Home Of the Blog Book

Busting Your Corporate Idol

Seven Views of 2011 From People in the Corporate World

December 28, 2011 by 2 Comments
Green Heart for Earth Day by Shabbir Ferdous2011 is the year that I …

I asked my network to finish the sentence, and I love these answers.

They reveal a truth about people captured by Viktor Frankel, Holocaust Survivor and psychologist.

 

“Forces beyond your control can take away everything you possess except one thing, your freedom to choose how you will respond to the situation.”

1. 2011 is the year that I learned to let go.

2. 2011 is the year that I learned there is never a balance between work and life.  There is a trade off, and you can’t have both. You have to decide which takes precedence at each moment, and live with the decision. It doesn’t mean that the next time you have to keep the same choice.  For example, if your child’s school play occurs on the same day you are planning a business trip, make a decision and know that you are making a trade off and be okay with it. It’s my son’s first year in school as a kindergartener so I never had to make this decision before.

3. 2011 is the year when I really started to appreciate my job and what it means to me. After seeing all my friends out of job for so long, or taking positions that are 2-3 levels lower than what they had before, I started to do everything I could to be successful in my current position.

4. 2011 was that year that I learned that it is key to have passion for your work in order to stay engaged–and to feel that there is a commitment from the organization for the work that you are doing. That is why I left the organization that I was part of, and took a new position in a field that I had great passion for.  Plus, it’s a new role that will expand my experience and capabilities.

5. 2011 is the year that I realized that helping others is more important than this quarter’s result. That no matter what anyone says, you don’t have to be a dick to be an effective manager.

6. 2011 is the year that I asked my family for help to buy my younger brother a car. He’s disabled, and in my richer days, I bought him cars and funded his other needs on my own. I’m not in a position to do that anymore, and it was wonderful this year to ask family members to help out and they all did.

7. In general 2011 was super:).     I know his backstory, and I was stunned to see this answer.  This dude had a seriously rough patch in 2011.  But on further thought, this is one of the most positive people I know.  Not at all in a Pollyanna way, but rather he plays the hand he is dealt, and appreciates what he has.

Viktor was right – we always have the freedom to choose how we respond, even as we don’t have the ability to control most of what happens around us.  I said it at the beginning, and I’ll say it again here– I love these answers.  It is clear that everyone here made choices, and I am sure they will have a better 2012 because of the choices they made in 2011.

Filed Under: Featured, Values, Work Life Balance Tagged With: , , , ,

Five Sides to the Volkswagon After-Hours Email Ban

December 27, 2011 by Leave a Comment

 

Volkswagon recently announced that it is shutting down the BlackBerry server for email traffic 30 minutes after the workday ends.  This policy is only in effect in Germany, and does not include Sr. Management.  Is this the start of a new trend to get better work life balance, an example of heavy handed union interference, or a DOA proposal on par with the twin NetFlix fiasco’s of 2011?  Here are Five Sides to the issue.

 

1. It’s a real problem.  The email shut down is a baby step attempt to solve a real problem – the “24/7 on”, work-first culture.  It is neither healthy nor sustainable to be on call all the time, yet for more people every year, that is exactly what is happening.  Most of the after hours email is non-essential, but perceived as important.  From comment #49 on the BBC article “I know so many people who no longer have a weekend to relax and recharge.”  (Most of the following quotes come from the same forum.)

2. It’s a question of power.  The BlackBerry shut down was negotiated by the German Trade Union as a working-condition improvement for it’s members.  Volkswagon is not extending this shutdown to workers outside of the Trade Union, and would not have extended this one had not been forced to.  Many comments after these articles say that it should be up to each worker to decide what is best for them.  But for many people, making the decision to turn off is not allowed.  ”Don’t have a choice – have to answer e-mail 24/7 or fired.”  It took the negotiating power of the union to stand up for the employees who did not have the option to say no.  Shutting down the email server levels the playing field for all employees.

3. Lost flexibility and perhaps less competitive.  The flip side is seen in the following posts.  ”This is such a backward step – this should be about personal choice. With two young children I prefer sorting email at 10pm rather than being expected to be at my desk until 5 or 6pm and missing their bedtime. As a few people have said – you can turn these things off.”  I see the struggle whether to put the kids before work, or the work before the kids.  Either way, the self comes third.  In my opinion, people, both the kids and the self, need to come before the company.  It’s a values thing.

Another person said “Lucky workers. I wish I could just turn it off, however, my customers would not be too happy and i may lose them.”  Or, you may not lose them.

4. Management still plugged in.  Senior managers are not included in the ban, but these are the people who need it the most.  Management is expected to align itself with the company, and of course are not included in a Union benefit.  But the managers are people too, and often work longer hours with less down time. There is an expectation that the higher you go in a company, the more you need to be available at any time.  But that time comes from family, community, sleep, exercise, hobbies…

This is an opportunity for managers to look at their own values, and to begin to chart a healthier and more balanced life for themselves.  The BlackBerry Blackout invites the question, if for them, why not for us too?  The answer will come in the form of a business case – the company needs you to bla bla bla.  Come up with a business case for the outcome that is better for you.  An email blackout leads to greater productivity, less wasted effort, and  more effective management.

5. Doesn’t solve the real problem, but better than nothing.  In the short run, this ban is a good thing.  Although heavy handed, it will prevent people from checking email, and just as importantly, prevent people from sending email at night.  Unquestionably, this will decrease stress, which is great.

However, email at home is a symptom of a larger issue – a value system that puts the company first.  The ban doesn’t cover non-blackberry email, and doesn’t cover most VW employees.  And if the prevailing culture is company first, people will comply with the letter of the rule, but find ways to work around it.  Managers will phone or text.  People will stay at work later, or log in to their computers.

Values ultimately define the boundaries of behavior.  I hope this window of lower stress allows people to step back and re-engage with values that put people ahead of the company.  I hope that individual senior managers see the email blackout as a good thing for them too.  Less email for some can lead to less email for all.  And that would be a good thing.

 

Filed Under: Business Case For Good, Values, Work Life Balance Tagged With: , , ,

Myth of the Magic spoon

December 22, 2011 by Leave a Comment
This photo reminds me of the Myth of the Cave by Plato.  In this allegory, people are living inside a cave, and what they see of the world are shadows on the wall, not realizing that there is a deeper reality casting the shadow.
Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , ,

The Common Good or The Good of the Company?

December 22, 2011 by 3 Comments

The Common Good is a value that puts the welfare of other people ahead of our own short-term interest.  Unfortunately, there is a strong headwind against The Common Good from another value – The Good of the Company.  “We need to do what is best for the company” is a stock phrase I heard again and again to justify decisions that were unpopular, like layoffs or canceled projects.  In short, The Good of the Company is a value that puts the corporation ahead of people.

A corporation by its nature is an institution founded to make money for its owners.  And when seventy percent of all outstanding stock is traded in less than one year, the owners have an incentive to ignore anything other than short-term financial return.  So The Good Of The Company often translates into short term financial returns.

The Good of the Company is very different from things like ‘The Good of the Customers’, or ‘The Good of the Employees.’  And is certainly is very different from ‘The Good of My Family’, or ‘The Good of My Health.’  In this world where we are always on, where we are expected to check email at night or on weekends for The Good of the Company, the company first values become internalized.  It doesn’t matter whether we are checking that email out of fear, love, or habit.  Checking that email takes time and mental focus away from our family and our life outside of work.

Paradoxically, I think the way to bring back The Common Good is to focus more on the self. Not to be selfish, but to create an identity that is independent of the company.  For values, I take my cues from Rabbi Hillel, who 2000 years ago said, “If I am not for myself, who will be for me?  If I am only for myself, what am I?  If not now, when?”

This post was written in response to What Ever Happened To The Common Good by Ted Coine? Posted on December 16, 2011 on the Sustainable Business Forum

Filed Under: Corporate Idolatry, Values Tagged With: , ,

A Lesson About Manipulation At Work From Survivor

December 21, 2011 by 1 Comment

Edna, the annoying anesthesiologist who was the sixth wheel in an alliance of five in the recent season of Survivor went off on fellow players for whining about being manipulated.

The inherent ingredient [in Survivor] is manipulation.  The majority of time we are going to be manipulated.  We should not hold any hard feelings because we signed up for this.  We voluntarily came her to be duped and these people did it successfully.

She is so right.  No one likes being manipulated, but guess what?  When you join a company, you are signing up for a set of rules, and manipulation is hardly out of bounds.  It is a manager’s job to keep his or her employees motivated and working hard.  And part of good management is manipulation.  One director from a mid-sized company in the Mountain West put it like this:

As a manager it works to your advantage when people are ultra dedicated, but it also it breaks my heart when people were so upset about their project being cut. It’s a little manipulative to say “well look this isn’t your whole life” after encouraging that level of devotion to the project in the first place.  Many employees would calm right down after they heard that.

I think we all have a bit of a tendency to think ‘it can’t happen to me,’ and to ignore the signs.  Once upon a time, I thought my work was so good I was above politics.  And, I was one of the mission-driven crowd.  The company was out to change the world, and I was helping to make it happen.  But, some people took advantage of my zeal, and I was really upset when I realized that some people were just out for themselves.

On Survivor, it was a bit hard to see whether Edna’s comment had much of an effect on the other players who were so upset that they had been manipulated.  I am not in any way justifying manipulative behavior within the corporate world or elsewhere.  But, manipulation is a reality, even from the good people.  To quote Michael Chabon, “It is my experience that honest people live by the contracts they sign.  Not a tittle more.”  Or to quote Don King, “You get what you negotiate for, not what you deserve.”

My advice: look after your own self-interest, and learn the rules of the game.  No one else can do that for you.  By working for that company, you signed up to play by their set of rules.  When something feels unfair, some person you trusted hung you out to dry, or some manipulative person is ‘getting away with it’, don’t waste your energy getting mad.  You signed up for it.  Learn to play better, or better yet, find a different game.

Filed Under: Corporate Idolatry, Uncategorized, Values Tagged With: ,

Lessons About Values From The X Factor

December 12, 2011 by 1 Comment

If you are an X Factor fan, you undoubtedly saw Nicole Scherzinger’s melt down last week.  I am fascinated by how people perform under pressure, and almost equally interested in how personal values impact everyday decisions.  Last Thursday, the X Factor had some of both.

For those of you who didn’t see it, Watch now.  The X Factor is a tv show where contestants perform songs, America votes, and then the next night, four judges decide between the bottom two vote getters which one gets eliminated. Rachel Crow was clearly the better of the bottom two, both in that night’s performance and for the entire season.  It came down to the last judge, Nicole Scherzinger  to decide whether to send her the other contestant home, or make it a 2:2 tie, in which case it would go back to America’s vote.  Nicole abdicated her responsibility and gave up her power when she said the following.

I can’t make this decision, because I’ve been up there and I know how it feels and I love and adore both of you, so I have to go to deadlock.

If Nicole truly thought Marcus was better, there would not have been an issue.  But she didn’t say that, and clearly did not believe that Marcus was better because Nicole burst into tears when Rachel was eliminated, and spent the remainder of the show sobbing with her back to the camera.

I am reminded of my favorite quote about values.

“If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?”

Although Rabbi Hillel lived 2000 years ago, he captures the essence of the fundamental human conflict between the interests of the self vs the interest of other people.

Nicole seemed too into herself.  “I can’t make this decision, because I’ve been up there and I know how it feels.”  Watch the video again, and see how self absorbed she is.  She lost the bigger picture – her job required her to decide, and by not deciding it was unfair to the contestants, unfair to the audience, and may have hurt her career longer term.  I was among the many on Twitter who said she should not be rehired as a judge.  “If not now, when?” Thinking about other people is a habit that Nicole needs to cultivate.

And Rachel Crow, was on the other end of the spectrum – she did not protect her own self interest.  Right before Nicole cast her vote, Rachel let her off the hook, saying

Don’t cry … I’m ok with whatever you decide.

“If I am not for myself, who will be for me?”  Rachel’s empathy is a wonderful thing, and is part of her strength as a performer.  But feeling someone else’s pain does not mean owning someone else’s pain.  Nicole’s decision was painful, and she should not have been given any excuse not to make it.  Nicole may well have made the same non-choice, but little things to add up.

Simon Cowell, a judge and Rachel’s mentor, also made a values-driven mistake.  His statement when he voted was “only for himself,” and did not do anything to convince the other judges to vote for Rachel.

There’s no point in even saying anything… Marcus, you are going home.  I’m sorry.

“No point in saying anything” is like saying “if you don’t vote for my person, you are totally stupid.”  Simon would say something like that, and throughout the show was sniping at Nicole, and spoke disparagingly about her ability to mentor her contestant Josh.  This makes for good tv, and promotes Simon’s reputation as the bad boy of the show.  But I can’t help but think it was a factor in Nicole’s non-decision.  In stead of making it easier for Nicole to vote for Rachel, he made it harder.

Values shape and limit our behaviors in both big ways and small.  I am convinced Rabbi Hillel had it right.  Having the right balance between the self and the other will, on average, lead to a better life.

 

Filed Under: Values Tagged With: , ,

Am I a Man or a Muppet?

December 1, 2011 by Leave a Comment

“Am I a man, or a Muppet?” laments Gary, played by Jason Segal in “The Muppets.”  It’s a serious question, in a seriously funny movie.  Gary must decide whether to save his relationship with Mary, or to help his Muppet brother Walter.  It is an either/or choice; Gary does not have time to do both.

In a cute way, Gary has been putting Mary second for the whole movie.  There was always some kind of crisis that demanded his immediate attention, and his Mary was expected to go along or be left alone.  And Gary felt sorry.  Genuinely sorry.   When he forgets their anniversary dinner, she has had enough.  It is no longer a question of “Gary, what are you going to do?”  It is a question of “who are you going to be?”

We all have multiple identities. Father, husband, writer, and marketer are a few of mine.  Is it fair to even ask for a binary choice between identities?  This is complex for Gary too.  “If I am a man, then I’m a Muppet of a man.  If I’m a Muppet, then I’m a very manly Muppet.”  But notice, one identity has to come first.

While this went over my kids’ heads, it didn’t go over mine. A few years ago, I asked myself a similar question.  “Which is more important to me, the company or my family?”  The answer in my head was “the family” but my actions in the moment gave a different answer. The company always seemed to win the battle for my time.  My identity was wrapped up in my company.

I worked in the biotech industry. I was passionate and committed to the products I managed, and the companies I worked for.  We were on a mission to revolutionize medicine, and I was going to help change the world.  One night about five years ago, I stayed up until midnight working on a product roadmap.  My wife had asked me to come to bed at ten, but I didn’t.  I was planning a future where every patient who went through the Stanford hospital system would use my product to get an instant snapshot of their genetic risk for every disease, as well as their risk for pharmaceutical side effects.  I was laying the groundwork for the personalized medicine revolution, or so I thought at the time.  “Please don’t ask me to give that up.”  She kissed me lightly on the lips and went to bed.

At the time I didn’t make much of it, but I cringe when I write this today.  What was I thinking?  Not the right question.  “Who was I” is a better one.

My thinking, my decision in that moment, was shaped by my identity as a man on a mission to change medicine.   When I changed my identity, I was able to change my priorities.  How and why I changed my identity is a story for another day.  Luckily for me, identity is a matter of choice, and I chose to become someone who puts his family before his company.

When you know who you are, all the questions in the moment answer themselves.

Filed Under: Identity Tagged With: , ,