Talent Package: Include A Smart Heart

When a brief post generates wonderful discussion, it's fascinating and satisfying.

Many of the readers here are coaches, consultants, and training/HR pros; so, the  conversation can lead to even more learning as well as helpful information like this from Dan McCarthy.

A Smart Heart or a Well-Bred Head?

We are enamored of intellect and expertise. Yet when we look at who are asked to leave organizations, it's often the people who are "brilliant."

The problem? That "light of brilliance" shines down upon an area of content as well as the individual. It doesn't spread its warmth around in ways that touch and help the system as a whole. As a result, it's not life-sustaining.

My experience is that such folks do get a lot of feedback from their bosses along the way. No one really wants to see them fail; no organization wants to lose their expertise. But ultimately, some combination of unwillingness and inability to adapt to the needs of others becomes untenable; so, they have to go.

Talent Implications

Few would dispute the importance of learning in organizations. So here's something to ponder:

Is your organization deliberate about identifying--up front--people who have the heart to learn about themselves and the humility to make changes accordingly?

There are a lot of 4.0 grads out there who have been taught --and absorbed-- a body of knowledge exceedingly well.

I want my clients to get the grads who want to learn how to use it in the service of the people around them. People with a 'smart heart.'

A well-bred head lights up just one office.

A smart heart lights up the organization.

Comments

[Karin H.]

Hi Steve

Can you separate heart from head? I know some organisations even tell their employees to leave their heart at the front-door - to be picked up at closing time. Always thought it to be impossible, but have worked 'under' this type of so-called brilliant managers too - he/she normally didn't last long, even when the manager was especially appointed to 'get-things-going' in times of trouble. Not sure how it happened, think it has to do with the 'resilience' of the real work-force feeling that this 'new way' of head first would damage the business - and so them - in the long run.

Funny thing with LinkedIn, some of those brilliant manager I knew now show the longest cv possible, 'stumbling' from one company to another. When nobody ever tells them that brilliance alone isn't enough to 'get-things-better' it's a great shame - not sure who the real victim is in the end, probably the brilliant manager.

As said in yesterday's short post - long comments - it takes courage both ways.

Karin H. (Keep It Simple Sweetheart, specially in business)

[Lisa Gates]

Steve, such a nice series of posts.

I wonder what work would be like if organizations consciously generated and lived from values-based processes? And I wonder what work would be like if individuals left college with a suitcase packed full of values and vision, and consciously sought their right fit according to what was in that suitcase?

Leaders and managers would do well to bring those values front and center to identify heart-centered employees, and be living, modeling those values. Then those smart heart [new grads] will be able to locate the company's rudder and devour what there is to learn and develop excellence in stewardship.

[Steve Roesler]

Karin,

Well, there are those who seem able to separate the two without much difficulty. In popular parlance, it's partially an "IQ-EQ" thing.

Your notation of the LinkedIn CV phenomenon grabbed my attention. In an era when short-term results and job-hopping go hand in hand, I'm seeing it become easier for the head-oriented types to move about freely and successfully. Why? Because success has been re-defined.

For those of us who have been around long enough to observe the cyclical nature of life and business, we may see another change in the cycle.

[Steve Roesler]

Hi there, Lisa,

That's such a well-formulated thought I surely can't add to it--only re-read it.

Don't know what you are seeing out there on the Left Coast, but I'm seeing younger hires who do bring a set of work-related values, even to the interview process. I wonder how much of the now-sanctioned job hopping is due to a mismatch of values and the seeking of a better match, not just more money.

Any ideas?

[Lisa Gates]

Steve,
What I see here on the left coast in my coaching practice are people who are completely lost and broken as a result of stuffing their values and not being able to bring their whole selves to work. On the other hand, I have coached gen Y job hoppers who prove your theory--they're looking for the resonant fit. They get the job, take a look around, and if they see that the potential learning [or the possibility of changing the world, and I mean that] is outflanked by stodgy management, they bail.

I don't coach inside organizations (although I'm dying to) but with both kinds of clients I often question their relationship with personal responsibility. I wrote a post at Lifehack once that asked "Can you love the one you're with before you leave it." What can you be responsible for creating -- actions, reactions, relationships, projects -- before you leave in a huff and point fingers. Always trying to expand the view from me me me, to us us us.

I really really think it comes down to all of us doing deep, personal work, taking on radical new accountabilities, interpersonal commitments, while also taking a look at how we want to fit into the big picture.

[Steve Roesler]

Lisa,

Your counsel regarding "creating before leaving in a huff" is solid and admirable; we sure don't help people unless we hold up the mirror of personal responsibility. And the idea of taking time to leave behind a positive legacy can only help the company, one's reputation, and a genuine sense of living out the values that one espouses.

You've suddenly made my mind jump to a different place, but related. We need people who are willing to stand up for (well thought-out) beliefs and values; we also need people who can do that in ways that can be heard by the system in which they're working. No small task. But here's the rub:

What if we have a generation of people who were raised on 'you-can-do-anything-and-be-anything' and who were rewarded for just showing up? That is, 'everyone is a winner' so everyone gets a prize, regardless of their actual contribution (we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings). So, we'll make sure nothing happens to 'make you feel disappointed.'

I'm not headed toward diminishing the desirability of living out values on the job or wanting to change the world. But one logical outcome of such a background could be an inaccurate perception of one's real capability and responsibility for getting results, as well as diminished 'other-focus' (couldn't come up with another phrase) that allows one to set one's own immediate satisfaction aside in order to actually achieve the hoped-for change.

I think you've triggered another post, Lynn.

[Karin H.]

Hi Steve

Are you talking about 'helicopter' parents? The ones that push their children - toddlers, teenagers, students - over the accepted limits of social behaviour because in the parents eyes their offspring are simply the best (in everything). Hence the tantrums thrown by kids (and parents alike!) when their efforts on whatever is deemed not enough.

The X-factor and the likes come to mind, plus a story doing the rounds here in the UK that a junior pony-jumping competition has been scrapped completely due to the tantrums of parents because the event was rescheduled to another, less prominent, arena.

That's when real life slaps them in the face and makes you wonder if the education system and the parents are really doing the 'kids' a favour by 'not-hurting-their-feelings' policy. Real life has a way of 'catching-up' ;-)

Karin H.

[Steve Roesler]

Karin,

Well, I wasn't referring specifically to that, but it's certainly a phenomenon that we encounter here as well. There are also parents who come to job interviews and companies that have decided to cater to that. I was referring more to the idea of simply being acknowledged as "a star" when one hasn't actually done anything but sit there and exist. There's a real distinction between acknowledging and respecting the inherent value of a human being vs. rewarding that person for something that (s)he has not actually accomplished.

You mention "pushing" children past their limits and then having the adults throw tantrums when the situation doesn't meet the adults' satisfaction. Doesn't one have to wonder whose needs are actually trying to be met to begin with?

[Karin H.]

Wise words Steve.

Poor kids! Might be a bit off topic, but how can you truly value something you haven't 'struggled' for, worked your hands to the bone for so to speak, gone deep for to find that extra strength?
It's like never having to save for something an being able to buy everything you fancy at that moment. Where's the pleasure, reward in it?

Just my 2p

Karin H.

[Steve Roesler]

That, Karin, is an excellent question.

We need to hear from some readers who have received a large inheritance and are sipping cocktails on the beach while checking on our blogs:-)

[Karin H.]

LOL Steve

But they can only reply if they let us join them there!

Karin H.

[Steve Roesler]

Agreed, Karin.

I think we should be prepared with some SPF 15...

[Tom Haskins]

Steve: I doubt the "parents having tantrums" are experiencing satisfaction, they are in the midst of "acts of desperation". If they are also in pattern Lisa described of "lost and broken" from failing to live their values, they might be living vicariously through their children, compensating for their own empty lives.

I suspect the same thing is going on with the managers who pass up confronting, criticizing and corralling the up-and-comers. Again if Lisa has captured the pattern, the GenY job hoppers are in search of value congruence in their employment -- not loyalty, advancement or power within one employer. The turnover is already high. There is talk among managers of a "war for talent". Talk about the signing deals, benefit packages, racheting up of pay scales of new hires, -- would fuel the managers'apprehensions about losing their direct reports. Local skill shortages could produce "seller markets" where the employer is beholden to the demands of the job seeker. That's all a set-up for spoiled brats, contempt for those managers with longevity, and cynicism about employers' manipulations to keep the talent onboard.

The entrepreneurs I mentor also want to "change the world" and enact their values. They experience "values congruence" by launching their start-ups according to their own moral code and priorities. I experience the same by serving the realization of their endeavors. They are open to lots of constructive feedback because their conduct is based on self-respect, integrity and a sense of purpose. It's a very different ball game from job-hopping to find values congruence.

[Steve Roesler]

Yep, Tom, we're experiencing many of the same things in our respective practices; and, apparently, practice what we practice for very similar reasons.

I was having similar thoughts, too, about the vicarious factor in the example mentioned. I'm not sure that that's actually a totally new phenomenon but one that is now allowed to manifest itself publicly without sanction.

As I write this I'm in the process of assisting a client organization with a high-level hire. And, unlike some years ago, the "sellers" do have their own list of demands. But the "demands" aren't unreasonable when you look at them. In fact, they are quite admirable because they reflect two things:

a. Acknowledgment of a sense of their family life and explicit boundaries protecting it

b. Acknowledgment of the short-term focus of some organizations, prompting a contractual clause for hefty financial compensation for termination within a certain time period as a result of anything other than ethical or moral breeches of conduct.

Would this fall into your category of values congruence as well?

[peter vajda]

Tom Haskins commments: "I doubt the "parents having tantrums" are experiencing satisfaction, they are in the midst of "acts of desperation". If they are also in pattern Lisa described of "lost and broken" from failing to live their values, they might be living vicariously through their children, compensating for their own empty lives."

My experience coaching many of these parents and tutoring their high school and college kids is that the parents commonly move along the continuum from pride (healthy) to hubris (unhealthy) to (pathological) obsession and are unaware of how they're getting pulled into the quicksand by their ego drives...most often, IMHO, from living lives of their own quiet desperation, coming from their own inner feelings of lack and deficiency and and obsessively striving to be seen as "somebody", regardless of how green their lawn is or the size of their plasma TV screen --- the ones who keep who (literally and metaphorically) keep the "my kid is on the honor roll" sticker on their car long after s/he has fallen off it.

Tom also comments: "The entrepreneurs I mentor also want to "change the world" and enact their values. They experience "values congruence" by launching their start-ups according to their own moral code and priorities. I experience the same by serving the realization of their endeavors. They are open to lots of constructive feedback because their conduct is based on self-respect, integrity and a sense of purpose..."

I have a different take. Some of the entreprenerus I work with don't have that sense of purpose...what they have is a sense of and/or need for independence and ownership....but have never done the deeper exploratory groundwork to really see if they are doing what they love and, then, know how to do what they love.

Some feel they instinctively know how to hire, manage, evaluate, relate to employees, communicate, resolve conflict, create teams, (all the soft stuff) as a result of just deciding to become an entrepreneur but find, sooner rather than later, they are sorely deficienct in these skills...and are initially reluctant to admit it, hear feedback or tug on their own sleeves...prefering to blame "it, her, him, them" for whatever workplace dysfunctions arise (this attitude also leaks out at home as well...).

When they discover that the one common denominator in most of their experiences of upset and conflict is them (the entreprener), they often begin to "get it" and then choose to consciously begin a process of inquiry and exploration of (1) is this what I really want to do? (2) how do I know? and (3) if so, how can I be better at doing it on a continuous basis?

[Steve Roesler]

Peter,

Isn't it a fascinating aspect of the human condition that we don't usually do much of anything significant until the pain gets great enough?

[Tom Haskins]

Steve: Yes, it does appear as value congruence to me when the job seeker addresses those family and termination issues. There may also be some sense of purpose in managers running their own departments with compassion in spite of more politicized gambits above and beside them.

Peter: Framing the parents on a continuum like you did is far better than labeling them as I did. I agree there are oodles of entrepreneurs "without a smart heart", who are driven by monetary objectives, power drives, and the like. I suspect they are attracted to franchises, product sales or technological innovations where the people factor is a side issue. Like you, I find clients assuming they can handle the soft issues until their bubble gets burst by a reality check. then those deeper questions come into play.

[Steve Roesler]

Tom and Peter:

We talk off and on here about doing the "deeper work." One of the characteristics of the generation entering the workforce is that, apparently, they have already done a relatively significant amount of that in order to be clear about wanting "meaning.'

It may not be totally developed at that age, but it appears to be farther along than previous generations. Will have to look at the evidence, though, so I don't wax poetic instead of factual.

[Tom Haskins]

Steve:
I'm fond of models that see traits jumping across generations, creating great rapport between grandparents and grandkids, while also spawning the familiar generation gap with the adjacent generation. I see lots of evidence for this in my world of relations and acquaintances. The boomer generation did the sixties which was oh-so-deep and heavily invested in meaning. It would not surprise me for it to stage a comeback after a generation of nose-to-the-grindstone, show me the money ,and silence on the anti-war front. That may help you successfully search for some evidence.