The Shredding Of YOUR Workplace Is Happening NOW.

There's striking disagreement on the shape of the economic upturn – being touted are 'J', 'L', 'V', 'U', 'W' or even a 'saxophone shaped upturn', however what's sure is it's coming. With the upturn – welcome or not – is a complete shredding of the workplace rulebook!

By John Blackwell at Management Issues.

Today's workplace consists of finely balanced interdependencies between people, space, technologies, culture, and management practices. It demands HR professionals talk fluent real estate, real estate professionals talk fluent talent and collaboration, technologists talk fluent culture, and managers be fluent in trust, agility, and social connection.

Get it right and the workplace is a vibrant, inspiring place that motivates creativity, innovation, and untold performance levels. Get it wrong and it's dull and disenfranchising, with staff bored by the tedium.

This isn't some abstract theory – everyone reading this article will, at some point, have experienced a dull workplace and equally will have experienced a vibrant one.

The current economic turmoil has brought about a unique combination of factors that's not merely overturning workplace rules, it's completely shredding the rule book!

Prominent factors in this upheaval are:

1. Unemployment: In OECD countries, unemployment has risen from 6.8% in 2008 to today's 7.8%, and is projected to top 10% by 2010. While any unemployment is distressing, the impact on remaining staff is possibly more dramatic.

How drastic? Research suggests that half of staff have lost trust in their employer and almost as many - 46% - would leave at the earliest opportunity if they had the chance.

This distrust is rooted in staff eyeing ranks of empty desks and an assumption that they'll voluntarily "pick up the slack". Staff are also disenfranchised over the lottery approach to downsizing and the lack of visionary thinking about alternatives. When cost avoidance is today's corporate mantra, this discontent and churn could prove financially crippling.

2. A Shrinking Talent Pool: It's a myth that restructuring is creating a labour market awash with talent2. A shrinking talent pool: It's a myth that restructuring has created a labour market awash with talent. More than 60% of white-collar unemployed are turning their back on corporate life and investing redundancy monies in starting entrepreneurial businesses. Having walked away, this talent won't be returning corporate life.

Clearly, these far-reaching changes to the traditional workplace demand precision metrics and a structured, scientific approach. Everyone involved must be 'on-board', and have a clear view of the 4 P's of change;

Purpose – why change, what's in it for me? Picture – what will it look like after the change? Plan – what's the timeline and what should I expect? Part – what's my part and what's expected of me?

Factor in a 17% decline in 'prime-age' labour (due to decreasing birth rate, increasing adult education, etc), this represents a notable shrinkage of an already rarefied talent market – something that the UK's Department for Work and Pensions is projecting won't return to 'normal' until 2020!

3. Virtual working: Staff are juggling a three-fold increase in project volumes since 2004, compounded by increased matrix working and the outsourcing of non-core activities, which is leading to an explosion in virtual working.

We've projected that, by 2010 staff will be spending just 5% of their day in the same place, on the project, at the same time as their colleagues. 95% of time will be spent working alone, at a different time, place, or on a different schedule.

Consequently, managers have a far looser understanding of their teams, and must rapidly learn how to migrate from command-control to mentoring, motivating, and coaching.

4. Unsustainable office utilisation: Prior to the economic downturn, office utilisation was typically hovering around 50%. One of the first casualties of the recession was corporate real estate values, which has dropped by more than 44%. At the same time, almost every organisation is being forced to – or taking the opportunity to – optimise headcount.

This has created the perennial conflict between dwindling occupancy and the inability to shift surplus real estate – a direct outcome being plummeting office utilisation of 20% or lower, and dispersed staff finding themselves forced into 'intra-office virtual working'.

This commonly leads to reduced business 'fluency'. Just consider, if you're more than four metres apart, the chance is you'll not know the other person in the office.

Shredding the workplace rulebook presents both formidable challenges and great opportunities. We're entering the 'era of interdependence'. A time when all business dimensions – HR, physical space, technologies, culture, and management practices – must work in harmony to deliver effective performance.

The recent Workplace of the Future report shed considerable insight to how organisations are responding to changing work practices. Of the 1,100 business leaders interviewed, 83% perceive significant change, however only 61% have successfully changed in the past, a gap that has trebled since 2006.

The report found that organisations financially out-performing their comparators are investing in radical interventions, broadly grouped into two areas – trust-based, and socially connected workplaces.

Trust-based workplaces allow staff complete temporal and spatial autonomy. Socially connected workplaces actively encourage staff to engage and collaborate with likeminded people far beyond traditional work boundaries. This significantly improves the response to weak signals – competitive and creative developments that might otherwise have been overlooked.

However, change needs to be tempered with caution – it mustn't be dismissed as merely 'engineering' processes or tasks, it's a complex problem of co-evolution at multiple levels (individuals, the community, the environment etc).

A mechanical approach is by its nature dehumanising, and you must remember you get out what you measure. If you set targets, staff will attempt to realise the targets at all costs, ignoring context or the unstated goals that the change was hoping to realise. An awful amount of resource can be wasted managing a measurement system rather than letting the workplace flourish. We all have a stake in addressing the current situation - organisation and individual alike – in creating a brighter, smarter, and more vibrant "workplace of the future". And all of us can take immediate steps to embracing this new order.

Facebook Postings Close Doors For Job Candidates.

More employers than ever are researching job candidates on sites like Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter in order to find out more about their activities and character. And, it turns out, many candidates are doing a great job of showing their potential bosses poor communication skills, inappropriate pictures, and even how many workplace secrets they can leak. By Jacqui Cheng at arsTechnica.

Some of us had the luck of doing stupid things online before most employers knew what social networking was. (I'll admit it: in my early working days, I said some not-nice things online about some of the people I worked with.) These days, however, those looking for jobs have had many years to build up an unsavory history across the Internet, and employers now know how to do their homework. In fact, nearly half of the employers in the US now search for job candidates on social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace, according to survey results from CareerBuilder. The job-finding firm said that the numbers reflect a twofold increase over those who reported doing so in last year—45 percent in 2009 versus 22 percent in 2008—and cautioned that many employers choose not to hire based on information they find online.

Facebook was the most popular site for researching job candidates this year — no surprise there, since Facebook has exploded in popularity as of late. "Professional" networking site LinkedIn came in second at 26 percent, MySpace came in third at 21 percent, 11 percent read blogs, and seven percent followed candidates' updates on Twitter. Paranoid yet about any of your recent tweets?

If you're looking for a job, you probably should be. More than a third of survey respondents said that they found info that caused them not to hire the person applying for the job, including "provocative or inappropriate photographs," content related to drinking or using drugs, and finding postings that badmouthed previous employers, coworkers, or clients. Other candidates showed poor communication skills on their social networking profiles, made discriminatory comments, lied about their qualifications, or shared confidential information from a previous employer. The one that made us cringe? "16 percent dismissed a candidate for using text language such as GR8 (great) in an e-mail or job application."

On the other hand, some candidates are doing a good job of presenting their professional side when posting online. Half of those who screened candidates via their social networking profiles said that they got a good feel for the person's personality and fit within the organization. Other employers said that they found the profiles supported the candidates' professional qualifications or that they discovered how creative the candidate was. Solid communication skills, evidence of well-roundedness, and other people's good references (we assume this one came from LinkedIn) helped boost people's credentials, too.

For most of us, it seems like common sense not to talk trash on your Facebook wall or post drunk pictures where potential employers can see them, but people are still catching up to the idea that their future bosses are on the same sites as they are. Anecdotally, I have worked at many an office that has casually looked up interns and new employees online, only to find sides of them that were less than flattering (one intern publicly declared that our company's parent company could "f-ing suck it!" immediately after we offered her the job).

Some may argue that employers shouldn't use information they found through a little bit of online stalking (something we've heard in our forums)—after all, what someone does after hours is his or her own business. At the same time, it's hard to deny that discovering truly alarming information—such as leaked workplace secrets—would be good cause for choosing another candidate. These days, everyone hunting for a job needs to exercise some judgment on what to post online and who they let access it if they want to stay in future employers' good graces.

CMO to CEO: Insights & Advice From CEOs Who Have Made The Transition.

Little is written about the options available to CMOs to progress beyond their role as marketers and become key players at the executive committee level. At the Rich Gee Group, we frequently run into many C-Level executives who want to progress to the top rung and help them develop a strategy on what they should be doing to make themselves credible contenders for the CEO berth.

Spencer Stuart has a great report (click here for the PDF) that outlines each of the 10 ways to prepare for a role as a CEO:

1. Take on a general management role in an emerging market
2. Broaden your skill set at every opportunity
3. Gain experience in at least one non-marketing role
4. Get involved in as many mission-critical, non-marketing projects as you can
5. Demonstrate your credibility and track record as a commercial leader
6. Develop close working relationships with other functions
7. Work with the CFO to value the company’s brand assets
8. Hone your communication skills
9. Learn to make the tough decisions
10. Find a mentor who is already a CEO or in a general management position

It's a great read. Enjoy! - Rich

Do You Need An "Executive-Level" Health Program?

How well are you? How well will you be on the job? One overlooked benefit that many companies forget (yeah right) to offer is an executive health program for their top people. What is an executive health program? Well, one offered by The Mayo Clinic states:

The Mayo Clinic's Executive Health Program has combined medical expertise with efficiency to meet the needs of busy executives. The program offers a comprehensive examination with access to the full resources of Mayo's medical, surgical and laboratory facilities in a convenient one- to two-day period. (More days may be required if the executive requires additional subspecialty tests or examinations.)

A company's top executives must be healthy to be effective. An executive health program offers an efficient, cost-effective way to maximize a leader's health and reduce the chance of long-term leave related to disability, illness or health concerns. You usually meet with a battery of physicians who specialize in all areas of the human body.

Once they complete their analysis, the team meets together to discuss your overall health condition. They report, debate and diagnose any issues — at the end, your main physician provides a complete analysis for you with any treatments required.

Not surprisingly, many patients have been diagnosed with a previously unreported condition following a typical executive health exam.

These programs blend traditional diagnostic expertise with the latest in preventive medicine. Your evaluation is individualized according to your personal health needs and is strictly confidential. One physician, a specialist in internal and preventive medicine, will coordinate your care. Program centers are usually distributed across the nation for easy access.

Bottom line, these specialists have significant experience in interpreting test results and consulting with busy executives to ensure a thorough, comprehensive and efficient examination.

5 Stages of Grief When Looking For A Job.

Here's a fun list that I saw on Madatoms: Denial I've got plenty of money! I'll start looking next week!

Anger Craigslist and Monster sucks! I've got a college degree! Jobs should be looking for me!

Bargaining I'll just drive around looking for help wanted signs. I hear that Starbucks has health insurance!

Depression Why did I major in Communications? I have no useful skills.

Acceptance I didn't know I qualified for unemployment! I love this country!

Keeping Unscheduled Time.

I love the The Practice of Leadership blog - and George Ambler hits it out of the park with this topic on buffering time:

“Every leader should routinely keep a substantial portion of his or her time—I would say as much as 50 percent—unscheduled. … Only when you have substantial ’slop’ in your schedule—unscheduled time—will you have the space to reflect on what you are doing, learn from experience, and recover from your inevitable mistakes. Leaders without such free time end up tackling issues only when there is an immediate or visible problem. Managers’ typical response to my argument about free time is, ‘That’s all well and good, but there are things I have to do.’ Yet we waste so much time in unproductive activity—it takes an enormous effort on the part of the leader to keep free time for the truly important things.” – Dov Frohman

Making time to reflect and think is a critical leadership practice. In its simplest form, reflecting is just thinking about what happened. It’s the process of thinking about and examining what we’ve experienced, how we reacted and what changes we need to make to become more effective.

There are few people who make a conscious effort to learn from their experiences and fewer still learn from their mistakes. This is because reflection is not an automatic process for most people. Most of use make our way through life simply reacting to circumstances. To be effective leaders must make reflection a regular practice.

“Leaders like everyone else, are the sum of all their experiences, but, unlike others, they amount to more than the sum, because they make more of their experiences.” – Warren Bennis, Why Leaders Can’t Lead

A simple way to start the practice of reflection is by asking questions, questions about how we feel, about the results we are getting in our life, and what we can do differently to get different results. For example, find a quite place where you are not going to be disturbed then, take an issue that’s important to you, and ask yourself the following questions:

What happened? What was I trying to achieve? What went well and why? What didn’t go so well and why? How did it affect me? How did it affect others? What were the consequences (positive or negative) for myself and others? What could be done differently next time? Would this change improve the consequences?

“Reflection is asking the questions that provoke self-awareness” – Warren Bennis, On Becoming a Leader

As leaders much of our success is dependent on the way we think. Given this, it’s important that we schedule regular time-out to reflect on how we are behaving, how we are thinking about a situation and what adjustments we might need to make to improve our effectiveness. When was the last time you spent reflecting on an issue that is important to you?

Ethical Leadership — You Need A Mentor.

Part Two of a series on Ethical Leadership — many more to come.

"Mentor: Someone whose hindsight can become your foresight.”
- Unknown

Ethics is a balance. Simply put, a balance between good and evil and your relationship with each.

Leadership is a balance. Guiding and letting go is a balance in itself.

In every endeavor in life, balance comes to play and it helps to have something or someone to help you maintain (or regain) your balance when times are tough. This is where mentors come in.

Of course you can ask someone for temporary guidance — we all do that from time to time. Unfortunately, 'temporary mentors' usually don't know the full score, they are fishing in the shallow waters and cannot fully understand the depths of your dilemma, opportunity, or situation.

A long-term mentor can help you not only solve present issues, but keep your eye on your long-term goals. Talking with them on a regular basis can help you regain your balance, fly straight, and keep your head clear.

Pick a mentor - choose a past boss, one that is not steeped in company intrigue. One that seems to fly above the corporate radar and get things done without playing politics. They can either come from a past company or your current one — but be careful with current company mentors - choose wisely.

State frankly that you would like to have them be your mentor. That you'll take them out to lunch to bounce ideas off of them. Let them understand that your talks will be highly confidential in nature and that you appreciate their guidance.

Schedule regular meetings - usually monthly or quarterly, off-site. Come with a good idea of the topics that you would like to cover. In addition, always add the question: "What do you think my next step should be?" It will allow you both to move from tactical to strategic thinking.

Keep them informed of the results - this will help the mentor/mentee relationship stay healthy and focused.

A mentor can help you focus on what is REALLY important and see things you might have missed. They will keep you on the right track.

P.S. By the way, if you cannot find anyone who can be a good mentor for you, call me.

Wall Street’s Gambling Soul.

Of all the insulting labels lobbed at Wall Street over the past two years, you wouldn't expect "overconfident" to be the one that hurt. But it has. This week's New Yorker article by Malcolm Gladwell on Wall Street's "psychology of overconfidence" struck a nerve. By Malcolm Gladwell in the New Yorker Magazine.

In 1996, an investor named Henry de Kwiatkowski sued Bear Stearns for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. De Kwiatkowski had made—and then lost—hundreds of millions of dollars by betting on the direction of the dollar, and he blamed his bankers for his reversals.

The district court ruled in de Kwiatkowski’s favor, ultimately awarding him $164.5 million in damages. But Bear Stearns appealed—successfully—and in William D. Cohan’s engrossing account of the fall of Bear Stearns, “House of Cards,” the firm’s former chairman and C.E.O. Jimmy Cayne tells the story of what happened on the day of the hearing:

"Their lead lawyer turned out to be about a 300-pound goon from Long Island . . . a really irritating guy who had cross-examined me and tried to knock me around in the lower court trial. Now when we walk into the courtroom for the appeal, they’re arguing another case and we have to wait until they’re finished. Then I see my blood enemy stand up and he’s going to the bathroom. So I wait till he passes and then I follow him in and it’s just he and I in the bathroom. And I said to him, “Today you’re going to get your ass kicked, big.” He ran out of the room. He thought I might have wanted to start it right there and then."

At the time Cayne said this, Bear Stearns had spectacularly collapsed. The eighty-five-year-old investment bank, with its shiny new billion-dollar headquarters and its storied history, was swallowed whole by J. P. Morgan Chase. Cayne himself had lost close to a billion dollars. His reputation—forty years in the making—was in ruins, especially when it came out that, during Bear’s final, critical months, he’d spent an inordinate amount of time on the golf course.

Did Cayne think long and hard about how he wanted to make his case to Cohan? He must have. Cayne understood selling; he started out as a photocopier salesman, working the nine-hundred-mile stretch between Boise and Salt Lake City, and ended up among the highest-paid executives in banking. He was known as one of the savviest men on the Street, a master tactician, a brilliant gamesman. “Jimmy had it all,” Bill Bamber, a former Bear senior managing director, writes in “Bear Trap: The Fall of Bear Stearns and the Panic of 2008” (a book co-written by Andrew Spencer). “The ability to read an opponent. The ability to objectively analyze his own strengths and weaknesses. . . . He knew how to exploit others’ weaknesses—and their strengths, for that matter—as a way to further his own gain. He knew when to take his losses and live to fight another day.”

Cohan asked Cayne about the last days of Bear Stearns, in the spring of 2008. Wall Street had become so spooked by rumors about the firm’s financial status that investors withdrew their capital, and no one would lend Bear the money required for its day-to-day operations. The bank received some government money, via J. P. Morgan. But Timothy Geithner, then the head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, didn’t open the Fed’s so-called “discount window” to investment banks until J. P. Morgan’s acquisition of Bear was under way. What did Cayne think of Geithner? Picture the scene. The journalist in one chair, Cayne in another. Between them, a tape recorder. And the savviest man on Wall Street sets out to salvage his good name:

"The audacity of that jerk in front of the American people announcing he was deciding whether or not a firm of this stature and this whatever was good enough to get a loan. Like he was the determining factor, and it’s like a flea on his back, floating down underneath the Golden Gate Bridge, saying, “Raise the bridge.” This guy thinks he’s got everything. He’s got nothing."

Since the beginning of the financial crisis, there have been two principal explanations for why so many banks made such disastrous decisions. The first is structural. Regulators did not regulate. Institutions failed to function as they should. Rules and guidelines were either inadequate or ignored. The second explanation is that Wall Street was incompetent, that the traders and investors didn’t know enough, that they made extravagant bets without understanding the consequences. But the first wave of postmortems on the crash suggests a third possibility: that the roots of Wall Street’s crisis were not structural or cognitive so much as they were psychological.

In “Military Misfortunes,” the historians Eliot Cohen and John Gooch offer, as a textbook example of this kind of failure, the British-led invasion of Gallipoli, in 1915. Gallipoli is a peninsula in southern Turkey, jutting out into the Aegean. The British hoped that by landing an army there they could make an end run around the stalemate on the Western Front, and give themselves a clear shot at the soft underbelly of Germany. It was a brilliant and daring strategy. “In my judgment, it would have produced a far greater effect upon the whole conduct of the war than anything [else],” the British Prime Minister H. H. Asquith later concluded. But the invasion ended in disaster, and Cohen and Gooch find the roots of that disaster in the curious complacency displayed by the British.

The invasion required a large-scale amphibious landing, something the British had little experience with. It then required combat against a foe dug into ravines and rocky outcroppings and hills and thickly vegetated landscapes that Cohen and Gooch call “one of the finest natural fortresses in the world.” Yet the British never bothered to draw up a formal plan of operations. The British military leadership had originally estimated that the Allies would need a hundred and fifty thousand troops to take Gallipoli. Only seventy thousand were sent. The British troops should have had artillery—more than three hundred guns.

They took a hundred and eighteen, and, for the most part, neglected to bring howitzers, trench mortars, or grenades. Command of the landing at Sulva Bay—the most critical element of the attack—was given to Frederick Stopford, a retired officer whose experience was largely administrative. Stopford had two days during which he had a ten-to-one advantage over the Turks and could easily have seized the highlands overlooking the bay. Instead, his troops lingered on the beach, while Stopford lounged offshore, aboard a command ship. Winston Churchill later described the scene as “the placid, prudent, elderly English gentleman with his 20,000 men spread around the beaches, the front lines sitting on the tops of shallow trenches, smoking and cooking, with here and there an occasional rifle shot, others bathing by hundreds in the bright blue bay where, disturbed hardly by a single shell, floated the great ships of war.”

When word of Stopford’s ineptitude reached the British commander, Sir Ian Hamilton, he rushed to Sulva Bay to intercede—although “rushed” may not be quite the right word here, since Hamilton had chosen to set up his command post on an island an hour away and it took him a good while to find a boat to take him to the scene.

Cohen and Gooch ascribe the disaster at Gallipoli to a failure to adapt—a failure to take into account how reality did not conform to their expectations. And behind that failure to adapt was a deeply psychological problem: the British simply couldn’t wrap their heads around the fact that they might have to adapt. “Let me bring my lads face to face with Turks in the open field,” Hamilton wrote in his diary before the attack. “We must beat them every time because British volunteer soldiers are superior individuals to Anatolians, Syrians or Arabs and are animated with a superior ideal and an equal joy in battle.”

Hamilton was not a fool. Cohen and Gooch call him an experienced and “brilliant commander who was also a firstrate trainer of men and a good organizer.” Nor was he entirely wrong in his assessments. The British probably were a superior fighting force. Certainly they were more numerous, especially when they held that ten-to-one advantage at Sulva Bay. Hamilton, it seems clear, was simply overconfident—and one of the things that happen to us when we become overconfident is that we start to blur the line between the kinds of things that we can control and the kinds of things that we can’t. The psychologist Ellen Langer once had subjects engage in a betting game against either a self-assured, well-dressed opponent or a shy and badly dressed opponent (in Langer’s delightful phrasing, the “dapper” or the “schnook” condition), and she found that her subjects bet far more aggressively when they played against the schnook. They looked at their awkward opponent and thought, I’m better than he is. Yet the game was pure chance: all the players did was draw cards at random from a deck, and see who had the high hand. This is called the “illusion of control”: confidence spills over from areas where it may be warranted (“I’m savvier than that schnook”) to areas where it isn’t warranted at all (“and that means I’m going to draw higher cards”).

At Gallipoli, the British acted as if their avowed superiority over the Turks gave them superiority over all aspects of the contest. They neglected to take into account the fact that the morning sun would be directly in the eyes of the troops as they stormed ashore. They didn’t bring enough water. They didn’t factor in the harsh terrain. “The attack was based on two assumptions,” Cohen and Gooch write, “both of which turned out to be unwise: that the only really difficult part of the operation would be getting ashore, after which the Turks could easily be pushed off the peninsula; and that the main obstacles to a happy landing would be provided by the enemy.”

Most people are inclined to use moral terms to describe overconfidence—terms like “arrogance” or “hubris.” But psychologists tend to regard overconfidence as a state as much as a trait. The British at Gallipoli were victims of a situation that promoted overconfidence. Langer didn’t say that it was only arrogant gamblers who upped their bets in the presence of the schnook. She argues that this is what competition does to all of us; because ability makes a difference in competitions of skill, we make the mistake of thinking that it must also make a difference in competitions of pure chance. Other studies have reached similar conclusions. As novices, we don’t trust our judgment. Then we have some success, and begin to feel a little surer of ourselves. Finally, we get to the top of our game and succumb to the trap of thinking that there’s nothing we can’t master. As we get older and more experienced, we overestimate the accuracy of our judgments, especially when the task before us is difficult and when we’re involved with something of great personal importance. The British were overconfident at Gallipoli not because Gallipoli didn’t matter but, paradoxically, because it did; it was a high-stakes contest, of daunting complexity, and it is often in those circumstances that overconfidence takes root.

Several years ago, a team headed by the psychologist Mark Fenton-O’Creevy created a computer program that mimicked the ups and downs of an index like the Dow, and recruited, as subjects, members of a highly paid profession. As the line moved across the screen, Fenton-O’Creevy asked his subjects to press a series of buttons, which, they were told, might or might not affect the course of the line. At the end of the session, they were asked to rate their effectiveness in moving the line upward. The buttons had no effect at all on the line. But many of the players were convinced that their manipulation of the buttons made the index go up and up. The world these people inhabited was competitive and stressful and complex. They had been given every reason to be confident in their own judgments. If they sat down next to you, with a tape recorder, it wouldn’t take much for them to believe that they had you in the palm of their hand. They were traders at an investment bank.

The high-water mark for Bear Stearns was 2003. The dollar was falling. A wave of scandals had just swept through the financial industry. The stock market was in a swoon. But Bear Stearns was an exception. In the first quarter of that year, its earnings jumped fifty-five per cent. Its return on equity was the highest on Wall Street. The firm’s mortgage business was booming. Since Bear Stearns’s founding, in 1923, it had always been a kind of also-ran to its more blue-chip counterparts, like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. But that year Fortune named it the best financial company to work for. “We are hitting on all 99 cylinders,’’ Jimmy Cayne told a reporter for the Times, in the spring of that year, “so you have to ask yourself, What can we do better? And I just can’t decide what that might be.’’ He went on, “Everyone says that when the markets turn around, we will suffer. But let me tell you, we are going to surprise some people this time around. Bear Stearns is a great place to be.’’

With the benefit of hindsight, Cayne’s words read like the purest hubris. But in 2003 they would have seemed banal. These are the kinds of things that bankers say. More precisely—and here is where psychological failure becomes more problematic still—these are the kinds of things that bankers are expected to say. Investment banks are able to borrow billions of dollars and make huge trades because, at the end of the day, their counterparties believe they are capable of making good on their promises. Wall Street is a confidence game, in the strictest sense of that phrase.

This is what social scientists mean when they say that human overconfidence can be an adaptive trait. “In conflicts involving mutual assessment, an exaggerated assessment of the probability of winning increases the probability of winning,” Richard Wrangham, a biological anthropologist at Harvard, writes. “Selection therefore favors this form of overconfidence.” Winners know how to bluff. And who bluffs the best? The person who, instead of pretending to be stronger than he is, actually believes himself to be stronger than he is. According to Wrangham, self-deception reduces the chances of “behavioral leakage”; that is, of “inadvertently revealing the truth through an inappropriate behavior.” This much is in keeping with what some psychologists have been telling us for years—that it can be useful to be especially optimistic about how attractive our spouse is, or how marketable our new idea is. In the words of the social psychologist Roy Baumeister, humans have an “optimal margin of illusion.”

If you were a Wall Street C.E.O., there were two potential lessons to be drawn from the collapse of Bear Stearns. The first was that Jimmy Cayne was overconfident. The second was that Jimmy Cayne wasn’t overconfident enough. Bear Stearns did not collapse, after all, simply because it had made bad bets. Until very close to the end, the firm had a capital cushion of more than seventeen billion dollars. The problem was that when, in early 2008, Cayne and his colleagues stood up and said that Bear was a great place to be, the rest of Wall Street no longer believed them. Clients withdrew their money, and lenders withheld funding. As the run on Bear Stearns worsened, J. P. Morgan and the Fed threw the bank a lifeline—a multibillion-dollar line of credit. But confidence matters so much on Wall Street that the lifeline had the opposite of its intended effect. As Bamber writes:

This line-of-credit, the stop-gap measure that was supposed to solve the problem that hadn’t really existed in the first place had done nothing but worsen it. When we started the week, we had no liquidity issues. But because people had said that we did have problems with our capital, it became true, even though it wasn’t true when people started saying it. . . . So we were forced to find capital to offset the losses we’d sustained because somebody decided we didn’t have capital when we really did. So when we finally got more capital to replace the capital we’d lost, people took that as a bad sign and pointed to the fact that we’d had no capital and had to get a loan to cover it, even when we did have the capital they said we didn’t have.

Of course, one reason that over-confidence is so difficult to eradicate from expert fields like finance is that, at least some of the time, it’s useful to be overconfident—or, more precisely, sometimes the only way to get out of the problems caused by overconfidence is to be even more overconfident.

From an individual perspective, it is hard to distinguish between the times when excessive optimism is good and the times when it isn’t. All that we can say unequivocally is that overconfidence is, as Wrangham puts it, “globally maladaptive.” When one opponent bluffs, he can score an easy victory. But when everyone bluffs, Wrangham writes, rivals end up “escalating conflicts that only one can win and suffering higher costs than they should if assessment were accurate.” The British didn’t just think the Turks would lose in Gallipoli; they thought that Belgium would prove to be an obstacle to Germany’s advance, and that the Russians would crush the Germans in the east. The French, for their part, planned to be at the Rhine within six weeks of the start of the war, while the Germans predicted that by that point they would be on the outskirts of Paris. Every side in the First World War was bluffing, with the resolve and skill that only the deluded are capable of, and the results, of course, were catastrophic.

Jimmy Cayne grew up in Chicago, the son of a patent lawyer. He wanted to be a bookie, but he realized that it wasn’t quite respectable enough. He went to Purdue University to study mechanical engineering—and became hooked on bridge. His grades suffered, and he never graduated. He got married in 1956 and was divorced within four years. “At this time, he was one of the best bridge players in Chicago,” his ex-brother-in-law told Cohan. “In fact, that’s the reason for the divorce. There was no other woman or anything like that. The co-respondent in their divorce was bridge. He spent all of his time playing bridge—every night. He wasn’t home.” He was selling scrap metal in those days, and, Cohan says, he would fall asleep on the job, exhausted from playing cards. In 1964, he moved to New York to become a professional bridge player. It was bridge that led him to his second wife, and to a job interview with Alan (Ace) Greenberg, then a senior executive at Bear Stearns. When Cayne told Greenberg that he was a bridge player, Cayne tells Cohan, “you could see the electric light bulb.” Cayne goes on:

[Greenberg] says, “How well do you play?” I said, “I play well.” He said, “Like how well?” I said, “I play quite well.” He says, “You don’t understand.” I said, “Yeah, I do. I understand. Mr. Greenberg, if you study bridge the rest of your life, if you play with the best partners and you achieve your potential, you will never play bridge like I play bridge.”

Right then and there, Cayne says, Greenberg offered him a job.

Twenty years later, the scene was repeated with Warren Spector, who went on to become a co-president of the firm. Spector had been a bridge champion as a student, and Cayne somehow heard about it. “Suddenly, out of nowhere there’s a bridge player at Bear Stearns on the bond desk,” Cayne recalls. Spector tells Cohan, “He called me up and said, ‘Are you a bridge player?’ I said, ‘I used to be.’ So bridge was something that he, Ace, and I all shared and talked about.” As reports circulated that two of Bear Stearns’s hedge funds were going under—a failure that started the bank on its long, downward spiral into collapse—Spector and Cayne were attending the Spingold K.O. bridge tournament, in Nashville. The Wall Street Journal reported that, of the twenty-one workdays that month, Cayne was out of the office for nearly half of them.

It makes sense that there should be an affinity between bridge and the business of Wall Street. Bridge is a contest between teams, each of which competes over a “contract”—how many tricks they think they can win in a given hand. Winning requires knowledge of the cards, an accurate sense of probabilities, steely nerves, and the ability to assess an opponent’s psychology. Bridge is Wall Street in miniature, and the reason the light bulb went on when Greenberg looked at Cayne, and Cayne looked at Spector, is surely that they assumed that bridge skills could be transferred to the trading floor—that being good at the game version of Wall Street was a reasonable proxy for being good at the real-life version of Wall Street.

It isn’t, however. In bridge, there is such a thing as expertise unencumbered by bias. That’s because, as the psychologist Gideon Keren points out, bridge involves “related items with continuous feedback.” It has rules and boundaries and situations that repeat themselves and clear patterns that develop—and when a player makes a mistake of overconfidence he or she learns of the consequences of that mistake almost immediately. In other words, it’s a game. But running an investment bank is not, in this sense, a game: it is not a closed world with a limited set of possibilities. It is an open world where one day a calamity can happen that no one had dreamed could happen, and where you can make a mistake of overconfidence and not personally feel the consequences for years and years—if at all. Perhaps this is part of why we play games: there is something intoxicating about pure expertise, and the real mastery we can attain around a card table or behind the wheel of a race car emboldens us when we move into the more complex realms. “I’m good at that. I must be good at this, too,” we tell ourselves, forgetting that in wars and on Wall Street there is no such thing as absolute expertise, that every step taken toward mastery brings with it an increased risk of mastery’s curse. Cayne must have come back from the Spingold bridge tournament fortified in his belief in his own infallibility. And the striking thing about his conversations with Cohan is that nothing that had happened since seemed to have shaken that belief.

“When I left,” Cayne told Cohan, speaking of his final day at Bear Stearns, “I had three different meetings. The first was with the president’s advisory group, which was about eighty people. There wasn’t a dry eye. Standing ovation. I was crying.” Until the very end, he evidently saw the world that he wanted to see. “The second meeting was with the retail sales force on the Web,” he goes on. “Standing ovation. And the third was a partners’ meeting that night for me to tell them that I was stepping down. Standing ovation, of the whole auditorium.”

The New Joblessness.

The U.S. economy is not only shedding jobs at a record rate; it is shedding more jobs than it is supposed to. It’s bad enough that the unemployment rate has doubled in only a year and a half and one out of six construction workers is out of work. By Roger Lowenstein From The New York Times Magazine.

What truly troubles President Obama’s economic advisers is that, even adjusting for the recession, the contraction in employment seems way too high. As one administration official said, “This has been a very steep job loss.” One proof, he added, is that the country is deviating from the standard (among economists) jobs predictor known as Okun’s Law.

In the 1960s, Arthur Okun, a prominent economist, claimed to have discovered a mathematical relationship between the decline in output (that is, goods and services produced) and the rise in unemployment. It held up pretty well until recently. But this time around, although the decline in output would have predicted a rise in unemployment to 8 percent, the actual jobless rate has soared to 9.5 percent. So this recession is killing off jobs even faster than the things — like automobiles, houses, computers and newspapers — that jobholders produce.

The Federal Reserve now expects unemployment to surpass 10 percent (the postwar high was 10.8 percent in 1982). By almost every other measure, ours is already the worst job environment since the Great Depression. The economy has shed 6.5 million jobs — nearly 5 percent of the total, far outstripping the 3 percent that were lost in the early ’80s. Economists fear that even when the economy turns around, the job market will be stagnant. Keith Hall, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, sums it up as “an ugly picture out there.”

Explanations for the collapse of the great American job machine begin with the marked absence of what is called labor hoarding. Usually during recessions, firms keep most of their employees on the payroll even as business slows, in effect stockpiling them for better days. In the current downturn, hoarding seems to have gone into reverse. Not only are firms laying off redundant workers, but they seem to be cutting into the bone. Hall says the absence of hoarding means that firms do not expect business to pick up soon. This is supported by other evidence, like a doubling in the number of involuntary part-time workers (there are nine million of them) and the shrinking workweek, now 33 hours — the shortest ever recorded. Presumably, before companies start to rehire laid-off workers, they will ask their current employees to work more.

Those who hope for a rebound argue that employers, frightened by the financial shocks and the credit crisis of last fall, effectively panicked. That is, they cut deeper than necessary. And that may be.

But layoffs are only part of the story. The problem isn’t just that so many workers have received pink slips but also that companies are failing to hire. And this, unfortunately, has been a trend for most of the past decade (unnoticed, perhaps, because the mortgage bubble was papering over latent weaknesses). At the end of the Clinton era, which also marked the end of a decade-long boom, companies that were opening or expanding operations added nearly 8 workers for every 100 already on the payroll. During the recession of 2001, the figure dropped to 7 per 100: optimistic firms were a bit less optimistic. The surprising fact is that when the recession ended, the percentage stayed at 7. “We never got our groove back,” asserts Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com. In the current recession, the rate has fallen to 6 per 100.

It’s hard to give a definitive explanation for this trend, but among the reasons are a decline in innovation in the aftermath of the tech boom, leading to fewer new businesses, and the aging of the population. More people have dropped out of the work force, and a smaller work force tends to dampen job totals. The percentage of adults who are working has fallen from 64 at the end of the Clinton era to only 59.5 now. Some of those dropouts are retirees, but some may be responding to the economy’s declining dynamism. Traditionally, it was a mark of Americans’ resiliency that, when times were tough, they relocated from state to state and region to region. Now, according to the Census Bureau, mobility is at an all-time recorded low. Perhaps people with underwater mortgages cannot afford to move. Perhaps the areas they used to move to, typically the Sun Belt, are too devastated by foreclosures. But the vaunted ability of the U.S. economy to renew itself seems a little tarnished. Maybe it’s no accident that this time around, folks on the unemployment line are staying there longer.

In terms of its impact on society, a dearth of hiring is far more troubling than an excess of layoffs. Job losses have to end sooner or later. Even if they persist (as, say, in the auto industry), the government can intervene. But the government cannot force firms to hire. Ultimately, each new job depends on the boss’s belief — or hope — that sufficient work will materialize. It’s a bit of black magic also described as confidence. Over the years, it is why America has not only attracted immigrants (whose arrivals are now slowing) but also generated more opportunities and — favorite word of politicians — hope for those born here.

The administration’s tilt toward so-called sustainable new jobs, in green energy and such, shows that it understands what is at stake, both for the country and for its political fortunes. Whether its plans will bear fruit is, of course, another matter. Along with double-digit unemployment, the country is facing a second potential scare headline: falling wages. Even during recessions, businesses don’t like to lower pay, because it reduces morale. But layoffs are also a downer. And in this recession, employers ranging from the State of California to publishers (including this newspaper) have cut back on pay. In effect, job losses have been so severe that businesses have been forced to spread the pain. In June, overall wage growth was zero. Zandi thinks the United States could see negative wage growth.

How would Obama, not to mention Congress, respond to declining employment and falling wages? The pressure for another stimulus (and greater deficits) would be intense. So would that for demagogic solutions like trade barriers. Robert Reich, the former labor secretary, says most lost jobs are not coming back. The huge question is when — or whether — new ones will take their place. Roger Lowenstein, an outside director of the Sequoia Fund, is a contributing writer for the magazine.

Ethical Leadership - Start With Gut Instinct.

This is Part One of a multi-part series on Ethical Leadership. "I rely far more on gut instinct than researching huge amounts of statistics." - Richard Branson

I thought I would start with the most apparent way to lead ethically - by your gut. Why? Because I feel that most people are good and try to live their lives from a position of doing good for others. I know — there are some horrible people out there — but overall, I believe that the majority of executives are guided by good rather than evil. Unfortunately, some are pulled to the dark side by a number of different reasons (found in my last post).

Leading with Gut Instinct means that you listen to an inner voice — what scientists call 'your intuition'. Intuition is a feeling within your body that something is right or just not right. Did you catch that I said "within your body" and not just "within your mind"? We've all had moments of intuition - a certain colleague or a business deal. Sometimes we listen and sometimes we don't —intuition is the signpost pointing us to the right way — unfortunately, we sometimes take the wrong way.

"Trust your hunches. They're usually based on facts filed away just below the conscious level." – Dr. Joyce Brothers This is why I believe my gut. Our brain is made up of billions of neurons firing many times during the day. Thoughts, emotions, facts, knowledge, etc. all are accessible at one time or another. If you have a highly structured and organized mind, you probably don't use your intuition as much as the next person. You just go to the library, choose your book from the shelves, and access the info that you need.

Everyone else's brain uses a more complex system — intuition — to unconsciously make their way through that ball of wire we call the brain and access that one (or more) tidbit of information needed to make the right decision.

The creative is the place where no one else has ever been. You have to leave the city of your comfort and go into the wilderness of your intuition. What you'll discover will be wonderful. What you'll discover will be yourself. – Alan Alda "Be yourself" — (how I love that term) — intuition allows you to make decisions from where you stand, not from anyone else's perspective. This is a sign of a true leader - one that makes the hard decisions, efficiently and effectively.

So next time you need to make the right decision — use your gut. It will keep you on the right track.

The Joy of Sachs — By Paul Krugman.

From the NY Times. The American economy remains in dire straits, with one worker in six unemployed or underemployed. Yet Goldman Sachs just reported record quarterly profits — and it’s preparing to hand out huge bonuses, comparable to what it was paying before the crisis. What does this contrast tell us?

First, it tells us that Goldman is very good at what it does. Unfortunately, what it does is bad for America.

Second, it shows that Wall Street’s bad habits — above all, the system of compensation that helped cause the financial crisis — have not gone away.

Third, it shows that by rescuing the financial system without reforming it, Washington has done nothing to protect us from a new crisis, and, in fact, has made another crisis more likely.

Let’s start by talking about how Goldman makes money.

Over the past generation — ever since the banking deregulation of the Reagan years — the U.S. economy has been “financialized.” The business of moving money around, of slicing, dicing and repackaging financial claims, has soared in importance compared with the actual production of useful stuff. The sector officially labeled “securities, commodity contracts and investments” has grown especially fast, from only 0.3 percent of G.D.P. in the late 1970s to 1.7 percent of G.D.P. in 2007.

Such growth would be fine if financialization really delivered on its promises — if financial firms made money by directing capital to its most productive uses, by developing innovative ways to spread and reduce risk. But can anyone, at this point, make those claims with a straight face? Financial firms, we now know, directed vast quantities of capital into the construction of unsellable houses and empty shopping malls. They increased risk rather than reducing it, and concentrated risk rather than spreading it. In effect, the industry was selling dangerous patent medicine to gullible consumers.

Goldman’s role in the financialization of America was similar to that of other players, except for one thing: Goldman didn’t believe its own hype. Other banks invested heavily in the same toxic waste they were selling to the public at large. Goldman, famously, made a lot of money selling securities backed by subprime mortgages — then made a lot more money by selling mortgage-backed securities short, just before their value crashed. All of this was perfectly legal, but the net effect was that Goldman made profits by playing the rest of us for suckers.

And Wall Streeters have every incentive to keep playing that kind of game.

The huge bonuses Goldman will soon hand out show that financial-industry highfliers are still operating under a system of heads they win, tails other people lose. If you’re a banker, and you generate big short-term profits, you get lavishly rewarded — and you don’t have to give the money back if and when those profits turn out to have been a mirage. You have every reason, then, to steer investors into taking risks they don’t understand.

And the events of the past year have skewed those incentives even more, by putting taxpayers as well as investors on the hook if things go wrong.

I won’t try to parse the competing claims about how much direct benefit Goldman received from recent financial bailouts, especially the government’s assumption of A.I.G.’s liabilities. What’s clear is that Wall Street in general, Goldman very much included, benefited hugely from the government’s provision of a financial backstop — an assurance that it will rescue major financial players whenever things go wrong.

You can argue that such rescues are necessary if we’re to avoid a replay of the Great Depression. In fact, I agree. But the result is that the financial system’s liabilities are now backed by an implicit government guarantee.

Now the last time there was a comparable expansion of the financial safety net, the creation of federal deposit insurance in the 1930s, it was accompanied by much tighter regulation, to ensure that banks didn’t abuse their privileges. This time, new regulations are still in the drawing-board stage — and the finance lobby is already fighting against even the most basic protections for consumers.

If these lobbying efforts succeed, we’ll have set the stage for an even bigger financial disaster a few years down the road. The next crisis could look something like the savings-and-loan mess of the 1980s, in which deregulated banks gambled with, or in some cases stole, taxpayers’ money — except that it would involve the financial industry as a whole.

The bottom line is that Goldman’s blowout quarter is good news for Goldman and the people who work there. It’s good news for financial superstars in general, whose paychecks are rapidly climbing back to precrisis levels. But it’s bad news for almost everyone else.

Ethics - The Only Way To Be A True Leader.

eth-ics (noun) - that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions. Right and Wrong. Good and Bad. And the most important part - the motive and ends of such actions.

There are many executives out in the marketplace today that know what they are doing is wrong . . . and bad. But they still do it because the motives and ends of such actions will deliver one or both of these results:

1. The company will do better.
2. They will make more money, be more successful, and ensure a continuous launching pad to bigger and better positions.

Now here's the REAL question - Can they still achieve these same goals listed above if they do the right thing . . . good things?

Now we can get into the semantical argument that what I see as good might be bad for another (or vice-versa). Or that based on our differing opinions of ethics, what you might see as 'bad' might be 'good' viewed by another. But let's cut out the BS - as an executive, you absolutely know when you are doing something that is slightly (or gravely) unethical (until you do it so frequently that it becomes 'good' in your eyes).

I took ethics in college (I state that I am not an expert) and know that there are two arguments (or more) for every ethical issue. But I've also lived in the corporate world for 20+ years and coached top level executives for 10 years. I believe that in business, there is rarely gray, there is only black and white. Why? In business, everything is measured, everyone is conservative, and risk is constantly minimized. Most of the time (not all mind you), you can faithfully predict how your actions will affect your bottom line, customers, employees, shareholders, etc. Not on a granular scale - but more on a ballpark one.

But when it comes to bad and wrong, I know it when I see it.

Bad and Wrong decisions go against the company's natural grain of behavior. You've probably felt this if you have worked in corporate - you are marching down the street with a strategy, everyone is singing the same tune. Suddenly, management makes a 180° turn and states that we will be doing the exact opposite of what they were pontificating 6-12 months before.

Now I understand that markets change. Customer wants and needs change. But 180 degrees? We were going North, but now we are going South? That clearly communicates to me that the people at the top don't know what they are doing, are open to the fickleness of certain corporate soothsayers, or dramatically underestimate the market to the point that they were COMPLETELY wrong. Candidly, these people should be FIRED. But these are not Bad and Wrong decisions in an Ethical context.

I honestly think that when executives make bad and wrong decisions do so for three reasons (the motive and ends):

1. They're lazy. Going the 'bad' or 'wrong' direction is easier, less risky, more profitable in the short term, etc.
2. It's a personality thing. They feel that making contrarian decisions keep them above the rabble, they are smarter than the rest, and they are fooling the masses.
3. They believe that there is a LOT more money and power to be made by going bad.

Bernard Madoff was a #2 & #3. Not only did he realize that there was a LOT more money to be made by deceiving his investors and the market, it probably was a personality thing. Bottom line - most unethical executives have abnormal self-esteem (very low or very high) so they compensate by doing unethical things.

Many executives who testify in front of Congress (honestly - they've probably done something wrong!) usually have all three personality traits. Go back and view the testimonies of the investment firms, insurance companies, tobacco companies to get a good feel for #1, #2 and #3.

OK - That's enough for one day. My next post will discuss the treatment.

CEO's Must Trash Short-Term Thinking & Embrace Long-Term Strategy. Now.

I'm tired. And angry. And I'm not alone. For too long, the stewards of our most cherished institutions have been acting less than ethical. I call it "short term thinking for short term gain" — get in, make a quick buck, and move on to the next sucker. Not the best behavior for supposedly the best executives in this nation.

Now don't get me wrong — not all CEO's are like this. Unfortunately, many are. On the flip side, some are forced into this situation by unscrupulous board members and irrational investors. But as I frequently say to my clients: "This isn't Russia, if you ethically disagree with what your company is doing, move on."

Over the next few months, I will be focusing in on why CEO's do this and what they can do to re-focus and reset their behaviors to produce solid companies that deliver great products for a reasonable price and treat their employees and investors with respect. I'll be interviewing those CEO's that are thinking long-term and really care about their company, the shareholders, their employees and not their pockets.

To begin and see where my thinking is grounded, catch my earlier post: "Do You Trust This Man?"

The era of short term thinking is over. The era of ego is over. It's time to focus on doing the right thing.

Thwart Bad Management: EQ vs. IQ.

Is your typical communication channel to your direct reports not working? Are people dropping the ball, doing the wrong thing, or not understanding your stated vision for the company? Your EQ might need a little polishing.First - Run out and buy Daniel Goleman's Working With Emotional Intelligence. And I mean RUN.

Why? Leaders (like you) are not defined by their IQs or even their job skills, but by their "emotional intelligence": a set of competencies that distinguish how people manage their feelings, interactions and communications. This book explains what emotional intelligence is and why it counts more than IQ or expertise to excel on the job.

My Take: I've always found corporate leaders who have used those IQ skills that got them where they are today will find their IQ skills will not keep them in the position that they have attained. That's why many C-Level executives have a typical job duration of 2-3 years (or shorter) at a company.

Why? When you are moving up the ladder, you tend to use more IQ (Intelligence) than EQ (Emotion). You need to get work done. You need to meet deadlines. You need to show results. The closer you get to the top, the less IQ you use and the more EQ you leverage to manage people, communicate strategies, etc. Unfortunately, when you are at the top, your position is ALL EQ and almost no IQ - and that is where most C-Level executives fail.

Working With Emotional Intelligence will help you address this.

I Cried Last Night And Learned A Powerful Lesson.

I saw one of the most touching and inspiring movies of my life last night. Sitting in the movie theater with my family wearing 3D glasses, I was actually tearing up during many scenes of Pixar's new movie UP (by the way . . . don't walk - run out to see it TODAY. It will change your life and the way you look at life).

I'm a softie, but I NEVER cry at movies. And let me also state that I religiously see every Pixar movie. I will argue to my dying day that Pixar puts out the best movies for any age in theaters today.

But the best part - UP has a number of powerful messages. My favorite, and the one that should stick with you forever is: You are never too old to start your second adventure.

Many people go through life thinking that they only have one good 'adventure' in them. It might be their career, their marriage, their kids, college, etc. But let me say this - your life can be full of MANY new adventures! And here's the best part - they could get better and better!

So just when you thought it couldn't get better - go out there - grab life by the collar and make a new adventure for yourself. Take a risk, step out of your comfort zone, and push yourself to new heights. You can plan - or don't plan - just do. You might just surprise someone that is never surprised . . . YOU!

P.S. In posting this story, I just saw that I have no tags for the words "Adventure" or "Fun". Time to rectify that! More "Adventure" & "Fun" for Rich Gee!

The Most Powerful Force In Business.

When you think of a great executive or someone you respect, what qualities come to mind?

Ability to get things done? Knowledge of their space? Who they know? Schmoozability at parties?

What do you think is their most powerful ability to be successful?

The ability to LISTEN.

Listening is SOOO underrated. Most people don't even know it's happening — they are so engrossed in their professional soap opera. Why is it so important?

1. It allows you to listen to what is important and what isn't important - then you can comment. Not the other way around.
2. It makes the person you talk to feel more engaged, more important, more focused.
3. In addition, you look more engaged, more important, and more focused. If you talk too much, you are a know-it-all blowhard.

Our natural inclination is to talk, interrupt, and think about what we are going to say while the other person is talking. By listening, you turn the tables on basic business conversation — you seem more thoughtful, more introspective, and more calculating (in a good way) when interacting with others.

Try it — you might find that people treat you differently and you have the ability to truly understand situations before you dive in head first.

It Helps When You Talk To Someone.

I've been running my executive advisory and coaching practice for the past 10 years. I've never had a meeting like I had yesterday. Working with the marketing arm of the Rich Gee Group, called Nurenu Brand Marketing — BJ, Trevor and the crew took me through key thinking and planning that will help me move my business to the next ten levels!

I'm at the 'Critical Mass' stage right now - I have the foundational elements - I have the knowledge and experience — "we have the technology, we can rebuild him. We have the capability to build the world's first bionic man."

Over the next few months, you are going to see the Rich Gee Group hit new heights — all because of a single afternoon conversation. Now don't get me wrong, there will be a lot of action planning, activities, tasks, sweat and tears — but it all started with a Conversation. Thank you Nurenu!

Who can YOU talk to? Who do YOU bounce ideas off of? As I say: "One conversation can change your life!"

Get It Done. Make It Happen.

That's my mantra. And I make all my clients tattoo it on their arms. Why? Because it works.

It all comes down to ACTION You can plan all day — and that's a good thing. But planning isn't everything. In fact, most executives do have some type of plan — either zipping around in their head or on a piece of paper buried on their desk. Unfortunately, execution is the real culprit. They are afraid or they don't know how to take that first step to begin the process. That's where I come in:

Make It Happen Take the first step. Do Anything. It really doesn't matter what you do first — what does matter is that you do something . . . immediately. I liken it to entering a pool for the first time — you can go in slowly and get used to the water (we all know how that feels) or just jump right in and the shock of the temperature is gone within seconds. If you need to do a series of informational calls to key executives, call one right now! Don't wait to plan — don't procrastinate to build a talk track — ring them up and start talking! You will surprise yourself.

Get It Done Check it off your list — complete it. So many people take a half-step into an activity and decide that it's too hard, will take too long, or it takes them too far out of their comfort zone. Here's where my coaching comes in — stop being a baby. You are an adult — with adult responsibilities. You must get it done. You are not in school anymore where a teacher will say "it's okay - you don't have to do that". You HAVE to do it. And the faster that you get it done, the faster you can move on to the next step.

And here's the best part: Once you start down this path, it gets EASIER. Trust me, it always happens.

Not moving forward? Get It Done. Make It Happen. No Excuses.

Who's Got Your Back?

Once again, Keith Ferrazzi's new book flips the idea of a self-help book on its head. Ferrazzi contends that people who build meaningful relationships with others can attain greater personal and professional success. Why you should read this book?

Your Four Mindsets: Intimacy, Generosity, Vulnerability, Candor This follows up on the mindsets Ferrazzi explored in his first book, Never Eat Alone. Building relationships, and repairing relationships, using these mindsets will greatly enhance and fuel all types of relationships, and increase your chances of maintaining strong, successful alliances. These four mindsets are core to building trust.

Build a Dream Team We all have dreams, and we need strong relationships to help us realize those dreams. Once we've accepted that conducting our relationships through the lens of the four mindsets contributes to our success, building a dream team to help us fuel our success is the next logical step. Ferrazzi outlines nine steps to building a dream team. Not sure if the steps work or not, since Ferrazzi doesn't present hardcore evidence that actual, real live individuals have used these steps successfully, but Ferrazzi's nine steps includes many practical and tactical ideas that logically should work, and seem worth trying.

Hold Each Member Accountable Without accountability in the group and among individuals, teams become lazy, complacent, loose focus, and derail. Ferrazzi does a nice job of explaining safe ways to implement accountability measures into your organizational, or dream, teams.

Hands down this will probably be the best book I read this year (Keith does it again!). Run out and get this book ASAP!

The Future of Work: The Last Days of Cubicle Life.

Presenting Part Ten of a Ten-Part Series (finally!) on The Future of Work from Time Magazine. By Seth Godin at Time.

When Frank Lloyd Wright unveiled the Johnson Wax Building in 1939, it showcased a new way of looking at work. One room, covering half an acre (0.2 hectare), was filled with women, lined up in rows, typing. Work didn't necessarily mean loud, dirty factories, but it still involved sitting in orderly rows, doing orderly work for a finicky boss.

In order to understand what your workplace is going to be like in five or 10 years, you need to think about what your work is going to be like. Here's a clue: employers no longer need to pay you to drive to a building to sit and type. In fact, under pressure from an uncertain economy, bosses are discovering that there are a lot of reasons not to pay you to drive to a central location or even to pay you at all. And when work gets auctioned off to the lowest bidder, your job gets a lot more stressful. (See pictures of cubicle designs submitted to The Office.)

The job of the future will have very little to do with processing words or numbers (the Internet can do that now). Nor will we need many people to act as placeholders, errand runners or receptionists. Instead, there's going to be a huge focus on finding the essential people and outsourcing the rest.

So, are you essential? Most of the best jobs will be for people who manage customers, who organize fans, who do digital community management. We'll continue to need brilliant designers, energetic brainstormers and rigorous lab technicians. More and more, though, the need to actually show up at an office that consists of an anonymous hallway and a farm of cubicles or closed doors is just going to fade away. It's too expensive, and it's too slow. I'd rather send you a file at the end of my day (when you're in a very different time zone) and have the information returned to my desktop when I wake up tomorrow. We may never meet, but we're both doing essential work.

When you do come in to work, your boss will know. If anything can be measured, it will be measured. The boss will know when you log in, what you type, what you access. Not just the boss but also your team. Internet technology makes working as a team, synchronized to a shared goal, easier and more productive than ever. But as in a three-legged-race, you'll instantly know when a teammate is struggling, because that will slow you down as well. Some people will embrace this new high-stress, high-speed, high-flexibility way of work. We'll go from a few days alone at home, maintaining the status quo, to urgent team sessions, sometimes in person, often online. It will make some people yearn for jobs like those in the old days, when we fought traffic, sat in a cube, typed memos, took a long lunch and then sat in traffic again.

The only reason to go to work, I think, is to do work. It's too expensive a trip if all you want to do is hang out. Work will mean managing a tribe, creating a movement and operating in teams to change the world. Anything less is going to be outsourced to someone a lot cheaper and a lot less privileged than you or me.

Godin is a popular blogger (sethgodin.typepad.com) and the author of 12 international best sellers. His most recent book is Tribes.