The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Leadership

Being Effective and Liked in the Workplace

A couple weeks ago, I wrote an article about how to be liked by service employees and blue collar workers. I wasn’t writing about “in the workplace” or “as a manager,” but most commenters read it as both.

Today, let’s actually talk about being effective (and yes, liked) in the workplace. I’ve been out of a corporate environment for years now, but my last corporate gig was at a large insurance company. It wasn’t managerial, though I led the occasional team and was responsible for one large departmental reorganization. Instead, I was a senior line employee: responsible for getting stuff done that required the help of many other people, but without the authority to just make them do things. By my count, at one point, up to 16 other specialties, spread across almost a dozen different departments, could be required.

I had no authority, but I needed other people to get my job done.

Until I went off the rails in my last year or so, I was very good at this job. And I’ve held line authority positions elsewhere, including being a dispatcher and a managing editor.

So, here are Ian’s guidelines for getting folks to do what you want, at work, and having them like it. To be clear, these never worked on everyone, but they have always worked on enough people.

First, find something to admire. A couple years into that corporate gig, I was talking to a friend who was complaining about our co-workers and how she could never get them to do anything for her.

I said, “Most of the people you’re complaining about are happy to help me. It might be that I like them.” The co-worker she found a persnickity snob, I found precise, knowledgeable, and willing to share his knowledge. The boss she disliked (our mutual boss) was one of the best bosses I ever had, understanding and kind, who never failed to give me the material support I needed. And so on.

Most people go through life with very little admiration. Their families take them for granted at best, nag them at worst. Their bosses pay them attention only when something goes wrong. Their coworkers are concerned only with themselves. All of this is natural– people’s first and second concern tends to be themselves, and they are interested in others only as those people reflect them.

But it’s not hard to find something to admire or like in most people. Maybe they work hard, maybe they’re reliable, maybe they’re really precise, maybe they’re insightful. Find something and genuinely admire it. Don’t be a flatterer, your admiration and appreciation must be real. Faking it is endless work, and unless you’re really great at being fake, you’ll screw it up.

Remember, you don’t need everyone, you just need enough people.

People can tell when you actually like and admire them. And they want to keep that admiration, so they’ll be generous with their time, advice, and help. This isn’t enough by itself, but it is the essential foundation.

Next, treat them right.

I had a few rules I followed at work.

1) If I ask someone to stay late to do something for me, I don’t leave until the job is done, either. It’s my job to be there to help them if they need it. In seven years at that job, I only left work once before someone who was doing me a favor. I apologized and she forgave me, but if I had made a habit of it, she wouldn’t have stayed late for me.

2) If someone helped me, I cleared the way for them. If I asked them to do something, I ran all the interference I could; I got their bosses permission if necessary, if anyone else was needed to help, I was the one who ran them down. If they needed anything else to get it done, I got it.

3) If they were doing me a favor and something went wrong, I took the blame, even if I could have shifted it onto them, even if they made a mistake. They would never lose from helping me if I could make it so they didn’t.

4) If something went right, I made sure they got the credit, and that meant to their boss, to their face, and publicly to others. They got praise, and that praise went where it would make their lives better. Including in writing when appropriate (usually) and in terms of my nominating them for workplace prizes and whatnot.

5) In general, I acted like they were great people, and I meant it. My gratitude was not fake or bombastic, it was real. I was glad to see them, I smiled at them. I thought they were great people. (Note, I did not socialize with my co-workers, with very few exceptions.  This is not based on being their out-of-work friends.)

Did everyone like me? Hell no, some people hated my guts. But enough people liked me. I was able to get many people to do favors for me they would not do for actual management. I was able to get people to stay late, for example, who would simply not stay late for their actual bosses. (It was the sort of workplace at which the boss could not just order someone to work extra hours.)

I was also always on very good terms with my immediate boss, which has been the case in almost all my jobs, simply because I delivered.

Unfortunately, I can’t give any advice on managing up beyond the immediate boss level. As a rule, I’ve always been terrible at dealing with upper-upper-management. Perhaps because they’re used to people saying what they want to hear, and I don’t do that.  Remember, my admiration was real. But I don’t blow smoke up people’s asses: If something can’t be done, I say so. If something is illegal (I handled the compliance for the area), I say so. If there will be negative effects from a decision, I say what they are. And if more resources are needed to get something done properly and in time, I let them know.

Or, perhaps, I was just kind of a jerk.

But the jerkiness was, in most cases, predicated on protecting my people. I can’t override management, especially senior management, but I can put my body in the way, and I can say, “If you do that, it’s going to go wrong in the following ways.”

A few senior management types appreciated that, my direct managers almost always did (a couple exceptions aside), but the more senior the management was, the less I found they were interested in the real world consequences of their decisions, and the more they wanted to be told “we can do that,” even if their ideas were terrible.

So, that’s the Ian Prescription for getting shit done at work, and being liked by enough people, but pissing off the wrong people. Will you be loved? I can’t say I was. Not really my personality at the time. But when I asked for help or favors, I got them.

The same general strategy worked when I was in leadership positions, if combined with strict fairness. When I was a dispatcher, for example, I did not play favorites. The person who could do the delivery fastest got the delivery, even if it was an easy, well-paying one; I didn’t give it to my “favorites.” You only got sidelined for important deliveries if you’d proved, again and again, that you were unreliable. Most dispatchers I dealt with had favorites. I, being human, did too. But I didn’t let that affect my dispatching.

In leadership: fairness. People are treated in accordance with their demonstrated abilities and are given chances to show what they can do. Their successes are celebrated, publicly, their failures discussed in private unless an example needs to be made (which, on occasion they did; justice must be seen to be done).

All of this, in my opinion, is just an extended example of the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; combined with some common sense (no, I’m not going to let you do shoddy work).

Treat people right, and they’ll treat you right. There are some people with whom “right” treatment doesn’t work. If I’m a manager, I get rid of those people. If I’m in a position, as I was in my corporate gig where I didn’t have the power to do so, I’d sideline them to the extent that I could; nothing “mission critical” or “Ian critical” went through them if I could avoid it.

Treat people right. It isn’t hard.


If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

How the structure of everyday life creates sociopathic corporate leaders

We talked about how the structure of our upbringing teaches people to be passive and choose from choices offered from them, rather than creating their own, better choices.

But that’s only part of the equation. The other question is: How is our leadership created?

For this we must look at the structure that sorts out leaders from the rest of us. Today I’ll write about corporate leadership

A corporation exists to create a profit. It has no other innate purpose, this is embedded in the law. The corporation is structured so as to remove liability for criminal acts from its owners, and, in practical terms, it also somewhat shields those who control it (its executives and corporate officers) from liability for their actions.

A competitive market is one in which profits are steadily pushed towards zero. If anyone can do what you do (freedom of entry), if there are no information barriers (patents, copyright, secrets) and there are no scale advantages others cannot also achieve, there is no reason why any product or service you create cannot be copied by someone else, who then undercuts you if collusion is not allowed.

To make consistent profits higher, then, than inflation plus the rate of growth of the economy requires that you not be in a competitive market. This is explicitly recognized in strategic thinking, that in a fair market, there are no competitive advantages, and that therefore you need to create an unfair advantage.

Anything another company does which increases their profits, no matter how unethical, if not forbidden by effective law (as opposed to theoretical, aka. unenforced law) you must also do.

What is important about this is that the drive for profits above all and the requirement to gain an unfair advantage as dictated by modern strategic thinking (there are other ways to create an advantage that aren’t unfair, but that’s not what most companies concentrate on) means that you have to do evil. If your competitors use cheap conflict metals from the Congo, the control of which is gained by mass campaigns of rape, you must do so.  If an insurance company denies healthcare to people who are desperately sick, it makes more money.  If a power company doesn’t spend money on anti-pollution equipment, or dumps untreated effluents rather than treated ones, it makes more money.  If a clothing manufacturer doesn’t spend money on safety equipment for its highly flammable factories, it makes more money.

It is also in the interest of corporations to create barriers to entry: to enforce stringent patents and copyrights; to ask regulators to say that only some banks get access to the Fed window, giving them a massive advantage over others; to buy politicians who can use public money to subsidize them or bail them out; to insist that money go to them for bailouts rather than to ordinary householders, and so on.

At the lower executive level, the more you can get out of your employees, no matter how you do it, the more likely you are to be promoted.  And fear, terror and cost-cutting, while they aren’t the only way to do this, are easier to sell to higher management and pay back faster.  When they backfire in the long run, as is often the case, well, you’ll be gone, because you’ll have been promoted.

This leads to the common observation that corporate life is about the next quarter or year, not the next decade.  What matters is how much profit you’re making now and next quarter, especially to your chances of promotion, not what will happen in the future.  Corporate capitalism is largely incapable of planning more than a few years out, certainly not decades (there are exceptions, but even those exceptions, like insurance companies, have been losing that ability.)

High compensation is also an issue.  Once you ascend to the senior corporate ranks, your bonuses are based on short term performance and are large enough that after a few years, and sometimes just one, you have enough money you’ll never have to work again.  So you don’t care about the long term, because you don’t need the company to be there long term, only to make as much money as fast as possible.

As a low ranked boss, you terrorize your employees, treat them badly in whatever way is required to make short term profits and are promoted upwards.  As a high level executive you make strategic decisions that require you to hurt people you’ve never met through pollution, failing to invest in safety, or political corruption.

The summary of all this is that the structure of your life, of incentives, in the corporate world, sorts out people who are willing to hurt other people, now and in the future, for their own benefit and to corrupt their own system of government and law for short term advantage.  If you aren’t willing to do these things, you are unlikely to rise far in a modern corporation, and almost certain not to make it to the CEO level.

It is not that there are no other ways to run economic organizations, and it is not even that these things are necessary to gain a sustained economic advantage, but these appear to our current corporate leadership to be the easiest and quickest ways to make money.  It’s simple to make the argument “if we cut wages and make people work like dogs, our profits will go up.”  It is hard to make the argument “if we raise wages and treat our people well, our profits will go up”, even though the second is true.  And much of modern economic life is a hostage situation: if company A is using metals created through the terror of mass rape, well, you’re at a disadvantage if you don’t too.

Strong and ethical government takes those hostage situations off the table, but when you’ve bought out government, that’s no longer possible, so  you feel compelled to do evil.

People with strong ethical foundations will eventually balk.  There will come a point where they will say “no, I’m not doing that, I’m not rewarding people who rape hundreds of thousands of people by buying their blood-drenched minerals”, and that’s the end of their promotions.

Even people with weak ethical foundations may eventually say “that’s just too much, I know these employees and they’ve been loyal to me and I’m not laying them off.”  End of that person’s career.

The end result of this is Jamie Dimon.  You wind up with people who, if they aren’t clinical sociopaths and psychopaths, act like them.  At best they care for a few people close to them, their family and friends, and they hurt everyone and anyone else around them as necessary to get ahead.  People who get off on it are probably at an advantage, taking joy in your work is a competitive advantage after all: love what you do!

This isn’t necessary, in an economy where we decide to take certain behaviours off the table by agreement, legislative or ethical.  It isn’t necessary from an ideological point of view, since there’s plenty of evidence that happy employees are more productive, and it isn’t necessary even from a theoretical point of view because even very light protection of works plus happy employees allows you to create a sustained economic advantage by just creating teams of people who are better than the opposition rather than winning because they have a positional advantage.

But it is how we’ve chosen to do things.  Our society elevates functional sociopaths and psychopaths because that is not just the behaviour we reward, it is the behaviour we demand.

Thank God for our enemies

though it’s a pity about our leaders.

I feel bad for the Anonymous hackers who were arrested today, but it’s also a good thing, in that it will radicalize the hacker community even further and force them to adapt and change their tactics.  They are the bleeding edge of real resistance, and they have moved far from their libertarian roots and become left wing in their sympathies (targeting a city for refusing to allow the homeless to be fed is as left wing as you can get.)

Since, of course, the DOJ has shown no interest in pursuing those who did DDOS attacks against Wikileaks, it is yet another confirmation that the law, as it exists now, is used as a bludgeon against people the government doesn’t like, while those who the government does like are left alone, and crimes against the government’s “enemies” aren’t investigated.  Laws which do not have at least the appearance of being evenly applied are not just, are not perceived as just, and become legitimate targets for breaking.

Meanwhile in England, the Cameron government’s massive slashes to education hit virtually all at once, making an entire cohort of young people know exactly who just did their level best to destroy their lives.  This is important, to put it bluntly, young males who don’t have enough money to settle down with a young female are extraordinarily dangerous to the state.

What is interesting about both of these things, and many others recently, such as the austerity bills and various legal rulings from the Supreme Court which don’t even pretend to follow precedent, is how the velvet glove has come off the iron fist of state and corporate repression.  The elites think that there is nothing ordinary people can do. Whatever the elites do, no matter how harsh, the hoi polloi can only submit.  And if they don’t, well, so much the worse for them.

And yet the system is cracking up. A large part of why all of this is being done is to create ever bigger corporations and ever richer western billionaires, so they can compete with the oilarchies.  But recently Russia been minting billionaires faster than US.  It’s really hard to state how startling that is.  America’s rich have done everything they can to rig the game so they will get richer, they have a bigger base economy to work off of, and they’re still losing the Red Queen’s race.  No matter how much they repress their own population, they can’t keep up with the folks who have the real gold of the modern economy: black gold.

Unfortunately, as stupid, venal and brutal as our enemies are (and if they aren’t your enemies you’re a fool or getting a pay check, or I hope you are), our leadership is even more stupid, venal and cowardly.  This entire generation of leadership on what passes for the left is beyond contemptible.  If they are not outright sell outs of the interests of those they claim to champion, then they are willing to betray anyone but their members, and if with rare exceptions (in the US, basically, the gay leadership) they are cowards, unwilling to risk themselves in any way, unwilling to actually fight.  They cavill and moan and condemn anyone who actually fights back. Watching fools demanding that the man who threw a pie at Murdoch be condemned for violence was beyond sad, it was a farce.  Violence?  It reminded me of all the hand wringing when an Iraqi threw a shoe at George Bush, a war criminal and mass murderer.  Oh dear.

And so, while the young are being radicalized, the leaders of the left are unable to provide leadership.  They have been selected to be weak and cowardly, to be unwilling to fight, to be compromisers trying to get the best deal possible as long as that deal doesn’t upset the status quo in any real way.

This varies by country.  I have more hope, say, for Greece (after they set the finance ministry alight) than I do for the US.  But the first job of the left in most countries is not to fight the right, it is to destroy the leadership of the left.  To drive them out of power and into the wilderness and either to replace them or to create new forms of organization.  And it is to understand that class war is like war, there will be casualties.  People will be beaten, people will be killed, people will go to jail.  That is what will happen.  It can be avoided in only one way, surrender.  Suffer exactly what the oligarchs want you to suffer and you will be allowed to live and die in what passes for peace.  It will be a peace filled with suffering, hunger, deprivation, and violence not primarily from the authorities but from each other, but if that’s what you want, it’s available.  Always understanding, of course, that anyone who won’t fight will have to accept anything the oligarchs do.  Anything.  When you won’t fight, you only get even scraps if it is someone else’s interest.

There’s an old saying about living on your knees or fighting on your feet.  The problem with that is that once you’ve said you’re willing to live on your knees the next question is “will you crawl on your belly?”

And so, in this, not the twilight of the post-war era, for that has passed, but in the dawn of what the oligarchs hope is a new conservative order, that is the question you must answer, “will I crawl on my belly, will I fight, or will I try to make a separate peace?”

The cost of a separate peace, of course, is a sliver of your soul.

One a day.

Why The Assassination Strategy Doesn’t Work

So, Osama is dead.  Which is to say, he’s a martyr.  Of the many gifts the US gave him in his life, and they were many, this may be the last one.  Some say he didn’t want to be martyred, at least not right this moment, and no doubt that’s true.  But the difference between seeking martyrdom and not minding that much exists.  He didn’t really go that far out of his way to avoid death.  He could have shaved the beard, had some plastic surgery and disappeared into Indonesia.  He would never have been found.  His compound was not heavily guarded.  Bin Laden need never have been in the line of fire.

And remember, unlike most recent American presidents, Bin Laden did lead troops from the front line.  He didn’t dodge combat.

Westerners and global elites tend to think that everyone is like them.  They aren’t.  Leaders of organizations like al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah and Hamas (and I conflate them only in the sense that they are all subject to assassination campaigns by their enemies, not because they are the same type of organization or desire the same things) know that the job comes with a good chance of getting very dead.

Until westerners get this through their soft heads, they will continue to make major strategic errors.  The assassination program against the Taliban may be something they hate, may be something they fear, but it has not stopped them.  The assassination programs run by Israel have as often made their situation worse as better.

In healthy organizations leadership is far less important than western leaders think it is.  Western leaders think they’re indispensable.  They aren’t, and neither is the enemy leadership in most cases.  There are some exceptions, but they are rare in properly operating organizations.  The death of the previous leader makes him a martyr, and the next man in line steps up.  The dead leader, rather than one more reason to quit fighting is one more reason to keep fighting.  The basic policies continue, and the assassination is more likely to make the organization stronger ideologically than to weaken it.

Shorter post: just because for most Western elites nothing is worth dying for, and any price is acceptable to live, doesn’t mean everyone thinks the same way.

Leadership

I don’t normally write about leadership.  Somehow it’s become a niche subject: either the subject of some banal business book, or discussed by the military.  It seems remote from politics or even economics because we live in an elite consensus society, where leadership is rare because the price of stepping out of the consensus can be ostracism from the elite.

Let’s start with a story.  Once upon a time a friend and I were working for the same multinational, dealing with the same people.  One day she complained to me.  “Ian,” she said.  “Fred is so persnickitty, such a fop.  Thelma is so lazy.   Our boss is so disorganized.”  On and on she went, capping with “I can never get help!”

I was floored.  Slowly I replied.  “You know, I don’t see any of those people that way.  I think that Fred is really precise and does very good detailed work.  I think Thelma is friendly and kind.  I think our boss is one of the best bosses I’ve ever had, who always listens to my concerns, lets me run and takes care of his employees.  And,” I continued, “when I ask for help from any of them, I always get it.”

I thought about that some more over the years to come, and I came to a conclusion about it.

One very simple method of leadership is to find something, some things, to admire about people.  Most people live in a sea of negativity.  Their spouse is on their case, their kids think they’re foggies, their co-workers always want more, their bosses never speak to them except to complain.

If you admire someone, if you think they’re great, that’s something they may not get from anyone else in their life.  And they will do almost anything to keep that.

I think back to the teachers I did the best work for.  They weren’t the ones who thought I was lazy waste of space. They were the ones who thought I was smart and insightful and had a great future (hah!)  Mr. Frazer, Mr. Newell, Mr Skinner, a couple others.  I didn’t turn in bad work to them.  I didn’t quit a race without trying hard for my coach.  Why?  Because I treasured the fact that they thought highly of me.  I didn’t want to lose that.

This isn’t all there is to leadership, of course, there’s a lot more.  You have to draw people into a dream, give them space, make any victories their victories, while taking the responsibility for the losses.  You have to hold them to a high standard, which is an implicit compliment since it indicates you think they can meet that standard.  You have to praise them, you have to protect them, you have to take blows for them and you have to treat them well.  The hardships they endure, you must endure (one of my rules was that if I asked someone else to stay late at work, I stayed late as well, for example.)

When FDR was president he spoke to Americans on the radio regularly.  And he didn’t condescend.  He acted as if they were adults who could be trusted to understand complicated subjects and who could be trusted to do the right thing.  Because he included them, because he gave them the compliment of assuming they would do the right thing, by and large they did.

Most people live up, or down, to your expectations of them.  Live with them, for them, include them in the dream, give them credit, see the best in them, not the worst, and they will march into the gates of hell, not for you, but with you.

Page 4 of 4

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén