A Small Detour from Work Issues

I don't know about you, but it pleases me to no end to see "The King's Speech" scooping up every award from here to Bollywood. This recognition has been long overdue.

Known as Britain's "reluctant king," George VI ("Bertie") literally had greatness thrust upon him by a self-absorbed older brother and a world headed for war. As in the movie, he knew he lacked the personal charisma of a Hitler, Mussolini, or Roosevelt. Nowadays his daughter is chief villain of any anti-monarchy chronicle, for being stodgy and hidebound to tradition. We forget that neither of their lives were slated to go this way.

Unlike that other famous second son who became king (Henry VIII), George VI was low-key and loved being a family man. 

It isn't always good to be king; easier to be king when life is a bowl of cherries. Most Princess Diana champions and anti-royalists forget that when the Nazis were bombing the guts out of London, King George VI and his queen encouraged Brits to send their children into the country for safekeeping, or to leave town for the duration, but they themselves stayed on— nor did they send away their own two girls.

Colin Firth and King George have something in common and it's an aura of steadfastness. Maybe Firth was only portraying it, but George VI really had it. His post-war years weren't easy either: I'm very touched by the news footage of him waving good-bye to Elizabeth and Phillip, in that moment more a father than king, the man grown thin from throat cancer, later to pass while still in his 50s.  George VI enlarged his steadfastness from home to country, helped his nation stand its ground against epic mortal enemies, and did the job. How many people do you know like that?

In an age of abdicated child support payments, abandoned spouses and families, overcompensated CEOs, malaise about work quality, and celeb-driven scandals, I'm glad this is Bertie's hour as well.

Do You Have a Demanding Boss—or a Bully?

Very often in my classes, I see individuals who prefer to believe they work for bullies when in fact they’re resisting demands placed by a more exacting boss—eg, more appropriate work apparel, more reliable work hours, and higher standards for performance.

Over 75% of workplace bullies are bosses, so it’s easy to assume all bosses are bullies. The majority is also male, so it’s easy to assume all bullies are men, especially as female bullying behaviors tend to be less tangible and more covert.

Take a look at this criteria:

•  There should be clarity and consistency in what’s expected of you. A conscientious but anal-retentive manager may be a stickler for meeting performance goals, but a bully boss will cherry-pick and manufacture issues to make your life really miserable.

•  When you make an honest mistake, your boss should be able to state clearly how it needs to be corrected and prevented from happening again, even if it entails an unhappy conversation between the two of you with notes to your file. Bully bosses tend to inflate mistakes to personally humiliate you; but are just as likely to overlook and forgive them in pursuit of other targets or intentions.

•  Feedback from a demanding boss will focus on work and performance issues. A bully boss will personalize it, either by citing herself as “your model for success” or focusing on details of your life and personality irrelevant to work. You should also receive balanced appraisals, both positive and corrective.

Demanding bosses are human, after all, and will make errors in judgment if they’re under pressure or misunderstand your intentions. Consider keeping a “daybook” that logs any behaviors you think may be bullying, because if they’re good at anything, bullies are at least consistent in their inhumanity.

What’s Your Emotional Capital?

If you attended our Relationship-building Strategies webcast series in 2010, you know Linda Bishop (www.thoughtransformation.com) and I talked a lot about trust and how customers equate value with care. Trust, value, and care each carry an emotional charge. Now consider the consequences of ignoring that. The following is based on a real organization:

Twenty years ago, XYZ began with a groundswell of public and private support, answering a real need for international insights and services. As a 501(c)3, it occupied a crucial niche in the hearts and minds of its constituencies, but despite this promising start, over time XYZ fell victim to its own complacency.

Captains without a compass. As the board and management believed themselves to be experts, eventually customers became characterized as whining loons. Board members micromanaged daily activities. Management treated themselves to generous pay hikes and travel opportunities, but cited operating-budget shortfalls as justification for rate increases.

Customer service…? Routine customer questions and complaints were treated dismissively while threatening issues were given perfunctory attention—then left unresolved. Mistreated customers scoffed at any positive news released by XYZ. Its culture became famous for dysfunctional relationships — expressed by the number of litigations brought against XYZ by staff and customers. The company sought to suppress negative PR by presuming to put customers under a gag order. Roles and protocols became murky: employee relations with customers were marked by constant strife or, at best, the sort of cooperation brought on by an informal and inappropriate system of personal favors.

Consequences. XYZ embarked on an expansion campaign requiring new capital. Customer queries re: this new expense were never adequately answered. Demoralized staff either left or stayed long enough to undermine such initiatives. Customers also defected.

At this point, XYZ’s leadership is baffled. They blame the U.S. recession for diminished donations, relying on an ad hoc “strategy” of large single donors versus a coherent case statement and mass appeal to its publics. Its board and management continue to be coddled while staff and customers remain unheard.

What began with a few routine customer complaints — easy to fix; opportunities for forging deeper bonds with customers — has become a ship that’ll need to turn on a dime in order to survive, much less thrive. And yet it’s not really about the money, which is only a symptom of the emotional capital XYZ squandered over the years—by proving themselves to be uncaring, untrustworthy, and ultimately of diminishing value.

Rules, Policies, & Disruption

Every industry needs rules for the greater good. Fond as I am of regulations prohibiting pilots and brain surgeons from drinking on the job, I often ask clients of other service industries:

“Are your policies in place to make life easier for you or your customers?”

Netflix customers may never speak to a service rep, but given Netflix’s customer-centric protocols, it’s easier to get a movie from them than dealing with a clerk at one of their competitors’ outlets, especially if you get one who relishes reciting homegrown policies about late returns or, as in the 1990s, rewind fees.

“When a customer makes an honest mistake and breaks one of your rules, do your employees know how to come up with solutions that will delight rather than punish the customer?”

I have an affection for market innovators, ones who shun the rules put forth as “conventional wisdom,” instead creating protocols that actually make life easier for their customers. Why?

Media futurist Gerd Leonhard advises against “meaningless disruptions” such as advertising a product/service simply to put out the hype but then see it fail to make life easier for consumers. It’s not that “consumers are getting smarter” but that they always were smart—and smart people know how to find alternatives.

Advertising must contain meaningful content. Disrupting consumers’ lives with multi-channel ads and promo offers must result in lasting customer engagement because, more and more, consumers are saying, “I can decide for myself, thank you!” 

Rules, Policies, & Disruption

Every industry needs rules for the greater good. Fond as I am of regulations prohibiting pilots and brain surgeons from drinking on the job, I often ask clients of other service industries:

“Are your policies in place to make life easier for you or your customers?”

Netflix customers may never speak to a service rep, but given Netflix’s customer-centric protocols, it’s easier to get a movie from them than dealing with a clerk at one of their competitors’ outlets, especially if you get one who relishes reciting homegrown policies about late returns or, as in the 1990s, rewind fees.

“When a customer makes an honest mistake and breaks one of your rules, do your employees know how to come up with solutions that will delight rather than punish the customer?”

I have an affection for market innovators, ones who shun the rules put forth as “conventional wisdom,” instead creating protocols that actually make life easier for their customers. Why?

Media futurist Gerd Leonhard advises against “meaningless disruptions” such as advertising a product/service simply to put out the hype but then see it fail to make life easier for consumers. It’s not that “consumers are getting smarter” but that they always were smart—and smart people know how to find alternatives.

Advertising must contain meaningful content. Disrupting consumers’ lives with multi-channel ads and promo offers must result in lasting customer engagement because, more and more, consumers are saying, “I can decide for myself, thank you!” 

The Dangers of Either/Or

Ever since Saturday’s shooting in Tucson, discussions about the volatile nature of public discourse have ranged from right-wing and left-wing finger-pointing to speculations about the social consequences of reality TV and a flawed public mental health care system.

It’s all been fascinating, but what I’ve noticed is our need to define “either/or,” a concept that quickly defines things but will, in the worst circumstances, lead to an ultimatum.

Maybe it’s human need to find polar opposites: in times of grief and chaos, accessible explanations help. And it makes the discussion more interesting, and media outlets (as well as politicians) have found that “either/or” makes for more compelling pundit analyses (although, mercifully, in the past few years, CNN’s Anderson Cooper has been reminding his panelists to stop talking over one another because viewers simply switch channels at that point).

But why can’t public discourse include “this and that”? When Asian cultures devised “ying” and “yang” they weren’t talking about mortal enemies but two counterpoints achieving a whole, that result becoming greater than the sum of its parts. Opposing forces need one another for achieving the progress that everyone can then own—unless, of course, they kill each other in the process.

Are we Americans—best educated on the planet—so limited in our critical processing capabilities that we’re willing to squander the civility that fosters it? Is “compromise” still a dirty word that cheapens collaboration? Has “agreeing to disagree” ever resulted in massacre?

My guess is that the root causes of Saturday’s shooting are far more intricate than Sarah Palin’s rifle-scope antics or the disturbed ramblings of a kid who slipped through the cracks in all ways. Maybe it’s not one thing, but a bit of everything—which, of course, makes the better solutions harder to find.

But that doesn’t mean they’re not worth finding, and to do that, we must follow the example of little Christina Green who, on that day of bright sun and brighter hopes, went out with her neighbor to listen and learn, and maybe find a mentor.

3 Qualities of Successful Professionals

Whenever I hear praise for people who are great to work with, certain themes stand out:

1. They’re skilled listeners. Successful pros are able to hear not only what’s said but what isn’t said. And, because they listen carefully, they’re less likely to make silly mistakes.

2. They’re gracious. This isn’t just “pinky-extended” hospitality, but refers to personal civilities—focusing on positives, treating others with unfailing courtesy, keeping promises, and sharing praise and credit on team projects. Many times you’ll hear the word “selfless” used about such people (because there is a difference between confidence and baloney: just as there is no i in team, there are a couple of those in self-aggrandizing)….

3. They’re strategic. Whether discussing new initiatives or the most lurid office politics, these folks are able to find strategic insights from what happens around them. They don’t personalize such events because they keep a bigger picture in mind.

In Mandarin Chinese, a mature child is one who “understands business”—a reference to the bigger-picture issues of life, or that quality of being one who “gets it.”