All tagged Values
Here, in the US, this is the season of Thanksgiving and it’s a wonderful time to remember who and what we should all be grateful for (putting aside the fact that giving thanks should be a daily activity).
When doing so, though, one of the things that we tend to struggle with is the duality and contradiction of so much in our daily existence.
Structure, rules and constructs can be useful mechanisms and when we're growing up, they're usually unavoidable.
At the same time, they can be both good and bad and, as we grow older, it's worth questioning many of them. Both in terms of what they mean for us but also, as importantly, what they mean for others we live and work with.
Character trumps content. Always.
If I have to choose between two individuals - one fully versed in their line of work but untrustworthy, and the other who is less than well versed but trustworthy, I’ll go with the latter person every single time.
Like most folks, I was floored this week when I heard the news that Yvon Chouinard, the 83 year old founder of the outdoor apparel maker, Patagonia, was going to give away his company, instead of selling it or taking it public.
Specifically, ownership of the $3 Billion company (that generates $1 billion in revenues and $100 million in profits every year) would be transferred to a specially designed trust and nonprofit organization…
I’ve always held to the view that the root cause of poor behavior (towards others) is low self-esteem. That’s always made sense to me: if we don’t have enough self-confidence or belief in ourselves, how can we expect to accept others’ (differing) perspectives - and not react in some way?
Well, Adam Grant posited a somewhat different - perhaps a more nuanced - point of view, based on research published in journals such as Psychological Review.
I feel like I’ve been writing a lot about “forcing mechanisms” recently - ideas and beliefs that translate into behaviors and actions that force specific outcomes, in ourselves or in others.
Forcing mechanisms serve a purpose if we’re conscious about them, leading us towards or away from the kinds of results we’re looking for.
The success of whatever we do depends, without question, on our people. It's a cliche but it's true.
So it's important when formulating our teams, to make sure we have the the right "ingredients" in place - not only technically but philosophically. The wrong ingredients will ruin the entire dish, which is the topic of today's episode.
NOTE: There are no spoilers in this post, but if you’re someone who wants to know nothing about ‘Squid Game’ before you watch it, save this post for later...
In the blockbuster Netflix show, Squid Game, 456 contestants are pitted against each other (unwittingly, at first) in what is essentially a death match to see who will claim the $38 million grand prize.
At some point in the evolution of any organization, we have to build in structure and process.
The pure quest for growth and, hence, total focus on execution, in a company’s early days inevitably leads to a situation where some level of resource organization is necessary.
That makes sense. We’ve been so focused on getting things done that we’ve spent less time trying to figure out how best to get it done.
This month's podcasts focus on people, specifically the different aspects to consider when it comes to the talent acquisition, development and management.
Today's episode focuses on the need to hire the right people and how fit and genuineness are among the most important criteria to consider.
Authenticity has become a rare commodity.
I mean, at first blush, you’d think it would be abundant in society, personal or professional. Because when what you see is what you get, there are no illusions, no need for personal estimations or second guesses. What you saw would, in fact, be what you got.
But in a world driven by social media, the lure of the instant, ADD-fueled soundbite, and the much-discussed finality (and hence, importance) of the ‘first impression’, most of us are on our toes.
This month, I'd like to speak to a few fundamental ideas about how we work and the implications of our behaviors when we work.
Today's episode focuses on Values. Our values don't simply materialize - we have to choose and exhibit those values. When we don't, we're basically choosing someone else's values.
One of the things I love about kids is their ability to just go after something they want.
Put a paintbrush in their hand and they create. Give them an instrument and they play without reservation. Ask them to tell you a story and they simply do it. They don’t worry about their technique, or their current skill level, or how their artistic choices will be perceived by the world.
I had a different post I wanted to put out today but, instead, I felt compelled to share a few thoughts about John Lewis’ posthumous Opinion piece that was published in the New York Times yesterday. Written a couple of days before he passed away, it’s his final message to us all, and it speaks to the underlying ideals and principles that guided him through almost the entirety of his life.
This month, the podcast is focused on talent, specifically what we can and should expect of our people, as well as how we evaluate and manage them.
In today's episode, I close out the month by talking about standards and the little compromises we make to accommodate this or that particular team member. It's far better to raise the bar, set our own standards and bring our people with us.
What is this idea of “being a hero”? I don’t know how to really comprehend it, that is, what makes someone become a hero?
I mean, it’s a concept we talk and hear about incessantly - all over the media, in our news, in a lot of our personal conversations. But I don’t know if we really internalize what it means.
This month, the podcast is focused on talent, specifically what we can and should expect of our people, as well as how we evaluate and manage them.
In today's episode, I discuss a simple way to assess whether a performance problem is solvable or not, and that is to ask, whether it's a problem of content or values. The answer to that questions indicates whether the relationship is worth working on or not.
For most of us, when we’re growing up, we’re exposed to plenty of structure. From our family rules to our religion to our social and community expectations, we’re guided (explicitly or implicitly) by defined sets of rules that tell us what to do, how to behave and even how to think.
“People want companies and the world around them to align to their values, their goals, their needs, their interests. People want to find where they belong. They’re sick of fitting in.” Chris Brogan
We’re in a very different age from the one I grew up in. Back then, consumer brands exhibited personalities along parameters that were, generally speaking, non-controversial. It was important to offend no-one and “to stand out” was to do so along ‘conventional’ lines (sexy was cool but in a heterosexual way; models were never plus-size; family units started with a man and a woman, etc.).
It’s easy to be nice (or virtuous or kind or thoughtful) when the eyes of the world - or even a single person, for that matter - are on you. It’s much harder, and frankly, far more telling and meaningful when they’re not.
This is true in all walks of life, but especially so in the business world, where we allow ourselves to use the “capitalist filter” to make decisions that, if we were to step back and assess them in a broader social or moral sense, we likely would have acted otherwise. (Putting aside why people are so completely comfortable divorcing moral or fairness considerations from economic ones. That’s a conversation for another time.)
