Navigating Corporate Politics

Today I posted a revised version of my article -- Corporate Power and Politics:  Navigating the Minefield.

I made a decision last week with respect to this article.  I combined it with a series of thirty or so blog posts, and created a short book on Corporate Politics.  Because most of the raw material already existed, I was able to complete a first draft last week, and already have it out for proof-reading.  I'm hoping to have it available in a few weeks.

As a part of the process, I updated the article, making numerous tweeks and improvements.   While the basic theme is the same, as are the poltical tactics, I did clean up the power/politics and formal/informal system concepts quite a bit.

So I invite readers to take a look.  And comment.  I would love to hear about some additional political tactics people are aware of, or a different way of looking at the political environment.

Clock Watchers -- Employee Behaviors Managers Hate #8

This final disliked behavior needs limited explanation.  Based on my observations, it probably rises to a higher level than #8 for some managers, so the reader should be aware -- just because it's at the bottom of my list, doesn't mean it's at the bottom of everyone's.

Traditionally, the term Clock Watcher describes an employee who is out the front doors of their workplace within seconds (really, within a few minutes) of the end of the day.  And truly, I've seen this exact behavior often enough to know it is widely practiced, and widely dispised.  But a Clock Watcher can also be someone who doesn't arrive until the exact first minute of the day (or later), or insists on stretching breaks.  Generally, a clock watcher is someone who gives off a palpable sense of Not Wanting to Be Here.

Managers often expect this from lower level employees, and are pleasantly surprised when they find employees at those levels who don't do it.  For professionals, or, heaven forbid, other manager, clock watching will definitely get you downgraded.  Even if you get all your work done.  Even if you avoid all the other hated behaviors.  Even if you're a star in other respects.  And it also irritates your peers who aren't clock watchers themselves.

The only way you get a (partial) pass on the judgment, is if your direct supervisor is a clock watcher, too.  Even then, there's probably danger in the behavior -- your manager probably rationalizes his or her behavior, but is much more likely to condemn yours.  And your manager isn't the only person watching, either.  Some of those other people, like a boss'es boss, or a current peer but future manager, will have an impact on your career.

The clock watcher label may be a bit unfair.  There may be legitimate reasons you leave work at precisely 5:00:02 every day.  Perhaps you have to pick up children.  Or maybe there is a recurring doctor's appointment.  Most people will cut you some slack for occassional on-time (or even early) departures.  The label usually comes from repeated observations.  And a the more tightly timed the incidents are, the more likely someone will connect them and label the person as a clock watcher.

If you really are a clock watcher, you have two choices -- accept that the behavior will impact perceptions of your value as an employee and move on, or stop doing it.  You aren't likely to convince people you've reformed without completely erradicating the behavior.  But getting rid of it should be fairly easy -- don't rush out the door, stay an extra five minutes or more.  Don't abruptly end activities or conversations just because it almost time to go.  Drop by your manager's office a few minutes after quitting time, just to make sure he see's you're there.

If you aren't a clock watcher in your heart, but are worried you might be labeled as such because of some outside obligation, there are some things you can do to help your reputation.

1. Let everyone know why you have to leave, and express the fact that you don't like it.
2. Put in some extra time -- breaks, lunch, early arrival, Saturday, something.
3. Send some work emails from home, particularly at late or off hours -- it helps communicate your commitment to the company.
4. When you can, stay late.  Make sure people see you (particularly your supervisor), when you do so.
5. When you must leave early, park somewhere where people won't see you walking to the vehicle or driving away -- this is a major irritant to many people.
6. Don't make it obvious at your workspace that you've gone -- keep your briefcase/purse/lunchbox or other personal items you carry every day stashed in a drawer so it isn't obvious you've left.  Give your workspace a permanent work-in-progress look whether you're in or not.  Leave your computer on with something up on the screen all the time.

While some of these tips might seem a little deceptive, they're fair if you truly are at risk of being mislabeled.  Managers are looking for dedication, commitment and horsepower from their employees.  Those willing to go the extra mile, and put in the necessary time without complaint or pre-condition are positively perceived.  Those who clearly don't want to be there, will be downgraded quickly.

Note added 4-4-14

Surprisingly, this post has become possibly the most controversial of all the ones I've published.  I suppose this is because while person can be in denial over whether they're "clueless" or not, clock watchers know exactly what they're doing.  One or two people that I'm aware of were actually angered by what I wrote above -- probably more were, as most people who don't like what they see just move on.  As a result of the "controversy," I recently added a new post called Clock Watchers Redux, which expands upon this subject.

Idea People -- Employee Behaviors Managers Hate #7

I had a tough time coming up with a label that adequately describes this hated employee behavior -- nothing really got right to the heart of what an idea person does.

After all, being an "idea person" doesn't sound undesirable.  And without new ideas, won't businesses stagnate and ultimately fail?  Absolutely.

The problem with the idea person, is that's all they typically offer.  Ideas.  They stop at that point, leaving the remaining 99% of the work of implementation to management.

This behavior used to drive me crazy -- why would it seem reasonable to these folks that the ten to fifteen percent of the organization's employees within management, should be expected to do all the work when it comes to moving the organization forward.

And, oddly enough, in most cases the "idea" has already been conceived.  In most cases it has probably been discussed, prioritized and put on a back burner because there were no resources available to pursue it.  If you find yourself tempted to say something along the lines of:  "Can't management see that this needs to be done?", they probably have seen it.  They probably just can't get to solving it now.

Idea people -- at least the type that ONLY suggest ideas -- are a dime a dozen.  Give me an employee that can conceive of the idea, AND do some of, most of, or all of the work to make it a reality.  Management needs ideas WITH implementation horsepower.  Not just ideas.  Someone that can make the new idea happen is worth ten times what the idea generator is worth.  At least that's the way I see it, and I suspect most other managers see it that way as well.

There is a subset of the "idea people" category, that deserve a special comment.  I'll call them "Bad Idea People".  They're the employees that suggest strange, inappropriate, or completely off-target ideas, and then get angry when nobody jumps up and implements them.  Being a "Bad Idea Person" requires a special capacity for ignorance or stupidity.  And as one of my business mentors was fond of saying:  You can't fix stupid.

In my experience, a "Bad Idea Person" will never recognize themself -- it becomes the manager's job to find this especially annoying employee type.  I don't know of any solution to this type of person, other than sending them on their way to find employment elsewhere.  Their managers will never satisfy them, and they will become progressively more disengaged until they are bringing down the whole team.  Maybe others have had successes rehabilitating "bad idea people", but I certainly haven't.

As an employee -- be the implementor AND the idea person.  This will certainly make you stand out in your organization as a major contributor.

The Hiders -- Employee Behaviors Managers Hate #6

It's pretty clear what's going through the head of a "Hider" -- they're afraid.  Perhaps afraid of being blamed for the project that's headed for the ditch.  Perhaps afraid of the damage a failed effort will do to their reputation.  Or ego.

So when faced with a project going the wrong way, predictably, they hide it.  Or at the least, they look the other way, hoping an increasingly unlikely miracle will come along to rescue the situation.  Perhaps even planning their exit from the company before anyone figures out what's really going on.

In my experience, the miracle never comes.  As a manager, I knew "if it can go wrong, it probably will".  And the only way to prevent failure, was to become aware of problems early enough to do something about them.  Because of this, the "hider" was one of my worst enemies.  And the worst "hiders" were the ones that worked for me.

Managers do a lot to encourage this behavior.  Many managers (dare I say, most), seemed to be obsessed with what I like to call "the search for the guilty, and the punishment of the innocent".  They seem to feel every problem has a name attached to it, and their mission is to find that name and exact revenge -- public ridicule, formal discipline, firing.  In such an environment, is it any surprise an employee would hide a disaster, and hope for a miracle?

But not all managers are serial punishers, and employees continue to hide things, despite having a kinder, gentler boss.  I can only conclude they fear to admit the situation even to themselves.

In my experience, managers tend to be the most flagrant "hiders", trying to bury their problems to protect their reputations with higher-ups.  When a fairly senior manager engages in hiding behavior, and they ultimately crash and burn, the situation is often extremely ugly.  This is why when a senior person leaves under "stressed" circumstances, you can expect to find a large mess in their wake.

And while "hiders" are one of the more hated behaviors employees engage in, the other extreme is also annoying (although less damaging).  Those would be the employees that see danger at every turn, and doubt any project can be completed as envisioned.

So to walk a path that avoids "hiding" (or the opposite extreme) one must follow the golden mean -- calling attention to real issues, but not going overboard.  Just to be safe, I recommend employees raise issues when in doubt, rather than ignoring them.  If you find yourself needing an unlikely event to happen to save your project, you're in "hider" territory.

If you enjoy my blog posts, check out my novels Leverage and Incentivize.  There I portray some of the management and employee behviors I blog about, including some of the employee behaviors that drive managers crazy.

The Blamers -- Employee Behaviors Managers Hate #5

"Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan."

It's basic human nature to want to be associated with successes, and distance oneself from failures.  Everyone wants to think of themselves as winners.  Blamers -- the fifth behavior managers hate to see in their employees -- take this to an extreme.  They will find a reason to fob off the responsibility for anything that didn't go well to someone or something else -- often times the manager they are working for.

A typical Blamer exchange might sound something like this:

Manager:  Why haven't you gotten that project done?

Blamer:  You didn't tell me it was a priority.

Manager:  We discussed it at the staff meeting.  Everyone knew we needed this done ASAP.

Blamer:  Sally hasn't given me her input yet.

Manager:  Why didn't you go get it?

Blamer:  Because of the other project you told me to work on...

And so on, and so on.  No matter what the manager says, the employee will not take ownership for any shortcomings in their own performance.  They always find an externality that prevented them from doing what they were supposed to do.  As a manager, I always preferred to hear the employee say, "Jeez, I guess I forgot about it.", or even "I had to leave early yesterday to take my kid to the doctor."  Those kinds of things can be worked around in the future, but flat out denials and blaming can not.

And some managers, particularly those who are less experienced or  those not good at identifying a Blamer, will internalize the employees critiques, taking more and more on their own shoulders until the situation becomes downright absurd.  If you're a manager, and you feel like you're responsible for everything, and your employees have very little on their shoulders, you might be getting played by one or more Blamers.

Now, I'm not saying taking responsibility is easy, but it is what adults do.

So if you find yourself frequently blaming others or external forces for things not happening, you should try to change your thinking.  Look at your own failings first.  Take ownership for those things that are in your control.  Be a grown up.  Otherwise, you look like a child to your managers, and you significantly reduce their opinion of your performance.

The Clueless -- Employee Behaviors Managers Hate #4

The vast majority of employees believe they are in the top ten percent of performers at their company. 

I wanted to find the exact reference for this statistic, but a quick search of the internet didn't result in finding it.  Because of that, I can't quote the exact percentages.  The number I've heard is ninety percent, and based on my personal experience, I believe it.

How can this be?

In short, because employees are reasonably good a judging others, but exceptionally poor at judging themselves.

Why?  On the surface it seems like a person should understand their own performance better than the performance of anyone else.  

But they don't.  

My theory?  When thinking about one's self, each person has both an internal and external view point.  When thinking about others, only the external view exists.  The internal viewpoint includes knowledge of the motives, explanations, challenges which the person has to deal with or overcome.  The internal viewpoint colors the external perceptions of self in a way that can't happen with other people.

An exampe -- you fail to win a new account for your employer.  The external viewpoint others have of you is as a failure, at least on that project.  End of story.  You, however, know that your manager assigned eight other projects to you.  You also know that calling on that particular customer is very difficult -- they are condescending, and are already predisposed to buy from someone else.  If you bring these points up, they tend to sound like excuses to your peers or bosses.  Or even whining.

So which view is correct?  Both.  But if you are measuring who the company performers are, only the external viewpoint matters.  Same thing happens with the coaches top tier of sports teams -- the win is what matters, not the struggle, the obstacles that must be overcome, etc.  As an employee, you are judged in the same fashion -- if not by your managers, then certainly by your peers.

You want to be realistic about your own performance?  You have to ignore the internal viewpoint -- something that is hard to do.

Because of the distortion of the internal view, it's not hard to understand why such a large percentage of people seem to be clueless about their own performance.

The part of the whole dynamic that irritates your boss happens when she has to give you feedback.

Now I know that a lot of managers will wimp out and inflate the employees performance -- it is the path of least resistance.  Most managers don't enjoy confronting their employees.

If the manager actually tries to tell the employee how it really is, they tend to get defensive, complain, become angry, argue, or go into denial.  Then, once the discussion is finished, a good portion of those employees run back to their co-workers looking for affirmation of their performance.  And the other employees, also wanting to avoid conflict, usually agree.

But what's really real here?  The kindly words of a co-worker, or the harder position of the manager?

So if you want to avoid being clueless about your performance, then...

...Try -- really hard -- to see how your performance looks to the outside world.  Do your best to ignore the internal viewpoint.

...When your manager has the courage to tell you the truth, listen with an open mind, and try to figure out what you need to do to improve.  Don't justify.  Don't argue.  Don't go into denial.

...Don't fool yourself into believing that just because co-workers agree with you, you're right and the manager is wrong.

...Don't stick around if you're a horrible match for the job, or the manager's expectations.  You might never realistically make it into the high performer category (assuming that's important to you) because of something related to your basic personality or the way you think or work.  Those kinds of things usually can't be changed -- at least not by very much.

And managers -- suck it up and be honest.  Giving employees an overly rosey review just perpetuates the cluelessness which you dislike.

The Entitled - Employee Behaviors Managers Hate #3

"The Entitled" employee is the second cousin of the "Fairness Whiner".  The primary difference is in the point of reference -- "Fairness Whiners" endlessly compare themselves to others, while "The Entitled" just seem to think they deserve it because...well, just because.  There doesn't appear to be a hard line between the two behaviors, and one can easily leak into the other.

Manager:  So you think you should get {insert here object of employee's desires -- pay, office, recognition, etc.}

Employee:  Yes.  I deserve it.  I really am that good. [Entitlement mentality]

Manager:  Nobody else gets that.

Employee:  Not true -- I heard Fred in accounting did.  Twelve years ago. [Fairness Whining]

The cross-over can be seamless.  The distinction, as I mentioned earlier, is in the motivation behind the employee's behavior.

So why do people feel entitled?

I must admit, I'm at a bit of a loss to explain it.  Perhaps they lose track of the basic give and take relationship between employer and employee -- the company pays you money, and you provide effort, knowledge or other values in return.  If you don't like the deal, as the employee, you are always have the right to cancel it and move on to something else.

Perhaps they don't realize how lucky they are already -- a job with a company in the United States already puts an employee in rarefied air when it comes to luck, just ask almost anyone living and struggling to survive in the developing world.

Perhaps they missed out on some of those childhood lessons that should have taught them rewards need to earned, rather than complained into existence.  Or demanded.  Or campaigned for.

Or maybe it's something completely different.  Something I'm missing.  

Maybe they really are entitled to something better than what they have now.  Maybe they are that good.  Maybe their employer is taking advantage of them.

Entitled Employee, if you really think you are that good -- then take action.  Don't complain, go find another job with someone who better appreciates your talents.  Don't poison others, take your future into your own hands.

My thoughts and philosophies on management, employment, corporations and corporate corruption are interwoven in my novels.  You can learn more by clicking on Leverage: A Corporate Thriller, or Incentivize here.

Blinder Wearers - Employee Behaviors Managers Hate #2

"That's not my job."

If you've ever been tempted to utter those words in the workplace, take my advice and don't.  They are the hallmark of the second most hated employee behavior -- Blinder Wearers.

When I was managing, I tolerated this behavior in hourly workers, dispised it in professionals, and fired managers who were afflicted with it.  Blinder Wearers make little to no effort to understand how what they do contributes (or fails to contribute) to the overall success of the business.  Or perhaps they intentionally avoid understanding -- at least that is the way it often looked to me -- a purposeful misunderstanding of the big picture, usually in order to minimize personal workload, and avoid responsibility.

Blinder Wearers seem to believe that at the heart of the company lies bureaucracy.  If you believe bureaucracy should run the company, I suppose you might also conclude that every minute action that must happen for success can be laid out in incredibly detailed job descriptions and targets.  That your goals can be set at the beginning of the year, and that it is the responsibility of management to provide everything you need to accomplish those goals, and achieve all the details in the documentation.

In fact, the blinder wearer seems to think that everything outside of a well defined (and almost always tiny) box is the responsibility of management.  If management could actually operate this way, they would have to outnumber actual individual contributors in the business by ten to one.

Note to blinder wearers:  Nobody knows how it is all going to work out in advance.  Nobody can build a durable bureaucracy of the type you appear to want in today's rapidly changing world.  Nobody can define the boundaries around your job the way you seem to need them too.  And even if they could -- no for-profit company is going to expend the resources to do it!  They would collapse under the weight of their own administrative costs.

Managers are looking for employees who understand (or at least try to understand) the big picture.  They are looking for people who can step into a situation and handle it, not hand it off to someone else, and let the resulting failure be attributed to the white spaces between job descriptions.  They are looking for employees who can roll with the changes.  In short, they want employees who don't waste their time, don't get hung up on trivial details, and can figure out what needs to be done and do it.  All on their own, or at least with minimal guidance.

To employees everywhere -- don't be a blinder wearer.  Get informed, get involved, and become a part of solving your organization's problems.  Only then can you become a highly valued contributor and a candidate for promotion.

Tom

To see how the corporate environment can nurture politics, crime and violence, check out my novels:  LEVERAGE, and INCENTIVIZE.

Fairness Complainers - Employee Behaviors Managers Hate #1

How many times have you heard someone say "it's not fair!"?

I'll bet quite a lot.  Plenty if you're a parent.  Probably even more if you're a manager.

After listening to similar comments many times over the years, I've come to a few conclusion about "fairness" and about the "fairness complainers".  And yes, I think these same observations apply to the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters, too.

1.  "Fair" is not objective truth.  It is relative.  Relative to expectations.  Relative to others.  Relative to the attitude you decide to adopt.

• If you expect to get that promotion, but don't, it isn't "fair".  If you expect to be paid more, but aren't, it isn't "fair".  An employee's expectations set the fairness bar -- and where are those expectations set?  Usually based on looking at what happens with others...
• Susie got the corner office, but you have no window.  "Not Fair!"  And Susie has been here less time!  Forget about the fact that the manager didn't want to re-arrange the entire office, or wanted Susie closer to Larry, whom she works with regularly -- it doesn't matter, it isn't "fair".
• Employees regularly overestimate their performance (I think the statistic was 80% of employees believe they are in the top 10% of performers), which often causes them to think they are entitled to more, more, more.  If you don't understand how you stack up, and you look for opportunities to be offended -- you're going to find them.

2.  Some whine, others are silently offended, some seem to avoid the fixation on "fairness".  No question, managers dislike the whiners most.  They make people around them unhappy (either sympathically, through heightened sensitivity to fairness, or because the complainers can be so annoying), they chew up large amounts of management time trying to figure out how to make it "fairer", and they usually never stop -- simply moving on to the next complaint.  But even silent fairness protesters can be a problem -- because they quit one day unexpectedly, and their managers don't understand what they "did" or "didn't do" to cause it.

3.  The constant comparison to others is behind "fairness" complaints.  In the age of information, if you want to find an unfavorable comparison out there to support your "unfairness" complaint, it isn't hard.  I remember employees scouring the internet to find pay or benefit comparisons that made their situation look unfavorable.  Talk about searching for a reason to be unhappy!

So, employee, make a different comparison.  How does your lot in life compare to someone who is out of work?  Or homeless?  Or living in a place where they have no opportunities regardless of ability?  If you must compare, compare against the bulk of humanity, rather than finding the two or three examples of people who someone received more.

Or better yet, just ask yourself "Am I happy with the deal I'm getting?"  If "yes", then be happy and stop complaining.  If "no" then ask for what you need, but be prepared to go elsewhere to get it, if the answer is no.

And stop treating your managers like they are surrogate parents whose sole purpose in life is to keep everything even-steven.  Remember, even your parents told you "life isn't fair."

Behaviors Managers Hate in their Employees

I've decided to change gears a bit.  I've blogged extensively about the way corporations can dehumanize and disengage employees.  About how the nature and structure of large corporations create a political environment where innocent bystanders can be run over.

But what about the other side?  What drives managers crazy?  Why do they perpetually seem to have so much trouble "measuring up" to the expectations of their subordinates?

This will be a series of posts about the eight most irritating behaviors subordinates engage in.  The rankings will be strictly from my perspective -- a combination of the fequency with which I saw the behaviors, and the intensity of my negative reaction.  In this post, I'll provide the list, and in subsequent posts I'll explore each characteristic.  See if you can find yourself in here (I was guilty of at least one of these behaviors).

Top Eight Behaviors Managers Hate in their Employees.

1.  Fairness whiners -- complaining about anything and everything because you think somebody got more/better of something than you did.

2.  Blinder wearers -- no understanding (or even interest) in how your particular cog fits into the company machine.  Constantly identifying everything you do in terms of "in the box" or "outside the box".

3.  Sense of Entitlement -- never appreciating anything nice done for long, instead quickly slipping into looking for what you're entitled to next.  Free morning donuts quickly become "hey, where's my donuts?", and "why don't they give us coffee, too?"

4.  Clueless about own worth -- most employees believe they are in their company's top ten percent of performers.  Why?  Because they have no idea how their performance really stacks up.  When you try to tell them, they often become angry or even belligerent.

5.  Blamers -- nothing is ever their fault.  There is always an external cause, an uncontrollable mitigating  circumstance, an excuse.

6.  Hiders -- watch as a disaster unfolds, but never tell anyone.  Perhaps clueless.  Perhaps afraid of catching blame.  Perhaps hoping for a miracle to occur that will fix it all.

7.  Idea Spouters -- "Management ought to..."  These people are quick to spit out an idea (often unworkable), and quick to blame when what they envisioned doesn't happen.  They seem to never volunteer for the harder work of actually implementing.

8.  Clock Watchers -- Never willing to commit an extra minute to the cause, but often quick to ask for flexibility for their personal issues.  When it's crunch time, you can't depend on these folks.

Certainly this list isn't exhaustive, but these were the behaviors that often drove me crazy.  Feel free to offer additions as comments below...

Tom

Fear - Part 3

Revenge may be a dish best served cold -- I wouldn't know about that. Reflection is also a dish best served cold, or perhaps 'detached' rather than 'cold' is a better way to think of it.

In two previous blog entries, I talked about Fear. How fear permeated so much of what I did at work. How fear negatively motivated me. How I had a kind of love-hate relationship with fear.

After nearly 9 weeks away from the source of the fear, I'm very aware of its influence and the degree to which it engulfed me. Even when I had the financial ability to quit work, I still was driven by fear of criticism, failure, labeling, and fear of so many other things.

In the last 9 weeks I've also become more aware of another negative emotion that was present in large quantities while I was working -- anger. Anger can be a useful emotion, when it drives us to act decisively and effectively. But like a lot of emotions -- too much of a useful or good thing can be bad. And I now know that I had to much of it.

My anger was mostly suppressed when I worked. But suppressed emotions need to find ways to escape. I had a few methods of coping.

1. Risk taking -- hey, I wasn't white water rafting the Zambizi River, or hiking in the backcountry in Canyonlands just because it was fun.

2. Escaping on trips -- to focus on something exclusively, and put aside the things causing the anger.

3. Listening to hard driving music -- I'd scream my lungs out in the car sometimes to let off steam.

4. A short fuse at home -- unfair as it was, I was transferring anger to my family.

5. Complaining -- my apologies to those whose ears I bent unwillingly to listen to a rant over something. I was more aware of this outlet than any of them, and tried to at least moderate it some....

So what caused the anger? I'm not as sure about that. Feeling trapped, perhaps? Any kind of criticism leveled in any but the softest way? Feeling unappreciated for having to deal with the Fear? Probably a bit of all these.

And don't think these feelings just dry up and go away the minute that the source is removed. My emotional reactions to the world developed over a pretty long period, during which there was very little deep change in my life. Those patterns will take some time to wear down and change. But I can feel them beginning to thaw now after 9 weeks away.

Here's to a fear reduced and anger reduced future!

Fear - Part 2

I thought I was pretty clever in the first part of this post. I prattled on about how fear was used in the work environment, and its necessity or its 'unnecessity' (my apologies to Shakespeare for that one!). Did anyone notice that I didn't really address what I'm afraid of?

Sure, there are some hints of it in some of the blogs I have already written, but there is nothing like stating things openly to clarify and put a fine point on them. So here goes -- my biggest fears, at least the ones I know about so far....
* Confrontation. Especially where I don't feel prepared to defend myself. Especially with those in positions of authority. Am I the only one who replays confrontations over and over again in my mind thinking about what I should have said/done?
* Disappointing others. Especially those whose opinions I value. The usual initial response here is to blame someone else or external circumstances.
* Ridicule. I even dislike seeing someone ridicule a third party, because I can picture myself in the same position. This is normally done behind people's backs and can't be easily defended against.
* Isolation. I need affiliation and friendships, and fear not having them or losing them.
* Losing. I've caught myself over the years deselecting activities or goals because I'm afraid I will lose if I play. It certainly seems self-defeating, and this one I'm able to manage better than the other ones, when I recognize it.
* Getting older. Seeing possibilities close off unexplored (I will never be a rock star now!) because of age, reduced faculties, or just plain running out of time.

Looking over the list, much of it deals with my life in the context of the approval or lack of approval of others. That is my green eyed monster. So knowing it is out there what do I do? Confront it (Ha, like that is going to happen -- see bullet point number one. I don't do confrontation, at least not readily)? Make peace with it and accommodate it in my choices? Understand where it comes from -- is it in the foundation of who I am, or is it the result of some baggage I picked up along the way? Something else?

Hey, I'm taking suggestions, if anybody has any....

Fear - Part 1

 This is a blog post from my vault -- one which received positive feedback when it was originally published.  There are three segments which I will post over the next week or so.  Enjoy!

How much of our behavior is motivated by fear? This is a question that I've been contemplating quite a bit over the past few weeks. I certainly see it in my own actions. If I had to put a percentage on it, I would say that 60% of what I did at work was motivated by fear -- most of it an avoidance reaction. I was working through BS tasks and reporting on them, not because I saw them as important or worthwhile, but instead simply because I was avoiding criticism, complaint, public humiliation or some other negative consequence.

The ugly part of it is -- it works! Fear definitely generates energy and action. People will go to great lengths to prevent being exposed to those situations where they experience fear. I've wondered if the most successful leaders need to tap into fear in order to drive action. It certainly seems commonplace.

I've been reasonably close to three successful corporate leaders. Based on the normal judgment of the world, the most 'fear inspiring' of the three was the most successful. The least 'fear inspiring' was second most successful, with the mid-range utilizer of fear as a motivational tool being the least successful. A sample size of three, however, doesn't prove much, and all three of these men went to the 'fear well' at least on occasion.

When I further reflect on the great bosses I've had, and those that allowed me to experience the greatest level of satisfaction with my work, the number one top boss never used fear. In fact, this individual created an environment where I was his partner in trying to accomplish the company goals, rather than a subordinate who should be worried about how every expression of thought would play to him. I wanted to come in to work each day because as a team, we were engaged in fighting battles together.

I contrast that with my last position, where I felt the boss had designed a monthly 'arena event' (too much Spartacus recently, I guess), where someone was ritualistically slaughtered. The trick was to try to be uber-prepared, so that it wasn't you! Despite the fact that I didn't have to be at the company, and hence had a lot less on the line, I trembled at the onset of every one of these meetings. And I could feel the fear (and testosterone) in the air each time as well.

Most of the people in the room hated it. If anyone didn't it was because they were not really in the arena (yes, corporate staffers, I'm talking about you!). My question, after seeing so much of this in Corporate America is -- is it necessary? Is it somehow an essential element of success? In the absence of fear as a motivator, do people slack off to a degree that they are easily taken down by a hungrier competitor?

My gut says no -- it isn't a key element of success. But then why is it so common?

If you find my blog posts provacative, then check out my novel LEVERAGE.  Available in paperback at:  https://www.createspace.com/3646246, or eBook at:  http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/88909.

Commodity Products

I can't count the number of times during my years working in large corporations that I heard a CEO, or some other senior executive, proclaim a market segment or niche to be "too small to be interesting".  Hell, I'm sure I said it plenty of times myself.

Corporate management is obsessed with growth.  As one of my mentors once quipped "Growth covers a multitude of sins".  And he was right, it does.  Sloppy practices, inefficiencies, bad decisions -- they all can be made to look small by rapid growth rates.

And shareholders love growth, too.  It is the most important factor in determining the value of a business after it's current earnings.  "How fast is it growing?" I often heard.  Faster growth begets higher multiples, which begets improved stock price, which begets executive rewards.

But when you're already really big, it takes BIG growth to move the needle.  And because of that, executives are usually focused on doing BIG deals in BIG markets, with the intentions of capturing BIG share.  And big markets tend to share a common characteristic -- there are lots of competitors in them, and those competitors inevitably pull prices down to the lowest common denominator.

Now this sin is by no means universal in big companies.  A few larger corporations seem to realize that the more attractive markets tend to be those where there are limited competitors and fewer price pressures.  They would rather do multiple small deals, placing many smaller bets, and hope to capitalize on these juicier opportunities.  But getting growth this way isn't easy.

Most large corporations believe they need to leverage their administrative costs .  And so it is a rare to find a large corporation properly staffed to pursue many smaller niche markets.  And ever rarer to find one that can consistently integrate those opportunities into their existing management framework.

Small companies, however, tend to live in such small spaces.  They develop unique skills and capabilities specifically to exploit niche markets.  They aren't as obsessed with growth, and are willing to be more patient, knowing their future is much more secure in a small corner of the market than buffeted about in the midst of commodity product price wars.

Once a large corporation has a commodity product mentality, they inevitably think of all their products in terms of ever lower production costs through scale, driven by customer demands for ever lower prices.  Should, by some stroke of luck, such a company end up with a niche business filled with opportunity for high profits and limited competition, they typically blunder about like a bull in a china shop, upsetting the delicate balance that allowed the niche to exist in the first place, and invariably causing pricing to collapse.  They feel they are winning a war, but are, in fact, destroying value by their commoditization of the market.

Corporate Anonymity

There is definitely an attitude seen in corporations of meeting the minimums and serving your sentence.  And if you do so, you are entitled to praise, financial reward, and satisfaction.

This attitude is present in many individual contributors, and in larger corporations it invades the management ranks as well.  Another way to label these employees would be disengaged.  They are the ones most likely to say "that's not my job", when asked to do something.

The disengaged are characterized by clock-watching, lack of sharing of ideas, no volunteering to help solve anything, and a laser focus on things like the details of what their job descriptions say they must do.  In my own experience, these employees don't seem to "get it" that they aren't making a significant contribution to moving the company forward.

My guess is this attitude has its roots in childhood, and it seems to be a combination of several things:  a focus on getting boxes checked in order to meet minimum requirements, a mental laziness which concedes "somebody" knows how all this "stuff" is supposed to work and its "not my job" to have to understand it, and a sense of entitlement which seems to infect a broad swath of our society.

Does this attitude impact large corporations more than small?  Probably.  Large organizations provide more cover for these disengaged people than small ones do -- but they are certainly present in both places. 

The impact to the company is pretty obvious.  Disengaged employees contribute less, are often out of alignment with the company's objectives, and take up a lot of management time.  They significantly contribute to corporate inefficiency.

Companies generally battle the disengaged with speeches and educational programs.  But there is definitely a hard-core disengaged group that can only be "fixed" by trading them for future draft choices.

See how some of my thoughts on Corporate Management play out in LEVERAGE, a corporate thriller.  It is available in paperback at Createspace, and formatted for eReaders from Smashwords.

History

A few years ago, I read a book on something called Judo Strategy by author David Yoffie.  Yoffie did a great job describing how smaller companies can identify and exploit large-corporation strengths-weaknesses described below.

People tend to become slaves to past decisions.  When I was young, my father detested vans.  He saw them as hippie-mobiles (yes, I grew up in the 60's & 70's), and so, when the minivan came on the scenes, he didn't want to have anything to do with one.  It took a long time, and a complete makeover of the "van" image in his mind, before he would purchase one.

Fortunately, nothing important to our family's survival depended on that decision.  But that isn't always true in business.

Corporations are hindered in the same way as individuals.  Their collective experiences, especially those learned painfully through major errors, become ingrained rules the organizations live by.  And large organizations, because of their size, accumulate these faster than small ones.  Eventually, they can become "rule-bound", unable to embrace new directions or ideas because of the way those things resemble the past.  When the world begins to change, these rules become chains, preventing large organizations from responding to new trends.

But rules are just one aspect of how history impacts the ability of the large corporation to respond.  There are also physical assets that have a huge impact on a firm.  What was once a prized asset that allowed the company to earn great returns and fend off competition (a unique IT capability, a distribution network, critical patents), ultimately can represent the seeds of destruction.

For example, imagine your company manufactures widgets.  These are not ordinary widgets, but are quite complex, and require a trained network of dealers to sell them to customers.  Your company is the number one widget company because they've wrapped up the best dang widget dealers in the world!

But then something happens.  Maybe widgets get simpler.  Or perhaps a killer site on the web is just as effective at convincing people buy as your dealers.  For whatever reason, now your network of dealers looks like an expensive way to bring the product to customers.  Your widget market share is falling with younger buyers.  But you can't enter the internet space yourself -- your dealers would have a fit.  And you can't completely switch over -- your current sales are coming precisely from those customers who haven't found the net.  You would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater!  So you sit.  Maybe conduct some experiments on the side.  Perhaps you try some things at small scale.  When you're finally ready to commit to a new direction, it's too late -- you've already lost the number one market position to a smaller competitor who could move more quickly.

It was your history that put you in the position -- your huge investment in the widget dealer network.  That and a series of short term decisions that were, in fact, best in the short term, but in the long term led to failure.

Small companies also have history tugging at them, but their history is usually shorter, less full of "rules" to follow, and include fewer mega-investments.  In this way, history, like the other factors I've mentioned in previous columns, tilt the business playing field in favor of the small and nimble companies.

Tom

Visit my blog at: http://outofcorporatelife.blogspot.com/

Check out my new novel LEVERAGE at:  http://www.tomspears.com/leverage/

Risk Aversion

This corporate disease comes in many forms -- from the rank and file, who see no equivalent reward in sticking their necks out; to the professional who throws safefy factor on top of safety factor effectively preventing almost any project from gaining altitude; to the manager who observes success shrugged off and failure punished.

What is the source of corporate risk aversion?  Perhaps it is a survival skill rationally applied at the level of the individual, which, in aggregate, creates an organization that seems to merrily take a million very small chances, but few that would actually make a difference.

My observation is that the cause is rooted in corporate politics -- the celebration of mediocrity (happy, friendly, much admired mediocrity, but mediocrity none the less), the shrugging off of successes as if they were expected as a matter of course, and the visible punishment of failures.

A few comments on failures.  Every organization has them.  Some are the result of a mis-estimation of resouces or circumstances.  Some failures come when those circumstances change in a way that can not be managed.  Other failures are the result of unclear initial goals or targets.  Still others come from lack of effort or foolish mistakes (although, in my experience, this is rare).

Failure is the province of every manager.  Show me a manager who claims to have never produced a failure, and I'll show you either a liar, or someone who is skating by on someone else's coatails.  Yet when the organization regularly sacrifices managers at the altar of failure, the message gets across pretty quickly -- take few and limited risks.  Those of you who have followed this blog know I've written extensively on this subject.

But why do companies do this?  Or more particularly, why to chief executives have such an intolerance of failure?

I imagine it is because their bosses -- shareholders and the board of directors are also intolerant of failures.  So CEO's manage the companies exactly the way they are expected to by their superiors, and, in turn, impose the same expectations on their management teams.  This all stems from a belief system which has a few key precepts.

1.  Employees are largely interchangeable and can mostly be easily replaced.

2.  There are a few superstar employees out there, which everybody is chasing after.

3.  If an employee makes a large or visible mistake, they are not a superstar, and should be traded out immediately for a future draft choice.

Investor believe this (look at the intolerance they demonstrate for less than perfect performance).  Board members have bathed in this environment their entire careers.  CEO's clearly buy in or they aren't hired.  Managers get their indoctrination to the system by observing.

But no board ever says to a CEO "Don't take any big risks -- we don't want any big failures".  Instead, the messages are communicated by what is rewarded and what is punished.  The same is generally true inside the company.

I suppose the ultimate question is -- are those precepts correct or not.

In the small company, risks are an everyday part of running the business.  And since the owner is putting his or her own assets on the line with each decision on taking risks, he or she has no one to answer to but themselves.  That doesn't necessarily mean they will be less risk averse than a large corporation, but there are certainly fewer institutional barriers.  On average, I'm sure small companies are much less risk averse.

Failure to Act as Owners

I used to think I did a fairly good job avoiding this fallacy -- until I became a small business owner.  As an owner who has his roots in large corporations, however, I can see substantial differences.

As an owner, I focus on the basics.  Selling, producing, invoicing, collecting.  And a little bit of accounting just so I know how it is all working.  Things like strategies, marketing plans, job descriptions, performance reviews, IT recovery plans -- all take a back seat to the basics.

As an owner, I look for bargains.  A thirty year old Bridgeport mill sounds a lot better to me than a new one.  My office is full of cast-off furniture.  I'll make that old computer work -- for as long as possible.

As an owner, I don't let things drift.  At least not important things.  If that means putting in extra effort today -- I do it.  I'm in a position to decide to work on that bill collection today, and let the website project wait for a while.  And I don't have to worry about how I'm being judged for making the decision.

I didn't do these things as an employee for a large corporation.

And I was hardly the most excessive when it came to spending other people's money.  We had high salary expectations, people too "important" to travel cheap, outrageously expensive office appointments, lavish retreats -- all in the name of teamwork/looking like a serious company/attracting top talent, or whatever other excuse we could come up with to justify the expenditures.

I recall a story on this very subject.  At one point (before my time), one of my employers decided to purchase and run a number of their distributors.  These looked like nice little businesses by themselves, and with the power of scale the company expected to further boost profitability.  But what actually happened was spending went out of control.  The managers hired too many people, bought new vehicles, carried too much inventory, and took too many credit risks.  The businesses actually performed worse for the company than they did when independent.  So the company sold off the distributors -- many to the managers who were running them.  And suddenly the things they "needed" when part of the corporation became unnecessary luxuries.  The businesses thrived on their own.

Yes, failure to act as an owner is a major anergy in large corporations, and one that allows the small business owner to  help level the the playing field.

Office Politics

I'm going to disagree with the author of the article here a little.  He describes "office politics" as a the subversion of organizational priorities in favor of those belonging to other constituencies.  In my experience, office politics is all about the struggle for favor among individual employees.

With that perspective in mind, I believe office politics is far down the list of corporate diseases -- nowhere close to as damaging as Institutional Capture, for instance.  The reason for this is most political action falls along the lines of one employee attempting to outdo another along some dimension the company actually values.  Yes it can involve dirty and destructive tricks that ultimately hurt the company, but those are an exception rather than the rule.

The most desctructive element of office politics, in my opinion, is that good employees end up tossed out of the organization (mostly voluntarily, but involutarily as well).  Yes, there are droves of back-ups out there looking for a job, but I'm sure in many cases, the victims of political maneuvering are not traded up on in their replacements.  And turnover costs -- time and efficiency/effectiveness both.

And small companies aren't free from the foibles of office politics either -- although the situation is not as pervasive because the small company leader often knows the facts (or most of them) rather than relying on the assessments and comments of others.  The small company is, however, subject to something larger corporations mosly escape -- the personal prejudices and opinions of their supreme leaders.  Those opinions about how to run the business MIGHT be related to their success, but the MIGHT NOT be also.  For example, if the boss at a small company thinks being unerringly polite in all business dealings (and consequently firing those who aren't polite) is a requirement for success -- which it is not -- then there will be unnecessary turnover and expense at the small company as well.

So, are office politics a major contributor to the anergies of large organizations?  Yes, and it's main aspect of damage is the loss of good employees.  But it is down the list a ways in terms of severity.

Institutional Capture

Fancy name.  Simple concept.  In large organizations, there is a tendancy for employees to become focused on their own personal agendas, and forget about the objectives of the organization.

Of the various corporate diseases, this one is pervasive.  In fact, it is so widely recognized that companies design systems to try to align personal agendas and corporate strategies.  Actions like: accounting segregation of duties, incentive systems craftily designed to produce specific behaviors, corporate ethics officers and whistleblower policies, and many other similar things.

And even with all the effort, the systems are still inadequate.  Why?  They buck human nature.

As organizational size increases, the understanding of the corporations objectives and interests become harder for employees to grasp.  That is at least a part of Institutional Capture.  But it isn't all of it.  Large organizations are faceless and impersonal, so employees begin to feel more like they are betraying a monolithic creature rather than individual people.  The investors and their personal interests (and the injuries they suffer) become distant.

The other big factor is the individual's ability to rationalize their behaviors.  In most cases of Institutional Capture, the employees certainly know what they are doing is wrong.  "They owe it to me because...", "Nobody will miss it...", "My need outweighs the company's greed...", these are a few examples of the rationalization that goes on in the minds of individuals crossing the line.

I find this concept facinating, and it is at the core of many of my novels -- the large, faceless organization; the employee who is looking out for their own interests; the slide far down the slippery slope; the attempts to hide the actions, or justify them as somehow in the company's interests.  These are the raw materials of my stories.

Institutional Capture is a huge problem in organizations, and can even be present in smaller companies.  Those residing in the Corporate world must vigilantly watch out, and expect to find it at every turn.