck.

That’s another problem with the Detroit River. It was loaded with garbage that had been thrown overboard over the last couple hundred years. The river was, after all, a pretty busy Great Lakes thoroughfare basically tying together the lake system.

I tugged at the snag and, although it didn’t come fully free, I did manage to drag whatever was at the other end of the line all the way to shore. It was heavy, like a bicycle tire or maybe somebody’s running shoe filled with mud.

Most of the other people had already assembled at the main picnic table. There were only a few stragglers, people probably dealing with their own snagged lines. Jamie waited for me, with his rod and our can of worms.

When the hook-end of my line finally arrived at shore I couldn’t believe my eyes. I screamed. Jamie looked. He screamed. We saw a dirty-white-looking hunk of ugly fish. Laying there. But it was a fish! And it was even still alive a bit.

Jamie and I glanced at the crowd assembled in the middle of the park. The announcers were making comments over the loudspeaker. We looked at each other.

We started running towards the crowd, carrying the rod with the fish still attached to the line, with the greatest strides 7-year-olds can make. We were screaming at the top of our lungs: “Wait a minute! Wait a minute!”

The man standing on the picnic table with the microphone in his hand saw us running and primed the crowd, “Hold on, what do we have here?” He pointed to me and Jamie and the fish, drawing everyone’s attention. “Look at the size of that fish!” he said to everyone excitedly.

The crowd parted for me the way the waters made way for Moses. I slapped the fish onto the picnic table. Another man approached the table and arranged the fish next to the official yardstick. He straightened the little beastie’s pretty much lifeless body. He turned to the man with the microphone and said, “This one is the winner.”

I won the fishing derby! First prize. A thirteen and a half inch sheephead. For this river, it was a monster of a fish. I had never seen nor heard of its type before. And I haven’t since.

The prize was a brand new rod and reel set. A good one, if I recall. The best.

Jamie and I waddled home, bouncing from foot to foot, singing and jabbering like never before.

When I got back to my house and told gram the tale, she could hardly believe it. I had to convince her by pointing out there was no way I could bring home such a prize without actually having won it.

Happy for me, I’m sure, she also felt absolutely terrible. She knew her original stance had almost denied me the lifelong pleasure of the big win: out of hundreds of people, I won the contest. And I got my name in the paper.

I had to put the new rod and reel behind the main chair in the family room until my parents returned from their trip. My grandmother wanted to punctuate the story with the prize still in its mint condition. I don’t know if that was the right decision but it was a long three weeks.

We didn’t tell my parents by phone or anything; we waited until they first walked in the door. Of course, they were delighted for my win. And grandma felt relieved to tell the whole story.

I continue to operate on the assumption that hard work earns a payback. But that stance only covers how I earned the chance to go. What I most cherish is how good fortune falls on those who keep plugging away.

Letting the Fellas have a Laugh

2010-01-22T20:02:00.014-05:00

If you ask me something, and I say, "let me think about it for a second," the odds are that I'll look pensive. But I'm really just waiting around for a response from my own brain. Sure, certain modules are being accessed (things like my values, memories, and creativity), but I, the alleged agent of all this thinking, really have no idea what's going on. It just sort of happens.

It's pretty fast and it's not linear; it's parallel processing at its best. I definitely wouldn't call it "deliberation"; if anything, it's directional liberation. "Go for it, boys," I sort of say, "You think this through and I'll wait here 'til you're done."

This experience differs from other, more thoughtful, mental processing experiences--like following a recipe or doing a puzzle.

Chess is another example. When I think through a game of chess I am very deliberate. I say things to myself like, "If I move here, then she might do that--eeewwww, we don't want that."

Actually, that's why I enjoy chess. Directing attention in this way seems to settle down the fellas. I'm occupied and feeling in charge--while they're in there, feet up, playing cards or something, maybe smoking cigarettes, and having a laugh.

Happiness

2010-01-12T12:24:00.007-05:00

Now we know the key to happiness. And it’s been proven.

Sound a little cynical? It's not intended; though perhaps a healthy skepticism is always appropriate.

For the longest time, scientists haven’t wanted to touch the topic of happiness. It was just too subjective, elusive, or soft a matter. But apparently over the last couple of decades, with the knowledge of which parts of the brain are responsible for the experience of happiness, and the ability to measure what goes on the head, and subjective information from enough people, the doorway to empirical study opened wide.

I can’t pretend to know much about the topic myself. Some have even called me “overly realistic”, so the notion of sustained good cheer goes right over my existential head. In fact, all I really understand about happiness in any technical sense is what I saw in a seemingly quite-credible, 2.5 hour documentary I watched a couple of nights ago.

Nowadays there is a whole lot of science on the topic. The video surveyed its breadth.

First the show looked at studies on the effects of things that we THINK will make us happy—things like money, education, travel, religion, meditation, drugs, self help. It turns out that they can help, but they don’t really make the difference in a sustained sort of way.

Then we saw the things that most of us would think would PREVENT the possibility of happiness—things like regular torture, solitary confinement, and suddenly becoming a quadriplegic. It turns out that when these things happen, they indeed set us back, but human resilience shines; even genuine victims can break out of their psychological shackles, and even if they are still physically bound by them.

So, the bad news is that the effects of the good stuff wear off, and the good news is that we usually get over the effects of the bad stuff (unless in some way we block ourselves from letting go—a whole other matter). Ultimately the human tendency to normalize things, to get used to them, tends to take us back to our natural, personal set point.

Yes, you have a natural, personal set point. Win the lottery and things get better, but only for a time. Get locked away, you’ll get used to it.

The bottom line: the only thing that can actually crank us up over our personal set point, the only thing that really works—is other people. Friendships. Just hangin’ out, playing around a bit, being together.

Goldilocks

2010-01-08T14:30:00.005-05:00

Some corporate educators will feel vindicated when they learn what research psychologists (Amy Cuddy, et al) from Harvard, Princeton, and Lawrence have recently concluded.

The scientific word is out: we tend to judge people based on their warmth and their competence. We do it unconsciously and we do it quickly. And it’s NOT just a cultural thing; it’s a human thing.

“Warmth” is about seeing a person as friendly and well intentioned. “Competence” pertains to our sense that the person is able to deliver on those intentions. The idea is that in the back of our minds, when we’re getting to know someone—even at the very moment of introduction—we assess these two traits and judge the person as moments pass.

Interestingly, if we judge that the person has too much of one of these traits, then we probably judge that there is a deficit in the other trait. That is, if the person is TOO warm, we might predict incompetence. Similarly, if we perceive a person to be highly competent, it would not be unusual for us to predict that he or she is not very warm.

Of course, it’s quite possible that we are incorrect in these judgments we make of people—but that’s the way the species has learned to do it. Presumably, it’s helped us survive. It certainly saves time.

The upshot of this research? Aside from the fact that the tendency gets to the very ugly core of human prejudice, lot’s of things.

Got a new boss? Going for an interview? Meeting a customer? Want to behave as well as you can during business meetings? Then project balanced, high levels of warmth and competence.

Want to help someone get along with others? Then help them shore up in one of in these two areas.

To play with this a bit, to test it, think of someone you know. Bring to mind your assessment of that person’s warmth and competence. Does this combination of assessments seem to reflect your core opinion of this person?

And think of yourself. Do you project too much of one and not enough of the other? If you’re interested in fine tuning the image you project, you could self-correct accordingly. Why not compensate for the slip in judgment made by the people who judge you?

Core Temperature

2010-01-04T10:49:00.001-05:00

Truth be told,

I like it so cold outside
My cheeks sting.

I prize a bitter wind
That steals my breath.

It’s that I’m warm inside
Under my layers,
Ready to overcome.

2009 Life Reminders

2009-12-25T20:43:00.010-05:00

If twelve months ago I perused the list below, I would have said, “yes, yes, I know those things.” Yet, I had to re-learn them during 2009, as though they were brand new.

1. The experience of someone close to you dying is a whole dimension different from the awareness of its inevitability.

2. Friendships that involve a boss and a subordinate might look just peachy; but watch out when money enters the picture.

3. A new corporate leader can get plopped into a role and, with the snap of a finger, totally negate a predecessor’s commitment and direction.

4. With a bit of strategy, goodwill, and good fortune, a threatened organization can not only steer through an economic collapse, but grow in one.

5. Nobody ever really liked my moose calls; all these years I’ve just been making an ass of myself.

6. Just because you have a thought doesn’t mean you have to entertain it, and just because you hear a question doesn’t mean you have to answer it. Choosing otherwise can be hugely empowering.

7. The act of directing attention is often more nourishing than the object to which attention is directed; I am my will.

8. There is ALWAYS somebody smarter, quicker, more experienced, more “enlightened”, better liked, better looking—somebody with higher marks, more money, more friends, more opportunities. Perhaps it’s best to change the race into something that works for you.

9. My wife is a very special person; there is no one in the world better suited to me.

Leadership, One Person at a Time

2009-12-21T20:08:00.002-05:00

My impression is that when you allow your sense of someone’s innate value to inform your interactions, you create the possibility of being that person’s genuine leader.

On the other hand, when you invalidate, you become a private enemy.

Finally, and predictably, indifference leads to indifference.

Free from Scrutiny

2009-12-09T14:27:00.005-05:00

Someone once said to me, in one of her more memorable moments, “Oh, Arthur, I know I’m being honest with myself, and with you too, because my stomach doesn’t hurt; I get gas and such terrible cramps when I lie.”

It’s a common thing. I don’t mean it’s common that people who kid themselves tend to get cramps and girgles—I am referring to the suggestion that something should be accepted as true because it comes from somewhere inside them. As far as I’m concerned, you can say how you feel, or that you’re being honest, but don’t pretend there’s a special arrangement such that because you declare it, it must be so.

But I didn’t put my ear to her belly either. Even if she did tend to be a little gassy when she suspected herself enmeshed in self deceit, what if, on this occasion, she did such a good job at lying to herself that she avoided the stomach problem altogether?

No, the problem was that she was offering an internal test for truth. For heaven’s sake, all of science is founded on the notion that “true because I say so” doth not truth make.

A few years ago a different friend was using the same line of thinking to explain how he too could pick himself up from his own bootstraps: “I don’t have to subject my motives to scrutiny because I know that, deep down, I am a good man.” Another internal test for truth. I tried to explain that he was employing the logic of Hitler, for heaven’s sake. It drives me crazy when people say stuff like that.

But here’s the thing: Just the other day, I was angry with someone and got nasty. Afterwords I told myself my behaviour was, indeed, wrong. The nastiness was not called for. It was at the outer edge of my circle of normal behaviour, but it WAS inside that circle. And I can’t pretend it was okay.

But I am able to let that go. I’m not exploring the question. I was wrong; it’s over. I am ignoring it.

The two friends I mentioned above were putting out unfounded claims of truth, and by doing so, were blocking our scrutiny. They were hiding. I’m not putting out any claims, but I am hiding too. I think all three of these are examples of what the philosopher Sartre called “bad faith”—lies we tell ourselves. It’s an interesting term, actually. Faith equates to complete trust or confidence, without proof. Bad faith is when some part of you knows there is, or might be, hanky panky going on, but the rest of you just ain't goin' there.

I liked this.

2009-12-01T15:42:00.002-05:00

"Without a compelling cause,
employees are just putting in time.
Their minds might be engaged
but their hearts are not."

Lee J Colan

Slow Learner

2009-11-20T11:38:00.006-05:00

I found this “note to self” in papers dated 1977:

"Art, this is a note from me to some future you. Once again you were fearful of something, and once again it didn’t happen. I feel sheepish but relieved. Sheepish because I thought I was done for. Relieved because, of course, it all worked out. This has been happening over and over. Make a note: the things you are most afraid of never seem to happen. So please, please stop investing in your fears. Me. 1977"

Okay. So. Thirty-two years ago.

In my business I have had lots of things to worry about (three recessions, 9/11, SARS, a stock market crash, H1N1). When the media grabs hold of these things and does their job, my blood pressure rises and I lose some sleep.

But I think I’ve improved over the years. Now as storm clouds come I take shelter, but the trembling has been reduced.

One Unsolved Crime

2009-11-16T15:38:00.010-05:00

On my 10th birthday my parents gave me a bicycle. It was the best birthday present ever. I remember the excitement -- something akin to Sally Field crying on the academy awards show, "You love me, you really, really love me".

I did have a little niggle about it though. The bike was for grown-ups. My father even had to put blocks on the pedals so my short legs could reach. I had already experienced "optics" issues when my mother made me wear a pink snow suit -- not so good for a little boy. I think she got a deal on it or something.

But my father was right. I outgrew the need for the blocks.

I REALLY loved that bicycle.

Indeed, the size paid off. My friends had those kid-bikes with “suicide bars” so they could play motorcycle. Not me. I had the coolest, fastest machine in the neighbourhood. Sure, I attached baseball cards on my spokes with clothes pins so my bike would SOUND like a motorcycle – but otherwise mine was practically the real thing.

I now know another reason – maybe the main reason – that I loved the bike so much; it was my escape pod. At the first sign of tension in my household, off I would go, cutting through the wind as fast as my blue dart could fly. And on sad days I would journey farther than I was allowed.

One day, when I was 16, I rode my bike to the variety store to buy cigarettes for my mother. When I came out of the store the bike was gone.

I absolutely could not believe it. I obsessed about it for months. Sure, I ultimately got a replacement bike, but it wasn’t the same. I had lost a friend.

I always kept my eye out for my blue bike.

I am 55 years old now. Believe it or not, the subroutine in my brain is still there: if I even get a glimpse of a sky blue 26-incher, my head tilts, my eyes squint, and my thoughts race to the salient question: is THAT my bike?

Get to Know Me

2009-11-12T16:03:00.008-05:00

Truly I used to love the notion that I am my will. Very powerful. It even helped me quit smoking. By equating myself with my choices I realized that when I chose poorly, I was my choice. What else could I be if not the guy reaching for the smoke? That “definition” of me worked for quite a while.

But, although it helped me define MYSELF, it didn’t help me define others. I could not know their will. Nor did it familiarize me with others.

Then I heard someone ask the rhetorical, “What am I, if not my word?”

It seemed profound to me. It said that an individual is bigger than the private act of choosing. It added interpersonal accountability to the equation. It offers: you can define me by my word—when I give it, it is I; when I fulfill it, that was me.

But ultimately I found myself mistrusting the person I heard it from. Sure, I could see that, from his perspective, his “being” was in his choices. And, from my perspective, he lived by his word. But I sensed a hole in the rhetoric. No, I couldn’t identify him by his word.

So I sought another way to indicate one’s identity to others: Who am I, if not my word and my actions? THAT’s the ticket, I thought -- accountability for behaviours that are unrelated to commitments made or kept.

How nice.

But then you’ve got your budding con artist Eddie Haskell Jr. from the “Leave it to Beaver” show. “Oh, hello, Mrs. Cleaver. I’ll be GLAD to carry those groceries into your house.” Young Mr. Haskell's little gesture might be noble, but who knows the real motive?

So here it is, my new identity formula, for oneself, and to offer others: I am my will, my word, and my consequences.

The Art of Redirecting Attention

2009-10-31T10:57:00.007-04:00

Hundreds of millions of people in the world meditate in one way or another. Actually, if you include prayer as a form of meditation, the number is probably in the billions.

Most types of meditation involve directing one’s attention. It’s pretty simple, really. Instead of letting your mind wander, you choose to think about something. The “object” of attention might vary, depending on the type of meditation. but the basic mental “technique” is the same.

If you don’t meditate, here’s a one-paragraph short course on how to do it. First, pick a topic. Let’s say you choose “love for family”. Okay, close your eyes and let “love for family” come to mind. Feel your love for your family. Just the love part—not the dental appointments, financial matters, soccer game duties—just your feeling of love. In fact, when your mind does wander, gently bring it back. Whenever it wanders, bring it back. That is the whole point.

That act of redirecting attention is very, very neat.

Recognizing that you’ve wandered off to some other thought, as alluring as that other thought might be, and taking a “thanks, but no thanks” stance concerning it, can become a highly nuanced art that applies even when you are not meditating. But even more interesting, it clears space in the mind for a silent sense of self.

Solace

2009-10-27T13:33:00.008-04:00

Our dog died last week. Actually, we euthanized her. I was there. I felt quite sad.

It’s a most remarkable thing: to be alive one moment, and then, for the rest of eternity, to not exist.

I’m not your traditional “man of faith”. I don’t really believe the dog went somewhere. I have faith that I will effectively deal with stuff, but I don't have faith in things like an afterlife.

On the other hand I do have a certain perspective that I call upon at times like this. I would like to share it with you.

People think in terms of three-dimensions-plus-time. That's pretty much a given. Kant even said it a few hundred years ago. That our brains take space and time as givens is built right into our consciousness. And, when someone dies, and time marches on as it does, we only have our memories.

Yup, that’s pretty sad.

But let’s incorporate a few more facts. Or, if you will, let’s look at the matter from the universe’s point of view.

Join me in thinking for a moment about how the universe is made up of not just 3 or 4 dimensions, but, at last count, according to what I've read, 11 dimensions. Yes, if you haven’t heard this before, mathematicians, physicists and others operate on the principle that there are more dimensions in our world than height, width, depth, and time. Some say, for example, that space is somehow “curled up” in the other dimensions at some deeper, perhaps sub-atomic, level. It is certainly over my head.

But what’s not over my head is this: if you imagine the universe and all of its dimensions as just some incredibly big thing, as ONE big thing — all of the past, all of the future, all of the dimensions — gosh darned, just existence itself — then everything just “is”. It's not that there is no time, it's that the past, present, and future are just one thing, one dimension--interwoven with all the other dimensions into one hugely big thing.

So, my dog is not gone. She continues to exist in the universe. Sure, from my narrow, human view there’s an “oh-my-god-she’s-gone” reaction; but, from the universe’s point of view — nope. Rosie is still here. Always was. Always will be.

Managing Temptation

2009-10-03T20:14:00.005-04:00

Here’s a useful angle on the age-old problem of doing “bad” things when we know we “shouldn’t”.

For example, let’s say I have an impulse to eat that chocolate brownie over there. I know I promised myself I wouldn’t, but surely just the one won’t hurt.

The problem is that there is a module in my brain that is motivated for quick gratification. The module has been good for the species (as in, take it now in case I can't have it later). This module is likely to rule the day (in my case, at least).

However, there’s another module in my brain that argues from a somewhat more long-term, or big-picture, orientation: Getting fat from brownies has many undesirable consequences. Basically, some big part of me prefers not to eat brownies.

These two modules, the visceral “eat it now” disposition, and the long-term-rational preference not to, actually come from different parts of the brain. Presumably the challenge is to help the longer-term thinker win.

According to cognitive scientists, if I truly want this thinker to win, I can use language to my advantage. Doing so won’t guarantee I’ll be able to override my impulses, but it will at least give me a fighting chance.

First, package up all the smart things you’re going to do in order to reach your long-term goal (e.g., abstain from buying brownies, eating brownies at work, and eating them at restaurants and other people's homes). Then, use the package to equip yourself with a counter argument for when temptation hits you and you say rational-but-simplistic things like “just one won’t hurt.”

Keith Stanovich, Canada Research Chair of Applied Cognitive Science at the University of Toronto, suggests, for example, “’Having a brownie today stands for having a brownie on every day of the future’. This rule makes it clear that having the brownie today totally thwarts our preeminent goal of dieting. If I have a brownie—even this one—my whole weight loss plan is threatened.”

What I like most about this approach is the notion of creating a representation. I am a big believer in the idea put forth by Piero Ferrucci that our consciousness takes the form of whatever is in front of it. The rule or package gives me a form to identify with, something to hold onto. When tempted, I can hook onto the rule—become the rule, in some sense. Rather than being a brownie eater, I can be a brownie abstainer.

Or a slow driver. Or a person who stands up for his rights. Or a committed marriage partner. Or a non-drinker on weekdays.

Day-to-Day Swish

2009-09-14T15:00:00.008-04:00

Are you a good host?

When folks are at your place, do you make them comfortable? Attend to their needs?

Hopefully you say things like, Make yourself at home! Do your thing! Mi casa es su casa! The idea is to both set them at ease and fuel a little excitement. Yes?

If you hear that your guests want to do a certain thing together, let’s say, play spin the bottle or cards or something, do you rummage through your stuff to find an empty bottle or deck of cards? Probably.

If they make a mess—let’s say, cause glass to shatter due to some silly mistake (serves you right)--do you assure them it’s okay, and find ways to simply and easily get things back under control? I’m sure.

Do you partake in the party itself, role modeling the ideal party guest? Hope so.

Essentially, the activities of the host make a big difference to a party’s success: mingling, smoothing the way, connecting people, anticipating and meeting their needs and wants, keeping things flowing, interesting, safe, and fun.

Now, here’s the point: I firmly believe that the above description of the good host is also the approach of a good leader. Not to say that this sums up the essence of leadership—no, that would require a discussion of vision and strategy—but when it comes to the day-to-day swish, for me, this is it.

So, here's the predictable question: as a leader, are you such a host?

Tying My Boot Laces, And Moving On

2009-09-10T15:24:00.013-04:00

Academic philosophers wrestle over questions like What is beauty? What is truth? What is good? What is being? I must admit that as a student I enjoyed reading, thinking, and writing about these things.

In fact, I once firmly argued that there would never be a solid answer to any such philosophical questions.

And thanks to modern science, one philosophical question seems a lot closer to being put to rest: are mind and body separate things?

Scientists can pretty much show a link between a specific thought and a specific circuit in the brain. They can even evoke that thought by engaging that circuit. They can even look inside someone else’s brain and correctly indicate whether that person is having that thought.

Yup, they’re pretty much able to say it: the mind is not separate from the body. Subjective experience derives from physicality; it is nothing, in any tangible way, other than physiology.

However, the funny thing is that for serious philosophers of mind, the problem hasn’t gone away at all. They still say, “But my experience of me is still be separate; you can’t show me my experience of me”. And even if we could cut open their brain and hold a mirror just like in a dentist’s office so they could see what we’re looking at and say to them “look, there it is; that’s you right there," they would still say, “but that’s just the physical correlate, what about my sense of me!”

Ah. That’s the spirit.

And they would go on and on.

A mathematician and otherwise pretty all 'round smart guy named Godel came up with a mathematical proof that no mathematical system can prove itself. That, I think, is, at the least, a metaphor for why this particular wrestling match will never end.

“You can’t pick yourself up by your own bootstraps”, as others have said. The problem is built right into the limitations of our three-dimensions-plus-time consciousness. We can’t get out of the box, to see the box. Ever.

I love the notion put forth by Harvard Psychologist J.P. Mitchell, that mind is a set of “algorithms by which one set of physical actions is mapped onto a different set of physical actions by the brain.” I interpret this as a response to those philosophers, “you are a projection, just like the stuff on a movie screen is a projection.”

There is nobody up there. Let's just move on.

Off-the-Cuff

2009-08-12T11:47:00.006-04:00

Someone I was speaking with at a social gathering asked me how she could be a better coach to her employees. I found the question a little "big".

After our discussion she seemed grateful and she suggested I record the answer in this blog. It strikes me, with a smile on my face, that she was essentially assigning me the job of writing it down for her convenience. I'm pretty sure she's smiling as she reads this.

Ask yourself these two questions about each of your direct reports:

1) What are this person’s greatest strengths, and what can be done to help the organization take full advantage of them?
2) How could this person tweak their style in order to be perceived more favourably by others?

Armed with your own answers, chat with the person about these things.

For example, say something like: “My perception is that your greatest strength is [abc], and I would like to find a way to help that trait flourish.” And then, talk it through; get that person’s opinion, actually modify aspects of their job in order take more advantage of their potential.

Also, consider saying something like, “I genuinely believe that for you to achieve your goals we need to get people to see more [xyz] in you. So I’d like to help you with that; is that okay?” Then, with this little psychological contract is in place, talk about the behaviours that exhibit [xyz].

Be sure that by the end of such a conversation there are some mutual commitments involved, as well as a time to talk again. Commitments might include you announcing that the person will be taking on [abc] duty, or you promising to make a note each time you see [xyz] (or its opposite). They also might include the team member promising to implement [abc] or [xyz], knowing that there will be future discussion.

Notice that this approach is about nurturing current strengths, rather than focusing on weaknesses. Also, see how it asks for more of a trait, rather than negating some other trait.

Narcissism

2009-08-12T08:28:00.005-04:00

Here I am in the dentist chair, mouth wide open and loaded up with steel utensils. The dentist is working away. The process of installing this little oral splint is sort of complicated, I think; I can hear him making little grunts and I can feel him trying to get to this little spot in my mouth from different angles.

After a few minutes he seems to sigh with relief; I can see his muscles relax out of the corner of my eye. With a sense of accomplishment, he says, “Donka.”

Now, neither I nor my dentist are German, but as far as I can tell, he is offering an informal German “thank you”. He is saying thank you to ME—perhaps playfully,as in, “you were a good patient through that.”

Of course, since all I’ve been doing is keeping my mouth open and periodically resisting the impulse to gag—surely I don’t deserve any thanks. But, to be involved in the little conversation, and even though my mouth is open and full of tools, I kindly deflect the gratitude back to where it belongs: “Thanks to YOU,” is what I intend. It comes out as something like ANGS OO YUU.

But apparently the job is not done. He leans over and, again, squirrels away in my mouth.

Two minutes pass.

Sounding really finished this time, and leaning back, he says it again, “Donka”. To keep things going, but with my mouth still loaded up, I give him another, “angs oo yuu”.

He starts taking out the utensils.

At this point his assistant walks in the room and asks, “Yes doctor, what would you like?”

He says, “Donka, would you get me some…”

"Do the Right Thing, Dear"

2009-07-29T08:09:00.010-04:00

A hundred years from now, will people do fewer irrational things? I’m referring to those things we do even though we know better—things like eat ice cream when we’re trying to diet, have another smoke when we’re trying to quit, kiss somebody we’re not supposed to be kissing.

My impression from the world of evolutionary psychology is that our brains have layer upon layer of often conflicting behavioural instructions stemming from different eras of our genetic history. At the top of the "heap", if you will, is our most recent evolutionary advance--the “thinking brain” or forebrain. At the very bottom are the vestiges of hundreds of millions years of genetic history, back to when we were, like, fish. We’d like to think the thinking brain is driving the bus of our life, but often it’s our old programming that's in charge. Sometimes we're just passengers.

Some of us are better than others at resisting impulses. So that gives some hope. They have going for them things like higher self esteem, healthier disciplines, greater self-awareness of what’s going on down there (deeper in their brain, if you will)—things that help the brain somehow leap, or maybe crawl, past temptation.

Is a hundred years enough time?

No Harm Done

2009-07-21T15:16:00.006-04:00

This feels like a dangerous blog entry to write. It goes to the very heart of what I do for a living, of what my company espouses. I’m not exactly sure what I’m about to type. That’s the thing; the issue on my mind questions what I am all about.

Here’s the thing. I know some very successful sales leaders who hold their people TOTALLY accountable for hitting sales numbers. Their attitude, and perhaps rightly so, is something like this: Mr. J has not hit his numbers; this is not a charity. Blow him out the door. Period. There are people out there who would work harder and be more effective. We are wasting our time!

The other extreme is for leaders to be realistic, to be fair. For example, if Mr. J has been unfavourably affected by the economy, let’s face it, give the guy a break.

Now here’s what’s bugging me: in truth, I believe the meanies who remove the Mr. Js of the world and replace them with stronger racehorses, if you will, tend to win the race, tend to be more successful.

And let’s not stop at leadership. The salespeople of the world who push, push, push and don’t take no for an answer, tend to hit the bigger numbers. They may not be very pleasant to deal with, but they do win more deals.

What to do? What to do?

Can you feel the issue? Here I am making a living teaching leaders to be empathetic and salespeople to be customer-sensitive, yet I know that leaders and salespeople who are cold and driven thrive. They’ve got this teeth-gritting competitive spirit.

What to do, what to do…

I can’t say these people should be more “humanistic”—after all, they are perhaps the very paragon of humanity’s furthest reach. They have driven commerce and commerce has driven and funded technology and science and medicine. They may be the necessary evil that makes things tick. They might be the essence of success and I’ve spent a career honouring the opposite sensibility.

But hold on! Another part of me speaks up!

Shouldn’t leaders who want to get all hot and bothered about Mr. J use that energy to get closer to Mr. J’s activity? Shouldn’t they protect their investment and educate Mr. J rather than tossing him out the door. Sure, if it’s not going to work, Mr. J can’t stay. Let’s draw a line—but work it.

And, when it comes to pushy salespeople, they may do better in the short run, but in the long run their relationships make the difference. Indeed, if they integrate into their hard-driving orientation a high level of empathy and patience—then they would be even more successful. They would listen, for heaven’s sake! And I would buy from them again and again.

I feel better already. Phew! I let my fear out, but it didn't hurt.

Leadership and Procrastination

2009-07-02T14:54:00.006-04:00

Inertia is the tendency a thing has to stay “as is”. If it's moving, it wants to keep moving. If it’s not moving, it tends to remain stationary.

The only way to overcome inertia is to apply some other force. For example, if a ball is sitting on the floor, the only thing that will move that ball is the application of some new force—like a kick.

Similarly, if a person is procrastinating, only some extra force will get that person moving — perhaps a kick.

Emotion is a source of energy that gets people going. Emotion is the source of motivation.

Look at all those ‘mo’ words! (coming from the Latin root meaning “motion”)

Anyway, sometimes when I wake up, and there's nothing obliging me to actually get out of bed, I play a little game with myself. It was first written about by William James over a hundred years ago. He said to let your thoughts go free knowing that one of them will spring you to your feet; one of them will contain the magical emotional energy.

I lie there and scan through the various things going on in my life. Indeed, when my attention lands on something about which I feel emotional, I'm up. It happens every time.

In that sense, I trigger my own emotions.

And sometimes I trigger the emotions of others.

In fact, I happen to believe that triggering the emotions of others - in a positive kind of way, of course - is the job of a leader.

Strategist that You Are

2009-06-29T07:00:00.011-04:00

I've written about his before, but it crops up so regularly that I can't help myself.

I run across people who lament that there's no strategy in their organization or that they have a significant challenge in their life and no plan to deal with that challenge.

It might just be a matter of semantics, but typically my reply points to Mintzberg's notion of "emergent strategy".

It's pretty simple.

You already HAVE a strategy. You've been executing it for the last while. The question is, How is it working for you?

Let' find an example.

Think of a challenge you possess.

Now, look back at how you've been operating around that matter. What 3 or 4 main things have you been doing? They're there; otherwise, the problem would have eaten you alive by this point.

That's your strategy. You DO have a strategy.

Are you optimistic about it? What can you do to enhance it? Even if it's a teeny weeny thing, what could you do to deal more effectively with that challenge?

Go ahead, crank it up a bit.

Road Sign Safety

2009-06-15T06:46:00.004-04:00

Imagine driving along, speaking on your car phone, and needing to know how far apart these two exits are.

Too Much Information

2009-06-11T07:15:00.005-04:00

A small community of information theory thinkers offers the word 'exformation'. As opposed to 'information', exformation is the stuff we leave out.

Poetry, for example, is loaded with exformation. The poet expresses a lot with only a few words, leaving readers and listeners to play a role.

Old friends use lots of exformation. Sometimes they don't have to say much in order to be completely understood.

The idea is that exformation is a good thing; the more the better.

Too much information is a nuisance. A cover letter from a job applicant, loaded with paragraph after paragraph is a great example. Or, the gibber jabber from someone who talks too much.

I suppose the principles of effectiveness and efficiency are alive and well in the domain of interpersonal communication. Perhaps the matter is another way of getting at the definition of elegance.

Defence Mechanisms

2009-06-10T08:44:00.004-04:00

A June, 2009 article in Atlantic describes how Harvard researchers have undertaken one of the longest longitudinal studies in psychology. The researchers have been following 268 men for 72 years. The author of the article gained access to the archives of the unfinished project.

The leader of the study (Vaillant), has gained some views of defence mechanisms — those personal reactions to life’s misfortunes, big and small. Such a long-term study offers us an evolved understanding of a basic human trait. This is nice to see for two reasons. First, defence mechanisms are finally being positioned as things that evolve over a person’s life rather than being about the (sexual) relationship of a child with a parent. Second, they are coming out of the closet; no longer are defence mechanisms the stuff of deep psychiatric theory. They are responses to life’s stuff -- responses that you and I have and can talk openly about. The idea is that in the same way the body automatically responds to a bruised ankle, or a sore throat, the brain’s circuitry has its own, at-least-initially unconscious, patterned response to things like pain, conflict, or uncertainty.

So you’ve got them and I’ve got them.

He divides them into four categories. Going from not-so healthy, to optimal (productive in the long-term, conducive to a happy life), here they are: psychotic responses (paranoia, hallucination, megalomania); immature responses (acting out, passive aggression, hypochondria, fantasy, and blame or other sorts of projection); common neurotic responses (intellectualization, removal from one’s feelings, and repression such as seemingly inexplicable naivete, memory lapse, or failure to acknowledge input from a sense organ); and, healthy responses (altruism, humour, choosing to wait until later to process an emotion, and finding another outlet — such as sport — to express or otherwise process feelings).

Defense mechanisms operate unconsciously, but that doesn’t mean we can't be aware of our patterns. And tweak them.

Sales and Service

2009-05-19T16:28:00.005-04:00

Thirty years ago I read a book that changed my life. It was written by a wise man (Piero Ferrucci).

Last night I finished reading a new book by the same man. I figured if he was wise thirty years ago, his current thinking must be just extraordinary.

The new book is about kindness.

Some paragraphs in this book made me raise my eyebrows. I was awestruck by his depth of insight and the nuances he was able to put his finger on.

In one chapter, entitled "Service", he talked about good salespeople. He said they are "warm" and make the customer "feel at ease."

He DIDN'T just say they "build rapport", or "establish commonality". It wasn't about technique.

He was talking about authenticity, and genuine caring. He wasn't suggesting it be feigned for the sake of hidden motive. The suggestion was that one can cultivate such an orientation.

Instructional Design

2009-05-16T18:11:00.009-04:00

I am a dedicated reader of Edge Foundation's annual publication containing about one page written by each of the world's top scientists and thinkers. These extraordinary people, from many disciplines, are given a straight forward question and they do their best to answer. A couple of years ago the question was, “What are you optimistic about?” Before that was, "What do you believe to be true, but cannot prove?" Last year the question was, “What have you changed your mind about?”

Imagine reading the edgy thoughts of quantum-mechanical engineers, mathematicians, evolutionary biologists, linguists, physicists, psychologists, anthropologists--the whole shebang of brains who push the edge of human thought! Every year. Each answering the one new question. When a new issue comes out, I find myself happy I've stayed alive long enough to have the privilege to read it.

I don't recall ever being invited to submit my own answers. Then, I haven't heard from the Nobel group either.

I wonder if most simple readers, such as myself, ever ask themselves these questions. Probably. Yes?

My problem with this year’s question (what I’ve changed my mind about) is that I keep changing my mind about so many things, I don't know which one to pick. I guess that's another reason I'm still in the little leagues.

For what it’s worth, when I got out of the shower today, I was admitting that the topic below is something about which I’ve changed my mind.

I used to think the key to educating people around their behaviour (let’s call that “training”) was to approach the topic conceptually. People would change, I thought, if they had a bigger model of their challenges than they currently possessed. So, I would extend the "size", if you will, of their working model so that, with the new, broader perspective, they could make more informed decisions and choices. You could call that my conceptual phase.

Then I went through my temporal phase as a designer: basing a learning experience on an exploration of the sequential moments in time of a behaviour so that learners could discover the antecedent to the desired behaviour, their historical, presumably not-optimally-desirable response, and the alternate behaviour they could choose instead. Though somewhat Pavlovian in nature (ring bell, antecedent; salivate, consequence), this seemed particularly useful for behavioural learning. For example, “when the customer says ‘your price is too high’, we have been responding with x (whatever the response); instead of choosing x, let’s choose y.”

I loved my temporal phase. I thought I had found the key to the universe (of education). When people become aware that their mistakes occur in a moment in time, immediately after they've been triggered to follow their habitual path, they become empowered to make different choices, to take a different path.

However, it wasn’t so good for teaching people how to devise a strategy for penetrating their accounts or their marketplace. Teaching people to be strategic is not really teaching a behaviour, per se (though it would be easier if it were). There are moments of choice during the development of a strategy, but they are better attacked at the conceptual level.

So, now I’ve changed my mind again. Effective learning design involves a thorough exploration of context (e.g., the process aspect of the thing being learned about) AND the temporal (what choices are available beyond the robotic).

Temporal consciousness might be a beautiful thing, and learning to make different choices as moments pass is a gift we get from educators. But I take my hat off to those who hammer home context as well as linearity, global as well as local, macro as well as micro. How else could instructional design be holistic in nature if it didn't integrate the thing being learned into the whole of which the thing is a part?

A River

2009-05-10T13:36:00.016-04:00

The Buddhist notion that "life is suffering" is interesting.

I used to think it was somewhat overly dramatic, if you know what I mean. Quite a pessimistic view of things.

It's about wanting more than i have now--more time, more pleasure, more control.

And there's my wish that i could know all that i am. And hold onto it. Instead, i flit. No hold. A reaction here, an unconscious blurt there. I am neither this, nor that.

But some days it seems to hum to the rhythm of my consciousness, to the strum of each moment. It's right in front of me.

If life is suffering--and maybe it is--is that so bad?

I know love. Is flow not lovable?

Go ahead, take me away.

Suffering just is. Like a free-flowing river.

Time Capsules

2009-05-04T09:29:00.007-04:00

I am a fan of time capsules. The whole idea of digging up a container filled with icons of a different era is very appealing to me. Maybe I should have been an archeologist.

Perhaps if we were going to bury a time capsule today, one that would be unearthed 50 years from now, we would put in today’s newspaper, a blackberry, an empty piggy bank, a model wind turbine, and whatever else would exemplify life in the present. What would you put in there?

The idea, of course, is for people of the future, or perhaps even aliens, to be intimate with life at that former time.

I suspect that you have your own time capsule, only it’s not meant to depict social norms as much as it your personal circumstances. And, you probably add to your container when memorable events occur. And you look at it every so often. (So it might not be a time capsule in the strict sense).

I have one of these too: it’s called “a box in my basement.” Mine has a mint condition, plastic-sealed Al Kaline card, my Man from U.N.C.L.E. membership card, my grade 4 report card saying “Arthur fidgets in class”, a love letter I got in grade 7, a Canadian one dollar bill, a post card I sent from a small town along the Bruce Trail which I hiked when I was 13, a memento of a school trip I took to Italy in grade 12, a ball bearing that I won playing marbles in grade 2, my last academic philosopher paper…things like that.

I also have a diary that I’ve been keeping since 1974. A friend gave me a “nothing book” for Christmas (hard cover, blank pages). It’s kind of like a time capsule because it tells me what my inner world was like at the time of each entry. At the beginning I wrote in it twice a year or so, but now, 30 years later, it’s once every few years at best. And the early entries were one or two pages, while more current entries are just a few lines. “Mother died. It does indeed appear that I've processed a lot of this already."

Sometimes I wonder about my motivation for this record-keeping tendency. My friends and family sometimes remark that I have a thing around holding onto the past. (Actually they say I have a lot of “things”, meaning quirks, neuroses and peculiarities). But I don’t think my interest in making periodic notes to myself that I can read in the future is so bad.

My favourite thing in this regard is to make file entries in my computer of newspaper articles that forecast doom and gloom so that when, for example, the doom doesn’t come, I can adjust my level of trust in that source.

I don’t just do this with newspaper articles. I even do it with myself. For example, when the disease SARS hit, my business was affected. Around that time I found myself catastrophizing. “The sky is falling, the sky is falling,” I thought. I wrote about that fear in my computer journal (those kinds of things don’t make it to the handwritten diary). But now, with the provocative swine flu, I reread that entry and say, “oh.” I learn from my time capsules.

On Being a Wuss

2009-04-07T08:19:00.007-04:00

This is an offering for those of us who sometimes walk around with a bit of anxiety. It seems pretty common these days.

Try to get your head around this statement: “I accept my vulnerability.”

It's not about the fact that, for example, in a bad economy you are vulnerable to cut backs, it's about the emotional vulnerability inside of you.

"I accept my vulnerability."

Say the little sentence a few times, and try to mean the words. Rephrase the sentence, if that helps. Try, “I do feel vulnerable (in my situation), but that’s because vulnerability is a part of my make-up; and I accept that vulnerability.” Or, “I spend energy resisting my vulnerability, but if I accept it, I won’t have to expend that energy. It is, after all, a part of who I am.”

In other words, you are anxious because a part of you is, well, a wuss. That’s okay. There’s wussness in each of us. We were certainly wusses when we were little kids. You have to admit that. Well, the wuss program is still there. Always will be.

If you actually accept that there’s a wuss inside you (okay, I’ll define it; it's a subpersonality, a natural child ego state, one component of the cluster of subroutines that make up who you are), then you don’t have to resist him/her.

Accept your vulnerability. You’ll still have the problem that provokes it, and you'll still have the appropriate, short-term emotional response flow through you, but you’ll have measurably less angst.

One example: Belinda is afraid her pet turtle is going to die. Belinda for days has been feeling an underlayer of anxiety. She can’t change the turtle situation, and of course there is a sadness that goes along with it. But she doesn't like the anticipatory anxiety. The fear.

That's right. There's a third party here: aside from the turtle's health problem and the appropriate sadness response, there's the fact that Belinda's struck by it in a way she doesn't like.

Belinda would be smart to say, My turtle is going to die. It makes me feel terrible. The fact that I carry this anxiety with me comes from the fact that I have a wuss inside me, a vulnerability. I accept my vulnerability. I accept that i have a vulnerable child in my psyche. Lovable, perhaps, but vulnerable. And that's okay.

Attitude Precedes Behaviour

2009-03-27T15:57:00.005-04:00

A person's outlook or perspective will affect that person's behaviour.

I believe that in my gut.

If you're trying to get Johnny to clean up his room every day, or Beluga to submit her expense reports on time, then just saying the words won't do the trick. You've got to get underneath the matter.

People have too many well-embedded habits and attitudes, operating totally outside the reach of conscious awareness, to just flick a switch and implement a change of any significance.

There are many approaches a leader or educator can take to penetrate the stuff that precedes behaviour. Basically the approaches establish some kind of genuinely appealing context.

Unless you're using electric prods or something; but then that approach sort of dehumanizes things.

Who is Driving the Bus?

2009-03-24T11:57:00.006-04:00

When you ask someone why they made a certain decision, they will explain their rationale.

That is, their sense of who they are, their consciousness, will explain how a conclusion was reached. It’s like, “I am Billie-boy, and here’s how I reached my answer.”

But I offer that Billie-boy’s consciousness, or his sense of self, didn’t have any role in the process. He uses rationality retrospectively. He explains why his answer was rational after having it simply pop into his head.

For example, please think of a decision you made recently. A simple one will do.

Here’s mine. I just sent a guy an email.

If you ask me why, I’ll explain the nuanced politic behind my decision. It will sound very rational. But, in truth, the idea of sending the email came to me somewhat out of the blue. In fact, maybe I wondered, for a moment, “What should I do?” But I didn’t get the idea through any conscious, rational thought process; it just came to me. I have no idea how it came to me.

This is not to say the things that pop up aren’t reached through some rational process. It’s just to say that it’s not our conscious mind that goes through the rational thinking process; our decisions come from someplace deep inside—skilled, practiced, well-embedded, perhaps; but our conscious mind doesn’t actually have the bandwidth to produce, or follow the process of generating, the thought with the speed we typically require.

Our sense that our consciousness is the one in charge of us is a bit of an illusion. In fact, ample research (google: “Libet” to get started) has shown that there’s about half a second delay between when our unconscious mind decides stuff and our conscious mind is aware of it.

Next time you’re asked about something, catch yourself sitting there, pausing, while you wait for the answer to be delivered to your conscious awareness. YOU didn't do it. Your other, hidden you, did.

Narcissim

2009-03-22T12:23:00.001-04:00

The late real estate heiress Leona Helmsley was quoted saying what is now taken as the quintessential Narcissistic Personality Disorder utterance: "We don't pay taxes. Only little people pay taxes."

The Art of Calibrating While You Influence

2009-03-19T08:06:00.017-04:00

My team employs, constantly refines, and espouses (and builds into most of its client training programs), a model called "Humanistic Influence". It's a model that describes an orientation one can adopt when trying to influence a person. It is very focused on the psychology of high-integrity influence--how to lead, sell, present, negotiate, coach--explaining how people can self-manage their thinking through the dialogue process.

This blog entry is about a recent modification. It might LOOK simple, but it's really just the tip of the iceberg and it took us a while to land on it.

We've been wrestling in particular with one component of the model: calibration. That is, what goes through the mind of a humanistic influencer when he or she is interacting in a high integrity fashion with an influencee?

Our present view is simply this: calibration is a process of reframing one's goals and an influencee's goals, through dialogue, to find a point of unity.

For example, let's say you work for a manufacturer of a bunch of different types of food products. You want me to put your whole product line-up on a lot of linear feet of my store's shelving. I'm not inclined to let you do that; I want to offer my customers a selection of products from multiple manufacturers.

Just how do you, the noble influencer, win this sale? The two goals seem in conflict, yes?

So, in your head you calibrate. You dialogue with me and clarify with me that behind my goal is the desire to offer wide selection AND, particularly these days, improve my overall profitability. Indeed, I agree, I want both.

So you've tweaked our description of my goal a bit. That's no small feat. Great.

And you tweak your goal a bit. You pull back on your effort to "own" my shelf space and offer to help me take full advantage of some unused space in my store by installing an end-aisle unit that can be usesd to highlight your, and my, most profitable product.

I say "yes" because you've helped me achieve my goals, and you're pleased as punch because you got more shelf space in my store (the end-aisle unit) and the chance to draw attention to a key product.

Bingo, bango...I've been influenced. I get what I want and I respect you. You make progress against your long-term goal. Everybody goes home happy.

Dialogue. Calibrate. Go home happy.

I'm just sayin'

2009-03-14T14:34:00.010-04:00

This may sound self serving. And maybe it will be. But that’s not my motive. As my daughter says, “I’m just sayin’, that’s all.”

For many months our company has been winning more than its fair share of all the contracts we have been competing for ("more than its fair share" is just a figure of speech, of course; I don't really feel bad about it).

We recently did a survey to ask clients, amongst other things, why they chose us. Mostly they said it's because we listen particularly well.

That’s nice. But I don’t really think that’s it. At least, not on the nose.

I think it’s the people.

We have very smart people. Nice people. People who listen. People who care. People who are articulate, professional, diverse, experienced. My colleagues have high integrity. And they know what they are doing.

I ask people all the time, “Are you happy here? What do you like most about your job?” And the most common thing I get back is: “I like the people.”

On a daily basis I read of our praises. Internally and externally. Clients send notes of thanks. Colleagues offer each other accolades.

Sometimes I read the work of certain people and I think to myself, “Gosh, is this person ever smart.” Or, “Holy Toledo, this person works hard.” Or, “This person is so acutely client centric, it blows me away.”

But does this explain our success rate? Lots of places have smart, hard working, good people.

Here’s my theory. There are four things: Smarts. Experience. Love. Integrity.

When those things are present in a community, special things happen. When they are brought to bear on client challenges and opportunities, genuine value is created.

I like that Oxford defines 'value' as: advantage or the possibility of advantage. The idea that our work opens such doors is quite alluring.

True, the "love" reference, for corporate purposes, usually needs to be translated into "the desire to serve" or "stewardship", but, well, "I'm just sayin'".

Don't Swat the Dog

2009-03-05T06:58:00.000-05:00

I was speaking with someone the other day about a junior manager on his team who, no matter how often he’s told about it, “loses his cool” and gets somewhat caustic with front-line subordinates.

The view of the person I was speaking with was that the solution was to point out consequences.

“What kinds of consequences?” I asked.

“Well, that when they do something, like being terse or flippant with direct reports, there have to be consequences,” he replied.

“There HAVE TO BE or there ARE?” I was trying to get at whether he was coming from the point of view of punishing the person, in order to teach a lesson, or educating the person, in order to help create better consequences.

I was disappointed to hear him ultimately argue that, “If this guy doesn’t lighten up with his people, I’ll have to demote him.”

For me, his stance was like rolling up a newspaper and swatting a dog.

Admittedly, I fell into speech mode.

“When this manager has the impulse to get terse, he obviously has the opportunity to make a different choice—it’s just that he can’t quite manage his impulse to be mean. So, I believe we need to educate him on two things: that the terse response is ultimately counter productive and that, by going the terse route, he is somewhat robotically responding to a trigger. He can pre-empt that robotic response if he chooses to. But it requires a certain level of clarity and a kind of robust intentionality, a will to change. And it is our job to nurture this wilfulness. One way to do this is to show him how we can separate who he is from how he behaves at these times. Indeed, he is NOT his behaviour, and, in fact, we value his BEING, if you will. Then he is far more able to manage his impulse to be terse—particularly if we make the undesirable outcomes of his terseness clear. For example, believe it or not, we can say the equivalent of ‘I love you Billy Bob, but getting so terse with your people is not okay with me.’”

“In fact,” I added, “I think you are committing the same offense yourself. You are creating a kind of conditionality for this person. He punishes his people with his terse blurts; and you punish him with implicit threats of ‘change or else!’”

And then I admitted that I was doing the same kind of thing myself. I react strongly to images of swatting a dog and all the stuff surrounding that metaphor.

Then we laughed. And he assured me; I was okay. However, he added with raised eyebrows, “But I’m NOT going to say I love you.”

It's Smart to Manage Your Feelings

2009-03-03T11:13:00.003-05:00

Since the early 1990s academics have argued that your skills in self management directly impact your health and your career progression. Some recent studies have further affirmed both claims. Very exciting. Not only do they offer more ammunition for fans of the relatively new field of “emotional intelligence”, but they are more precise in explaining the physiology behind the results and so are perhaps more credible in their claims.

A recent study (University of Ohio) involved giving a bunch of people a blister (I don’t even want to think about how you give someone a blister). The researchers sought and found a significant correlation between speed of full recovery from the blister and how well the blisterees (if you will) processed anger. They specifically linked delays to higher level of stress hormones (interleukin-6). This result was consistent with previously published work (Archives of General Psychiatry) that drew a correlation between marital spats and slow physical wound recovery. A half hour fight with a spouse can cost a day in the healing duration of a minor wound!

Maybe this explains why I sometimes bemoan the presence of paper cuts, hang nails, bruises that never seem to go away!

Here’s one for you, another study showed that someone caring for a loved one with dementia heals more slowly from simple wounds (Dr Ronald Glaser, from Ohio State University College of Medicine).

Anyway, Steven Bloom, a professor at Imperial College London says, "Your body prioritizes and sorts one thing out at a time, so if you are stressed ... your body works through that before it gets on with the process of healing.”

Okay, so that’s the health part. What about career progress?

Harvard Medical School (led by Professor George Vaillant) has followed a group of 824 people over 44 years and currently claims that people go further in their career when they neither repress anger nor express it in an explosive fashion. The trick, apparently, is to process it in a healthy fashion. Fury doesn’t work; it is bad for your health and counterproductive. Staying quiet (repressing) is bad for your health. What works, in terms of career progression, is being assertive — expressing yourself (essentially, honouring yourself) calmly, standing your ground and asserting your stance. Presumably exhibiting this self management skill makes you more attractive to people with the power to promote you.

There you go.

Being Strategic

2009-02-23T20:50:00.007-05:00

Somebody I coach was recently told by his boss, “You need to be more strategic.” What a juicy rebuke. Here are some of my thoughts about the topic.

First of all, as far as I know, strategy is one of those notions that people have ideas about, but haven’t fully figured out. For example, academics still go back and forth over how to come up with a best possible strategy for any given mission. And, on the corporate marketing front, there are still arguments about what generic strategies are available and smart (strategies like being the low cost provider, or dedicating resources to strengthen unique value to customers, or focusing energies on a specific market segment).

The fact that folks don’t know what makes the ideal strategy, or what makes someone optimally strategic, reveals that strategy is not something one looks up in the dictionary in order to get to the essence. It’s one of those unending explorables. Even the world’s best strategist could think a little further out in time, could see a slightly bigger picture, could have slightly better judgment, and could produce a better strategy.

One thing for sure, a strategy answers the big question, how will success be achieved? It only takes a few juicy bullets to describe a strategy. A strategy assumes a goal and describes the best levers to pull in order to get there and in order to protect against vulnerabilities.

Here’s something I find particularly interesting. I first learned of it through the work of the McGill University professor, Henry Mintzberg. When you ask a person his or her formulated strategy, the answer will almost always be different from the strategy he or she has been executing. This is because, in addition to being something one can think through in advance (and it’s always good to do so), a strategy emerges through rational responses to day-to-day events. So we’re all engaged in strategies but we only see them when we look back in time.

Thus, “being strategic” refers to the disposition to clearly define a goal; to put your finger on activities that get you most quickly and efficiently to that goal; and to anticipate what might go wrong so that you can either pre-empt or effectively respond to it.

Okay, so how does one become “more strategic”? What would that look like if you were a salesperson, for example; or a race horse jockey, or a blog writer, or a leader of thousands?

My answer to that has two parts. First is the list of questions to ask yourself, and things to keep in mind, in order to formulate a strategy. Next there is the list of mental skills that are brought to bear on those questions and considerations.

Here are the questions and considerations; needless to say, we are assuming you have a certain mission for which you are building a strategy.

1) You need to have your values top of mind (e.g., your stance on integrity, compassion, and social responsibility). You need to make sure the strategy you end up with is congruent with these values.
2) Know the variables that are relevant to your mission. For example, is your success a function of what’s happening socially, legally, politically, technologically, competitively, economically, and personally?
3) What are the opportunities and threats you face in your situation? Try to think “big picture”, like you’re taking a snapshot (pretend you’re in a helicopter flying over your mission landscape).
4) Extend your snapshot of how things look today into the future—what’s likely to happen?
5) Define your current strengths, and figure out how to leverage them in order to usurp opportunities, overcome weaknesses, and pre-empt or deal with threats.
6) Assuming you’re mid-stream on the mission, determine your apparent strategy to date (the one that has emerged based on real world events) so you can ask yourself if it has been working for you and what limitations it imposes. Address those limitations and plan to utilize the types of decisions that have been working for you.

Now, how well you do in the above process partly depends on the personal thinking skills you bring to the planning table. My experience is you can put a group of people together with the same mission, offer them all the same questions and considerations, and some folks will come up with a better strategy than others.

Here are what I think are the relevant mental factors: pattern recognition skills (so you can label themes that you come across); creativity (so you can generate new ideas for achieving results through unorthodox means), span of horizon (how far out in time a person thinks), systems orientation (remember the bird’s eye view?—you need to see the landscape you’re playing in as a single snapshot), intuition about people (so you know whose buttons are most easily pressed and whether it’s worth pressing them), ratio insight (in the sense of intuiting “bang for the buck”—where you’ll get the best return on the time you might invest); and, analytical skills.

So, could you be more strategic? Yes. Is it easy? No. Is anybody perfect at it? Nope. But, at least if your boss said you SHOULD be more strategic, now you could build a strategy to improve!

The Is/Ought Question and Others of its Ilk

2009-02-20T16:29:00.008-05:00

I frequently go back and forth in my own head between realistically accepting what "is", versus idealistically striving for better. One part of me is genuinely inclined to embrace my reality, while some other part has an equally genuine inclination to do better. Which way is right? The question applies to myself and to how I operate with others.

Here's an example: let's say one of your kids has always shown a certain tendency towards sloppiness. On some days you say to yourself, "Well, it's just the way he is, I shouldn't come down too hard on him." On other days, you find yourself saying, "But he can't continue this way, he has to get better!"

Stuff like this happens on the job all the time. Do we accept an employee's incessant tardiness, knowing that she has an extraordinarily complex life, or do we keep at her, demanding that she fulfill her duties? Do we put up with someone's habit of not fulfilling their commitments because they never seem to change, or do we keep pushing? Do we except excuses for low sales productivity because, in truth, things are hard out there, or do we keep pushing for more?

Over the years I've gone back and forth on the issue. I used to offer consulting advice that equated to this: if we accept the status quo, then people get used to the status quo. In fact, I would cite examples of how accepting a little bit of sloppiness only led to the slippery slope of sloth. So, I said, we should always send signals that we want more! Consistent with this philosophy was my stance that people who didn't have the right level of all the skills required for their job had to learn those skills. I was always suggesting "We must strive to get better and better."

Then for a while I would lean the other way. I accepted that if my youngster wasn't good in math, then math wasn't his thing. Or, mold a person's job to fit that person's strengths rather than having the person change to match the job description. Become accepting of somebody's bad practices; why push Beulah to follow through if it's just going to waste everyone's energy?

I hate to say it, because it's not very philosophically responsible (and I must ALWAYS be philosophically responsible, yes?), but these days I just go with my intuition. Some days I'm a realist. Other days an idealist.

I suggest it's a philosophical cop-out, of course, because I'm not really embracing the question. It's like a lady I knew who once said, "I know I must be morally right about this because my stomach doesn't hurt; my stomach always hurts when I feel guilty."

Truth be told, the last academic paper I produced from the field of philosophy basically argued that questions such as these can't be answered. They are useful questions because exploring the issues can shed valuable light on many nuances. But eventually, perhaps when a philosopher gets tired, or disenchanted, or maybe even when he or she finds peace in the unanswered, the stomach test, in one form or another, does the job.

Why the Blog?

2009-02-16T15:58:00.007-05:00

Okay. I get asked this question. Why the blog?

Some tell me it’s my ego. I want to be seen. Maybe, seen as smart. I can’t deny this possibility. I'm pretty sure at some level I have spent my life seeking attention. I value intelligence, so how I prefer to be seen can be characterized as smart. Okay. That secret's out.

I have also heard that maybe I am trying to help people. Sounds altruistic, doesn’t it? In truth, even since I was a kid, I think I have helped people see things from my perspective, and over the years I have received feedback that this tendency has brought value. But no, altruism herein is not my main purpose; at best, benefit to readers is just a corollary benefit.

And then there are folks who fear that my motives are commercial; like I feel I should make these musings available so that potential clients can be drawn to the quality of thought leadership at our firm. I say "fear" in the above sentence because I believe they are afraid of two things: that I might say something that makes us look BAD, rather than good; and, because greed-based motives put me in the middle of a kind of conflict of interest wherein maybe what I'm saying is not really what I believe.

But, notwithstanding any of the attractiveness of those three hypotheses just outlined, there's a better explanation.

The bigger truth is that all my life I have been insecure - maybe less so, as time has gone by, but the program was well embedded over the first couple of decades. To compensate, even as a little kid, almost out of bewilderment, I looked inward. Who am I? Why do I hurt? How do I feel happy? How do feelings work? How does consciousness work? What's the relationship between consciousness and the outside world? Is there a god? I studied philosophy and psychology in school. I had extensive therapy. I trained to be a psychotherapist. I explored meditation in a pretty big way. All this, because, at the core, I had a sense of emptiness that I believed would only go away if I figured it out. I tried to figure it out in order to get control over my angst.

So why do I write these entries? Because doing so feels like old home week. I get to do what came naturally for decades: formulate my answers to my big questions posed because I NEEDED answers. When I write these ideas, I am getting closer and closer, mostly for my own sake, to how I think things work.

Why make them public? My knowledge that you are reading this somehow holds me accountable for getting it right. And I want it right for my sake. So thanks.

I made a career out of sharing the output of my insecure meanderings. I found the perfect profession, a symbiosis of sorts that supports my manner of living: my neurotic need to figure out my existence in the world, the cravings of others for answers to similar questions, my desire to be seen, and the expectations of others (teachers, listeners, readers, colleagues, learners) that I be as accurate and accessible as possible.

You see, I BECOME by explaining my world view, responsibly, accurately, and with effort. At the end of an entry, just like at the end of writing a chapter in a book, or before a break during a training session, my background consciousness, after working like a bugger, seems to say, “I think I got that idea right,” and then I feel, as I have felt all my life, closer to myself. Not for your sake, for my own.

So, with respect, you're my superego, my conscience. That's the point. Your presence makes me reorganize ideas, prune fluff, and bear down on my message. Apparently, since, as you can see, I AM my understanding of the universe, YOU, by your anticipated presence, deliver me me.

In that sense, then, thanks, again.

Influencing Others

2009-02-15T09:57:00.009-05:00

There are plenty of things people say in order to influence others. I like to put those utterances into two categories: not-so-hot, and good.

Not-So-Hot

- Everybody else is doing it.
- So and so, supports it.
- Billie Bob (powerful or knowledgeable person) mentioned that he...
- Time is running out.
- There are no other options.
- You promised.
- Isn't it sad?
- If you don't do it, here's what's going to happen.

I don't respond well to the not-so-hot ones because they seem to be appealing to my fears (of being left out or being unloved or failure).

Good

- This is the most direct route to the goal and here's why
- Of all the options just outlined, here's the rational choice
- You do this for me, and I'll do that for you
- I'm just looking you in the eye and asking ...

I like the good ones because they are appeal to my rational side or my straight-up human sensibilities.

On Meditation

2009-02-12T14:26:00.002-05:00

Meditation can be like a hot air balloon ride. In ballooning, you’re floating along, in silence, maybe falling a little too low, a little too close to the ground, you release some heat into the balloon and it levels you off for a minute or two. Similarly, in deep meditation, in silence, maybe falling a little too low, a little too close to sleep, you release some energy with just a whiff of deliberate thought, and it levels you off, for a minute or two.

Be Happy

2009-02-10T20:17:00.007-05:00

Here’s my happiness manifesto.

1. Shut down work stuff at night and over the weekends. Period.
2. Find a hobby. Work it.
3. Hang around with positive people. Avoid negative people.
4. If there are kids in your world, roll on the floor with them. Now.
5. Pamper yourself, in a way only you know, daily.
6. Exercise—even in some small way--because you know you want it.
7. Give to others.
8. Regarding that person who REALLY bugs you...let it go, just for today.
9. Each day, do 2 little things you don’t like to do.

Notice that the each of the above requires some degree of will. You ARE your will. By willing, you become more like you.

Ask yourself: What am i if i am not my choices?

Self Awareness, in the Moment, is Impossible

2009-02-09T10:17:00.001-05:00

There’s no such thing as in-the-moment self awareness. Self awareness is always retrospective. Sorry.

Go ahead. Take a moment to close your eyes and become aware of what you’re thinking. Let your thoughts flow.

Notice that as soon as you become aware of a thought, that awareness is happening AFTER the thought. The relentless forward motion of time denies us self awareness in the present.

It’s like there are two of you in there: the one that simply experiences a moment and the one that comes after, the observer.

I like just experiencing things—complete immersion in activity. When I forget that there’s an observer, he goes away.

Fortunately, being totally immersed doesn't mean I've lost my self; it means he's busy, aware of things other than himself.

Changing Behaviours

2009-02-08T14:11:00.003-05:00

It's no surprise that a biggie in the world of training is in getting people to actually change their behaviour. A trainer can explain stuff, actually get "learners" to understand everything, but still not get them to implement. What's that about?

Here's a useful principle in psychology: if people get pleasure or relief from a new behaviour, they will likely keep doing it. If there's little direct payback, well, they might nod, agree, even pledge to make a change but, later, in private, just do stuff the way they always have.

For example, let's say you are my sage trainer and you believe in this principle of creating change by getting me to experience pleasure or relief. You want me to change the way I handle complaints (from customers, employees...anybody). Specifically, you want me to ask questions instead of getting defensive.

Now, because you're so good, you know you can't just say, "Art baby, you gotta ask a question instead of getting your back up."

In response to a complaint you throw at me, you teach me to ask questions instead. You make the sequence clear: hear complaint, ask a question; hear complaint, ask a question. You make me practice. You create a little one act play during which I hear a complaint. You stop time. During this pause, you get me to feel the impulse to defend. You get me to ask a question instead. I experience the value of the new behaviour; I say to myself, "ooh, that feels good."

If it feels like a genuine solution to something that's been bugging me (like complaints always leading to shouting matches), then I'll do it your way forever. Even if it just feels somehow smoother than the way I always did it, I'll probably switch.

Okay. So you've done it.

But, you might wonder, if this training technique is so effective, wouldn't everybody be running around behaving perfectly?

You might think so, but the whole thing is easier said than done. It can be tough to clarify for people the things that trigger the behaviour we're trying to change (in our example, you made me recognize what precedes my defensive response to complaints). Without that clarification people might not be able to recognize their triggers in the future. Also the desired response has to be simple and recognized intellectually as superior to the habituated response. Further, there needs to be the personal eureka moment--the "ooh la la, this helps!" experience.

And those are just the one-person-at-a-time issues. A designer and facilitator of a group training session also need to think about: the number of course objectives (we don't want to tackle more than we have time for), the challenge of defining the targeted behaviours in terms of antecedent/consequence, not boring the heck out of folks who don't face the same obstacles. One-on-one training is easier than group work.

So, why does my wife find it challenging to train me to put the wooden spoon in the spatula drawer rather in the drawer with all the other cooking utensils? Because there's no pleasure in it. In fact, as I write this, I wonder if I've got it wrong. Maybe the wooden spoon is NOT supposed to go with the spatulas. Sorry.

Elegant Leadership

2009-02-02T16:25:00.006-05:00

I’ve found that if I get tough, then people push back in one way or another. If I am soft, then things become less orderly over time.

It’s no surprise, of course. From the field of thermodynamics we know that systems break down over time. Jung addressed the psychology of this. It led folks to talk about "psychological entropy": left alone, people get bummed out. It’s the proverbial, “idle mind, devil’s playground” kind of thing. To me, it partly explains why people don't do what they intend (but that's another story).

And then there’s Newton’s third law of motion: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This law predicts what happens when a leader gets too tough. He or she might get compliance, at least in the short term, but somewhere, somehow, there will be damage done (office politics, theft from the supply cupboard, accepted calls from head hunters).

So, I think I’ve concluded that elegant leadership is this fine line between being an overbearing meanie versus being a wuss: provide direction, don’t kick up dust.

And, when things get really out of whack, provide stronger leadership while helping people to see that you still love them.

Most Embarrassing

2009-01-31T06:55:00.002-05:00

About 6 years ago I was engaged to give a 4 hour presentation to a group of 150 managers from a head office department of a large insurance company. They were assembled for a 2-day meeting and I was a guest speaker. My talk was about leadership.

The event was being held in a small ballroom at a fancy downtown Toronto hotel. It was to start at 1 pm, after they had lunch.

I love peameal bacon on a kaiser roll. Just love it.

Whenever I'm in the heart of downtown Toronto, I just have to go to the St. Lawrence Market where one of the stalls sells what is arguably the best peameal-on-a-kaiser on the planet.

And the St. Lawrence Market is only a short stroll to the hotel. A perfect plan, yes? Get a peameal, take a half hour stroll to the presentation. A leisurely slide into an afternoon of hard work.

The plan came together. I was sitting amongst the other peameal lovers, (actually crammed in, because it was lunch time), munching away, REALLY enjoying my sandwich.

There's no real "skill" to eating a peameal-on-a-kaiser, but one does need to manage the crums and keep a napkin quite handy. In my case, for example, I was wearing tan dress slacks, a dress shirt, and navy blue blazer, and, after all, I was about to stand in front of a small crowd to do my thing. So extra caution was called for. No doubt.

So, it happened. I slopped a glob of mustard onto my pants. Actually the glob landed immediately to my left of the fly on my pants. The gob was about two inches from stem to stern.

My eyes bulged out of my head as the magnitude of what had occurred set in. I had to speak in 35 minutes. I was over an hour from my home or my office.

I grabbed a cab to the hotel. I stood in front of the concierge, spread my arms to display my entire frontal image, and said, "look." I was kind of hoping that from his angle it wouldn't be so bad--maybe I was overreacting.

The concierge put his hand over his mouth. After a second he said, "we have a dry cleaning service, sir, if you'd like to send them in."

I explained that I had a presentation down the hall in 20 minutes.

He replied with his index finger pointing up in a "eureka" moment that, "we have Maria, our head of repair from housekeeping. She can do anything."

He called Maria. She would be up in a minute. I used that minute to run down the hall to check in. The crowd was still eating. I told the sound and lighting guys I was present and that I would be right back.

Maria was a sweet old Italian lady. I adopted for her the same pose I offered to the concierge 7 minutes earlier. She too immediately put her hand to her mouth, in her case stifling a long "ooooh."

It was 10 minutes before show time.

Maria was grunting as she shook her head. She knelt down, grabbed the crotch of my pants (just the pants), and looked very closely. More sounds, more head shakes, while the concierge was asking, "can you do it Maria? He has 10 minutes." She said as she stood up, "I be right back."

My heart was pounding. By this time the yellow appearance of the mustard went away, but it left a large, black/gray, serious-looking pee pee-like stain. My blazer wouldn't cover the stain. It was obvious, ugly, and it makes me shake my own head just to write these words. It wasn't a dribble, it was a blotch.

After what seemed like ages, Maria returned with a spray bottle and a rag. She sprayed the rag, grabbed the cloth again and began to gently wipe the stain. It had no effect, but to take away a small piece of dried mustard that had given the stain a three-dimensional effect. Now it looked somehow like a more realistic pee pee stain.

Time was up. I walked quickly down the hall, said hello to my host. His assistant took me to my seat near the front where I would sit while he was introducing me.

My heart was pounding. I kept looking down at my stain while he was making his remarks. I had no idea what I was going to say. It was obviously going to be visible to all. It was the most embarrassing event of my career.

Thoughts Running Wild

2009-01-30T16:07:00.002-05:00

We all know the experience of lying awake in the middle of the night with our thoughts running wild. Or, in the middle of a workday, being totally preoccupied by something bugging us. Here are some ideas that serve me well as a periodically-neurotic-guy.

First, let’s agree that in the blur of mental activity there are things you are saying to yourself. Let’s call those utterances “self talk”. For example, if there’s a guy named Billie who is driving me crazy, then in addition to my anger or fear or whatever, my self talk is in there saying things like, “Billie’s a manipulative jerk and a political beastie.”

A very handy thing to keep in mind is that your self talk is often engaged in self protection. In fact, some folks say that’s why we have self talk; we ruminate over why we might not get what we want, how we’re at risk, what’s good for us and bad for us, what we like and don’t like—all with an eye towards making sure things are the way we think they should be. If we don’t like what’s going on, red flags start waving, emotions begin to flow.

In this case, for example, I might ask myself, “What does my judgement of Billie protect me from?”

Hmmm. Allow me to think out loud.

Well, if I’m honest with myself, even though I label him manipulative and political, and maybe he IS these things, the fact that they push my buttons means I AM the sicko who needs to be sorted out—not Billie.

That’s a very handy place to start.

It’s a funny thing. Often our anxieties are blamed on others, when WE are the ones with the anxiety. Rather than spending my energy on Billie’s nastiness, why don’t I direct my attention to how I’m upset?

“Cuz I don’t wanna.”

We want to be okay and so we point to others as the source of our problems.

Instead, I could ask, how is it that I am wired such that Billie pushes MY buttons but not other people’s buttons? I am the problem, not Billie.

My self talk gives a voice to my effort to deflect responsibility. It is self protecting. A lovely closed system, but often inaccurate.

In this case, perhaps I’m trying to get things accomplished these days and Billie gets in my way. In response to ME he gets manipulative and political. So, I judge him. When, in fact, I could judge myself for pushing his buttons. If I were more responsible, maybe I would handle him more gracefully.

Perhaps I must acknowledge to myself the fact that I have not made the effort to make the relationship work optimally. And then, maybe I can forgive myself. And rest.

Here’s a summary for your consideration: when other people push our buttons, it’s our “stuff”—not theirs; rather than acknowledging our stuff, we usually deflect it in the form of blame towards others; the stuff we have to acknowledge often links to our fears and our guilt.

Go to sleep.

The Source of Willpower

2009-01-26T16:04:00.009-05:00

I used to smoke cigarettes. Pack and a half a day. For 13 years.

I tried to quit plenty of times. Even got to hypnosis. Each new thing I tried worked for a while, but then I'd fall off the wagon.

I tried to research what "willpower" was all about. Other than learning about Queen Victoria, I got nowhere.

Finally I learned a magic formula: I AM my will; when i have a strong sense of me, I have the ability to override impulses. A "strong sense of me" comes from high self esteem.

Casually put, when people have high self-esteem, they feel good about themselves. Slightly more rigorously put by psychologist Nathaniel Branden, self esteem is the experience of two beliefs: the belief that one is able, and the belief that one is valuable or worthy.

Imagine someone you know whom you believe has high self esteem. Doesn't that person give you the sense that he or she is confident in being able to meet life's demands? Isn't that person able to stand up and say, "Hey, I have rights around here!"?

The juicy question, of course, is where self esteem comes from. How do we get this magic potion?

Our parents and other people we look up to obviously make a difference. We reflect their views of us. If we are seen as valuable, for example, we come to believe that it's true.

But the big thing I learned--the really big thing--was that self esteem is very closely wrapped up with the ability to manage impulses. When we give in to impulses repeatedly, for example to lay down and enjoy a bottle of whiskey, we lower our self esteem. When we say no to little impulses, we strengthen our self esteem.

I first read about it in one of M. Scott Peck's books. Then it was confirmed for me by the oodles of research in the field of emotional intelligence. Impulse management is both a cause of and an expression of self esteem.

Want apple pie RIGHT NOW? Wait 15 minutes. See the escalator? Take the stairs. Parking space close to your target? Don't park there.

It's like practiced impulse control turns on a whole new circuit in the brain. Don't get anal about it, though. As my father once wrote in the autograph book he gave me for a holiday gift when i was ten years old, "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men."

Extended Mind

2009-01-14T16:05:00.000-05:00

Usually we assume that our minds are inside our body. Almost goes without saying. Where am I, if I am not in here?

Have you heard that scientists can now put a helmet-like thingy on someone's head and get that person to operate a computer -- just with their thoughts? Inside the helmet are sensors that read electrical signals right through the top of the head. It's a great invention that's inevitably going to make life a lot easier for paraplegics. To say the least.

I can't wait. Imagine just thinking you'd like to type this or that and having the words appear on the screen! Or, just changing the channel with a thought. Or ordering dinner in, while you're blind folded and your hands are tied. You'd have to pay for things using your credit card, but many delivery web sites can handle that. And you'd have to let the delivery person in, but many intercom systems can handle that too.

In fact, that's all rinky dink. How about you're at your desk, you use your thoughts to visit a web site that has a web cam in some hut deep in the jungle of who knows where--you bought some property there--the web cam reveals a tse tse fly buzzing around the lens of the camera. You think, "I should release my pet bird again; he's gotta be hungry." And bingo, a little cage opens, out flies the birdie, and it starts dinner. You're 10,000 miles away and you're addressing killing two birds with one stone, so to speak. With nothing but your thoughts.

Where is your mind now? Inside your body? I don't think so.

So, if that's your mind, extended way past the boundaries of your body, where exactly is your you? Are you still in that bag of mostly water?

Two Ways to Fight

2009-01-06T19:28:00.006-05:00

Lawyers in our system of law generally have to assume the "other side" may do everything possible to win. So, depending on how far things have gone down the path of a particular legal matter, lawyers often adopt the role of protector, and, potentially, combatant.

Of course, other parts of our society rely on a similarly adversarial system. For example, here in Canada, political parties go at it with their opponents, seeking to win at all costs.

The beauty of the system, it's believed, is that by "fighting it out", two parties reach a workable conclusion, presumably honouring both sides.

But it bugs me.

When people seek to win at all costs, we can find posturing, exaggeration, red herrings, pettiness, secrecy, artificial threats, unfair time delays, the deliberate obfuscation of the facts, and chest thumping activities intended to frighten.

If I had my druthers, rather than relying on a system of "win at all costs", I would prefer a system of "seek what's right".

Seeking what's right, when it's done in the context of two parties disagreeing, occurs when both sides: seek to hear and understand each others strong views; concede when valid counterpoints are argued; share a commitment to go the distance in the fight; fully disclose their agenda; and, expose their vulnerabilities--all in a quest to get to that synthesis of the two opposing starting positions.

Sometimes I ask myself, What makes one person go one way, and another person the other?

I'm pretty sure that when I fall into the more devilish mode, it's because I am stuck on at least one of blame, fear, or mistrust.

And sometimes, there are legitimate reasons to mistrust.

A good lawyer can save the day.

We Each have a Growing Edge

2009-01-05T07:46:00.000-05:00

If you drop a stone in a calm pool of water, the disturbance causes a series of ripples. One could call the outermost ripple, the one that's furthest from where the stone hit the surface, the "growing edge".

You have a growing edge too. Think of yourself as that whole series of expanding ripples in the pond. The outermost ripple is your growing edge, the extent of your growth to this point.

What kind of growth? Well, it's up to you. As a father, I am learning to balance involvement in the lives of my kids with their unique needs for space. I haven't mastered it yet.

As a facilitator, I am learning patience. I tend to keep charging forward on a topic or matter even though others see further opportunity for reflection. I know better and I'm trying to slow myself down, but, indeed, that's my growing edge as a facilitator.

What's your growing edge?

You probably have a bunch.

I have learned that there are three main phases involved in extending your growing edge. The first is the thing you are stuck on. In my case, I want to ask my kids too many questions--ultimately denying them the space they need. I have been stuck on that; old habits die hard, I guess. As for my impatience as a facilitator, I have been stuck on pursuing my own excitement for a topic without bringing others along, or even asking them if they are ready to move forward.

In this stuck phase, we don't even know of another possibility. Or, at least, we can't really simply just choose another possibility. We identify with the way we are.

But then comes something to educate us. We learn distinctions. We learn we are not stuck.
Perhaps somebody points out another possibility. Or we learn about the damage we have done from our stuck ways. What emerges from that learning is an unstuck person, someone who experiences the freedom to make other choices. This is the second phase.

In this second phase we have "disidentified" from being that stuck person and we find the freedom to be otherwise.

In the third phase we integrate the values of both previous orientations. I become a father who reads the signs and appropriately chooses to either ask away or back away. I become the facilitator who feels his desire to move forward and allows that to inform him of the need to check in with the group.

This is a handy way of seeing how growth works.

It even applies to classroom learning. Somebody walks into a session with the habit of handling the objections of other people in a certain fashion (phase one); he or she learns about the downsides of that habit and about another way of doing it that avoids downsides (phase two); and finally, with practice, integrates the motivation behind the habituated methodology with the modified methodology.

The neat thing is that certain things can be done by a facilitator (or coach, or educator, or therapist, or guide) to cause the discovery of the phase one stuckness, to smooth the way to disidentification, and to facilitate the integration of the two. When these things are done gracefully, it's a beautiful thing.

Explaining So People Understand

2008-12-29T13:13:00.000-05:00

A friend of mine is a teacher who, in my opinion, doesn't teach very well at all. I feel bad for his students.

For example, I play board games and card games with my friend and I consistently notice that when it's time for him to teach me a new game, I have no idea what he's talking about.

It's not that he's not smart. In fact, he's extraordinarily smart. And I hope I'M not the problem, for heaven's sake.

I'm pretty sure it's that he provides no context--no starting point, like, "the goal is to finish first," or, "the idea is to move your pieces in a way that blocks me from moving mine," or even, "there are four things to know about this game."

Nope. My friend starts off with something like, "four bedraggles equals a missed turn."

Context is so darned important.

It's the thing that tells somebody how to interpret what's coming.

Imagine if the title of this particular blog entry was, "context is king!". I ask you, would that have been a better title? I believe it's true that context is king--but that's more about me and my beliefs than it is about you. Who cares about me?

The title actually chosen for this entry was meant to direct your attention to something that maybe you wonder about sometimes. Maybe you wonder about it because you communicate for a living, or because you know somebody who often seems unclear.

Whether it's how to edit a spreadsheet, why your product is special, how you would like your employee to tweak his or her approach, or how to operate the microwave: I believe the key to explaining things is to start with the other person's point of view.

So I say things that line up as precisely as I can with the perspective, or attitude, or challenge of the other person.

Think of how little kids learn to report something. They say stuff like, "You know how Beulah always ..."

"Yes," you say.

"And you know how she ..."

"Yes," you say, rolling right along.

"Well, she did it again, only this time..."

I think grown-ups, on the other hand, often mistakenly assume shared context.

And it's "tough noogies" for us.

When God created the universe...

2008-12-04T11:51:00.000-05:00

When God created the universe, she didn't expect a payback.

That's my favourite line. It was uttered by Sid Kessler in conversation with me (though i inserted the letter 's' to form the word 'she')

Before the big bang, i don't think there was anybody back there, rubbing their hands together, saying, "okay, let's see what i get out of this."

Nope.

The big bang was a unidirectional outflow of creation.

So, the key to selling? Leading? Coaching? Educating?

Alignment with the flow of the universe: unidirectional momentum to give, create, expand.

On the Fridge Door

2008-12-04T04:30:00.001-05:00

Over 15 years ago I ran my training company from my basement. That's where i would sit thinking about, and designing the content for, the training programs I would deliver.

One time I was designing a program about how successful sales people operate. Part of that program was about goals -- not only the need to have them but the need to stay focused on them. So I created the sentence, "The more often you glance at the goal, the straighter the path." The idea, for example, is that if you are walking in a field towards a large tree or a tower or something, the more often you looked up to check for the tree, the straighter your path to the tree would be.

A couple of months ago, more than fifteen years after I designed and delivered that training program, a colleague of mine received an email. As do many email senders, at the bottom of the email, in her signature area, the sender had a quotation, "The more often you glance at the goal, the straighter the path."

My colleague, a trainer who has periodically delivered that same message to other groups, recognized the sentence. He was excited for me. He ran to my office with a printout of the email. We shared a lovely moment about the effect we get to have in our industry. He wrote back to her asking about the quotation in the signature section of her messages--where it came from, why she chose THAT saying.

She replied, "I don't know where I got it from, but it's very important to me. I have used it as a guide for the longest time. I even have it posted on my refrigerator door at home. Isn't it neat?"

On Running a Company

2008-12-03T19:54:00.000-05:00

I run a company. We’ve been in business for 25 years and now have thirty employees. Have I learned anything as a business owner about running a business? Here are my nine main things.

1. You’ve heard before some version of the “customer is king”. I don’t just mean that the customer is always right (though, in some way, it’s true). I mean that everything you do has to be about bringing value to the customer. Be all about the customer. I subscribe to the dictum (actually, I think I simply bastardized somebody else’s dictum) “bring value and they will buy.” Probably it would be more precise to say, “bring a sought-after value that also happens to differentiate you.” You need to be better than your competitors and there needs to be demand for what you have to offer.

2. Generally customers will buy from you if: they trust you, you “get” them, you are better than everybody else, what you sell is worth at least what you are selling it for. If you can’t nail these things, you’ve got a problem.

3. Integrity for integrity’s sake. I used to say, “don’t lie because you’ll just get caught and blah, blah, blah. Now I actually think the key is not to lie, because it’s wrong. Maybe I’m getting old. Of course, it’s tough for some people to be open and true in what they say because, at the core, they have something to hide. For example, if you haven’t actually invented the product you’re trying to sell, then it’s tough. Or if you sell pens and you know your pens are no better than the competitor’s pens, and you know you are, in truth, no better than the other people at moving pens efficiently and lovingly, that’s a problem. Maybe you would be better off confronting the question around HOW you can differentiate yourself, rather than hiding your truth.

4. Data, oh data. Information is central to running a business. There’s a mechanical aspect underneath the surface of a business. A commercial enterprise is like a machine that produces output efficiently, but only if the machine is fueled and maintained. If you don’t have fuel (money) to keep the machine running, then it stops. So you have to keep your eye on fuel levels—both in terms of what’s currently available and what fuel is on its way. You have to make sure the machine is operating efficiently (avoid too many meetings, too many hands, too little getting done), otherwise fuel is just wasted and not available when you need it. Inefficiency can also reduce the quality or purity of output. So, on a weekly basis I look at no less than thirty pieces of fresh data; things like weekly and year-to-date sales, when we would run out of money if sales simply stopped, how much people owe us, and how fast they pay us, how much we’re getting for our services, how much profit we make with each thing we do. In a complicated week, there are hundreds of data points to examine. Without data, and the ability to interpret it, to predict the future with it, a business leader is quite vulnerable.

5. As a boss, it’s tough to forfeit control; so it’s good to be busy at other things, lest you get in people’s way. It’s funny, when things slow down for me, I step out of my office, and see people engaged in meetings, briskly walking in concentration, busy at their desks doing things I don’t even know about. It’s not “ha, ha” funny. Just weird. I’m in control and out of control. A key for me is to rest in that place.

6. It’s important to say “no” to people sometimes. If there is money available to them, they will spend it. Nature fills a vacuum, especially when there is money available. But you have to say no nicely.

7. Perhaps it’s just me, but I think it’s important to pay close attention to culture—how people are feeling about their work and what the organization is up to. It’s important that they get along with one another. A mentally healthy environment lubricates things, optimizes retention, creates happy customers.

8. Anticipating problems and putting them to rest is awfully important. So you have to reserve time to think. That’s really important. Similarly, hiring people who have been around the block (though they do ultimately leave or get tired while still on the job) makes a big difference. Experienced people make educated decisions. Because they have seen things before, they tend to have more mental bandwidth to consider nuance. So they make better judgements.

9. Constantly training people to get better at things is smart. It aids employee retention, it elevates the quality of your output, it brings value to those you lead, it helps in managing succession. So teach people, all the time. Coaching, mentoring, group-based education, in any of many contemporary media—this is the information age, after all.

I DO have a problem

2008-11-30T14:14:00.000-05:00

Apparently one of the newest ways to help folks with obsessive-compulsive disorder is to encourage them to say, for example, while they are furiously washing their hands in order to clear away germs, "I do have a problem, but it is not with germs, it is my OCD."

Think about that. You're obsessing over something so much so that all of your attention is consumed by it--you practically BECOME it, it's so all-consuming. And then, from somewhere else inside you, you offer yourself release; you recognize that you are not that obsession. You are someone WITH an obsession.

Disidentification is a beautiful thing.

Sometimes I am lost in my job. I have become my job. Sometimes I AM my fear. Or, I am my toothache. Or, I am, walking down this street, with my coolest gear, one cool guy.

I once read (Ferrucci) that we become whatever crosses our consciousness. Neat.

For me, this is veritable proof that I am an illusion.

And it's a profound gift. Choice. Release. Freedom.