In Search of Nirvana

I have always taken pride in working with purpose, on purpose. I pick my jobs and my boss carefully because I am in search of a particular environment. I look for an environment where the leadership is open to ideas, where discussion is readily had, where people are treated fairly and with respect, and where people treat each other as they would want to be treated.

That may sound like Nirvana, but it is indeed the key to bringing out the best in people. Nirvana (or least my definition) is really what good corporate builders aspire to create. They know that this kind of environment is where people tend to give their best every day.

There are no accidents in corporate culture creation. One does not wake up one day and say, "oops, my bad . . ." Culture takes time to foster and build, and it is purposeful. The question is, are we able to break down the ingredients to understand what actually goes into creating a Nirvana like culture.

Since that question is too big to tackle, let's look at a symptom of culture. Engagement. Cultures that are constructive and positive tend to have higher engagement than those that do not.

Understanding engagement is to understand what motivates human beings. Micro - managed, controlling and distrusting environments grind people down, making them feel uninspired about the work. They want to give less and care less. When this culture takes over, people are treated badly, and they feel bad about it. They act out their frustration by treated others badly in retaliation. And it is disconcerting and sad. I have seen people who are brilliant, and who have so much to offer, pull away. They lose their shine. They lose their voice, their self - esteem and their will to be as excellent as they are.

Engaged people are fully self - responsible and accountable. However, in a power based environment, performance is used as a hammer, instead of a tool to inspire progress. People dodge accountability because who wants to be hammered? It becomes a vicious circle. If people are not accountable for the way they act, or if negative behavior is endorsed by being ignored, people rebel by disengaging to avoid personal damage.

The disengaged person develops a condition of being frustrated and negative. They spend their time wasting time and being destructive. This takes on several forms. Micro managing, avoidance, passing the buck, dodging accountability, talking negatively about others and with others, criticizing and basically tearing down what others are trying to build.

Disengaged people express negativity instead of looking for ways to be successful; purposely blocking the success of another; or just pulling away and giving up. If this type of environment is allowed to occur, people will continue to feel shut down and dis empowered. They will stop giving their best every day, and start leaving before they have left.

I don't believe that disengagement can be addressed with programs, products, pep talks, performance management, or other p - words alone. Disengagement is also linked to leadership and accountability. One way to address it is through instilling a constructive culture where people are empowered and accountable for their actions, and where conciliatory behavior is more prevalent that power based control behaviors. In the constructive culture, leadership is not just at the top of an organization. It is you and me, every day being responsible for what we do, what we say and how we affect others.

It all comes down to living our values. No company would say they value control and power. A responsible company talks about things like leadership, integrity, responsibility, commitment to employees, commitment to shareholders, commitment to the community.

Values in the corporate setting are not just published in a plan or annual report annually. The values must be upheld. They must be linked to the balance sheet. In other words, if a company values responsibility, it should provide financial support to act on that. If the company values commitment to employee development, then it must provide quality training, development, performance and succession programs. If a company says it values community, then it requires investment. Most importantly, values must be challenged, and those who do not live the values, must be challenged, and some case, must leave the organization.

The problem is that there have been too many management books written with formulaic, linear strategic planning processes. Step 1. Review Vision. Step 2. Review Values. Step 3. Review Goals . . . Board and executives are numb to the idea of really exploring and testing these concepts. I have yet to hear a board member ask an executive team - show me evidence of living your values. What does this vision mean to our employees? Our community? Our shareholder? Who cares?

I feel very strongly about this, because we give thousands of hours a year to our jobs, and we want to work for organizations that live the values. Don't we?

Unfortunately, I see too often the opposite happening, and as a result, disengagement will increase in the workplace. And that's sad, because it robs you and I, and it robs society of the potential greatness that resides in each of us.

The way I see it, life is too short to be disengaged or disgruntled every day. Negativity depletes the quality of the contribution we make to this world and it can lead to illness.

To me the path to constructive progress and engagement it's so simple. Get back to basics and treat others as you would like to be treated. Before you pull a power move on someone, think about it. How would I feel? Before you make someone uncomfortable with inappropriate conversations, think about how you would feel if you were to walk into it. I feel very strongly about this. The way I see it, nobody has a right to ruin my day, make me feel bad, or make me wish I was somewhere else. And I don't have a right to treat others that way. I therefore cannot tolerate it in others, and I expect others to challenge me should I demonstrate bad behavior.

We (the royal we - aka all of us) need to take stalk of the impact we are having on others every day and either make a personal decision to change, or leave. The symptoms of disengagement will destroy a company, and it will destroy people in the process.

Can people move up the engagement scale given the right environment? I think so. But it's a choice. Coming to work every day is not an accident. We do it on purpose. So make a decision. There really are only 2 options:


- Door #1: stay and be a positive force.
- Door #2: simply leave.

Finally, remember this is work, not life. If work is not contributing to the quality of your life, then make a decision to change it.

In Search of Extraordinary

The other day, I received an email from a publishing company announcing a "sale" on publishing - for $200.00 less, I could publish a book. All I had to do was respond to the email.

That made me think - in this world of email, mass everything, I would imagine that thousands of people actually respond. Now, don't get me wrong. The email did not come from a disreputable firm. I actually know them, and inquired about their publishing process. But the second I received that mass email, my opinion of them dropped like a rock. They are not looking to help writers publish great works, they are just making a buck.

As a lover of English, poetry and great prose, I am actually saddened by this high volume approach to publishing a book. How can anything be good or worth reading? And how will the good make it through the endless piles of mediocrity that gets published these days.

And I wonder, is extraordinary lost? Shakespeare was extraordinary. Keats was extraordinary. They were writing and telling stories in a time when people wanted to listen. When there was an audience that actually wanted to read the prose, watch the play, hear the story.

When everything is so simple, by simply responding to a mass email, how can anything we good?

Last year, I submitted a poem to an online poetry web site just to see what would happen. I began getting emails about how my poem was being reviewed by a board of directors, and eventually it was selected for the editor choice award. The poem was published, and I was invited to the annual conference held by this organization to read the poem aloud to the poetry community. But I did not go, because I did not trust the process. I did not trust their intentions. And I did not believe that my poem was that extraordinary.

I received the anthology - it was the first poem published in the book. I have to admit, I was excited about it. This has been one of my life goals - to be a published writer.

But because this process is so - mass focused and accessible, I don't trust it. Call me cynical. But I believe we are losing our sense of what is extraordinary.

A Recipe for Cake

What: Bake a cake.

Why: Because we are celebrating an important birthday.

How:  Poor cake mix into a bowl. Add water. Add 1 egg. Stir for 30 seconds. Pour into a 8 x 10 ungreased pan. Bake at 350 degrees for 45 minutes. Cool on rack. Ice.

This may seem overly simplistic, but believe me, the person who wrote this recipe on the back of a cake mix box probably experience several edits before he or she broke it down to a set of perfect, measurable steps.

In the corporate world, we have to do that too. Even if we are planning some major strategy. The challenge is to keep it simple so that it is absolutely, unequivocally true, such that a reasonable and logically individual could not find fault with it or could follow it blindfolded.

Strategy answers these three questions: What is to be accomplished (the end goal); why is this necessary; and how we go about this?  Strategies take time.

When equality is no longer a word . . .

There are very few people in the lifetime, and in fact, in the history of our world, who make a difference long after they are gone. You know who these people are. Great names like Mother Theresa, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King come to mind because these people made a difference to people. They were selfless. They lead with vision, not of themselves, but with a vision of the world. A place where we would have compassion for the poor, the hungry and destitute. A place where people make sacrifices for what is important. A place where equality is not just a word, but no longer a word.

Recently my daughter was studying stories of generations past who marched in the streets for peace, who fought in wars, and fought against wars, who cried when Martin Luther King died. Those people who fought those fights and thought those thoughts are likely no longer with us.

During those marches, people would cry out for equality, and it meant something tangible. The right to work. The right to eat in restaurants. The right to go to whatever schools one wanted. The right for personal freedom. The right to be treated . . . like an human being. The right not to be judged, marginalized, minimized or dehumanized by another. These are things worth fighting for still today.

Yet, at least in our part of the world, we no longer shout out words like equality and freedom in the streets. We have institutionalized the battle. Made it part of the corporate fabric of our making. And that's a step in the right direction, as long as it's not the last step. Corporations have the means and ability to provide training and opportunities that give people the means to enjoy freedom as we know it. Corporations create employment so people can have a better life.

We have achieved some enlightenment in the world. Corporations are expected to be "Good corporate citizens" who give money and time to the those who help the less fortunate. They make people development a priority. They teach, coach and mentor people to grow. They create an environment where people can grow and flourish. Good corporate citizens give of their time, money and resources to make the world around them a better place.

All the corporate capital and good will, however, can't change the world unless the individual engages in the change. That's you and me. People caring about others. People getting to know each other. People seeing past our visual or cultural differences and seeing each other as fellow human beings, sharing this life experience.

When you think about it, the word equality is only necessary in a state where it does not exist. And therein lies the question. Will we ever find a time in the world where equality is an ancient term?

And where are we in this continuum, almost 50 years after the riots and the cries for equality?

I asked my daughter what I often ask corporate types - what do you value? What do you care about enough that you would stand up for and stand up against others for? What matters to you that is beyond your own vision, but a vision for the world.

Equality was her answer. Where people are not judged for their gender, or lifestyle. Where people are free to discover the best they can be.

What a great and worthy quest. Imagine a place where equality is no longer quantified by targets on corporate scorecards. Where we no longer count the colors of skin around a table, as if tallying our level of tolerance, or intolerance. Where we can come face to face with a person and not see the difference first.

That she would say equality matters most to her does not surprise me. My daughters have been raised in a house of diversity and adversity. In my house, we have seen and suffered the effects of being turned down for a job because of another person's fear. We have lived with unemployment as a result of small minds. We all, as a result, have learned to keep the secret of our "diversity" to lessen the impact.

The funny thing is, we are not identifiable by race or by ethnicity. But we still experienced this, and continue to from time to time. I understand the quest for equality, but in the continuum, I would hope the ultimate goal is to achieve humanity where people are worth the effort regardless of who they are or where they come from. And I would say everyone deserves a chance to be bright, and to be brilliant. I would say that everyone is good and deserves a chance to prove it.

Listening to my daughters, and watching them, I hope that their generation does take our world to a more humane place than we have been. I hope that they care enough to do more than talk, but to lead, and demonstrate through their actions. I hope that they will take one step closer to that grand vision of a better place that our earthly leaders have shown us.

Walk a while in my shoes.

Anyone who knows me knows that shoes are a big part of my life. I have an abundance of shoes. I love them. They are jewelry for the feet. The perfect conclusion to a great outfit. Or just the thing needed to jazz up something boring. Sometimes they are sensible, and sometimes they are outlandish. Sometimes shoes seem impossible to walk in, and sometimes they seem impossible to fill.

In my work, I find that the most important thing to do every day is to walk awhile in someone's shoes. Understand their perspective. This means asking how this piece of writing will be received? Who is the audience? What will they think? Who is the audience that should receive this? What if they don't? What are the ramifications if the audience is misinformed? What are the ramifications if the audience is informed, but not impressed?

These questions are never easy, and what's more, the art of communication is just that, an art. The problem is that because most people are capable of creating audible sounds that resemble our language, it doesn't mean they can communicate, or understand the art of communicating. Afterall, I can count, but that doesn't make me an accountant. And therein lies the problem. As a communicator with a journalistic soul (or is that sole), and a penchant for poetry and prose, we have a quest for truthfulness, honesty and respectfulness in the written and spoken word. These are worthy attributes, and they require one to be brave, creative and concise.

For the accomplished writer, this is easy. After all, a good writer can make Kraft dinner sound interesting. But the writer does not own the message. The message really belongs to the communicator. That could be a CEO, a board member or a community spokes person. And despite our brilliance, sometimes, however, the writer's best and well intended works, no matter how artfully krafted, are rejected and left on the cutting room floor.

When we prepare to communicate, we often think of the external or internal audience -the media, the shareholder, the staff, suppliers, partners . . . but do we think of our boss? The one who ultimately is the gate keeper of the message. To avoid the cutting room floor, one needs to consider the decision maker as part of the audience.

That takes time. It takes understanding. It means making mistakes and writing, and rewriting, and rewriting. It means being objective, and listening to what it is that the gate keeper is looking for? What are his or her concerns? What is his or her communication style? What can we do to get the message across and still satisfy even the most skid dish of all gate keepers.

To be a great and worthy writer and communicator, the concept of voice must be mastered. Voice is the identity of a piece. And the writer is never the voice. The writer is merely the conduit through which the message must flow to its audience. A temporary vessel of ideas and thoughts, that once released, take on the voice of the intended persona.

So, it all comes back to shoes. Who's shoes are we trying to fill? If the message where to come from a person(a), who is the person. What is his or her position on the matter. Who is he or she talking to? What is the style of the speaker? How can this message be best communicated by this persona.

When it's all said and done, writing is a both a passion and a thankless profession for those of us to choose to do this. It requires commitment on the part of the writer and the ability to let go of the creation so that others can learn from it, enjoy it, and hang it on the refrigerator. It must stand alone, if only for a fleeting moment or a life time.

Potential on the Table

A few years ago, I met a great speaker / strategist at a conference. We talked for a while, and he said, your employer must love you. I replied, "my employer does not even know what I think about."

In the workforce, I wonder how many times we see the potential of others and whether we even look for it? If we did, what would we see? I am sure that in any given group of people there are people who would love to delve into something great and significant, but are restricted by their job description.

That is such a shame, because people who have a desire to do something generally do, and if they cannot do it where they are, they will go find another place to share their talent, ideas and energy.

You've heard of the lateral promotion. There's also lateral movement from organization to organization. And then there's promotion by leaving. Often times people leave an organization for more of something. More money. More opportunity. More leadership opportunities. More what ever it is they need.

In the book "First Break all the Rules", the writer busts open common held management myths. He says investing in employees is a myth, because we only have to invest in those who can help the organization move forward.

It's a good point. Invest time and energy into the people who can be part of the future. But this brings me back to my first question: do we ask our employees to put their potential on the table? Would we know who they are?

A case for peace

How many times are we guided by other forces - pushed into decisions that we may make if we had all the information. Have you ever noticed how many times you are given a choice or a task, and you realize you don't have enough information to make a decision, but yet you make it any way. These are never good decisions. In fact, anything that is produced under this circumstance just can not be good. Rushing to the finish line is really just a lesson in triage. And inevitably, the aftermath follows. Mistakes happen. Small things. Big things. It doesn't matter. Mistakes are mistakes. And they require explanation and recovery.

So I wonder if we know this, why do we allow ourselves to be disadvantaged this way? Why do we give up our best effort under duress?

The answer, I think, is to prepare for the inevitable. The disaster. The thing that you hate to imagine, or say out loud, but does inevitably happen. In business, we call this risk management. It requires time and forethought. Preplanning, and contingency planning for the what ifs.

Often times when we do plan for risks, we are avoiding the real risks because these are the ones that we don't want to imagine. These are the types of risks that may be highly improbable, but if they happened, the impact would be huge. These kinds of risks are called "perfect risks", or black swans. These kinds of risks are those that are game changing. They alter our lives immediately and ever after. We spend lots of time trying to understand what happened, why, and what to do about it. How to prevent it from ever happening again. 911 is a good example of a perfect risk. The imaginable happened. And it does inevitably. And I believe in the inevitable.

It is important however not to be afraid of the inevitable. It is better to face it head on. Go face to face with it, and you will find that it is not the giant that it could be.

The good thing about a disaster, however, is that it gives us time to reflect. To consider what we would do different. And that's good. As long as we remember to do that.

As humans, however, we tend to forget. We are optimists. We like to do things, and we don't like to plan (at least most of us don't). We like to execute something (or someone when things go wrong), but we don't like to imagine possibilities. And finally, we don't like to work together.

So what's the big barrier? Honesty, I think. What if we said out loud what could happen? What we are afraid of. What would be game changing and life altering. What if we confronted unrealistic demands with a reasonable solution that meets every one's needs. What if we sat down and talked, honestly, about why we can't talk or work together.

This can't be that difficult. It's not like we are talking about world peace.