Employees: People or Roles?

Director of Sales. VP of HR. Research Associate. Customer Service Agent.

Every time I receive a call to consult or coach, one of the first things I hear is the person's title and location on the organization chart. Invariably, the client turns out to be an actual person:

Laura. Luis. George. Dottie.

There's something about organizational roles that allow them to--at least initially--take precedence over the identity of the humans behind them.

I'm quite practical and get the need for org charts, functional titles, and visual relationships. I'm also aware of how the initial focus on titles and roles can subliminally influence the beginning of a working relationship. Here's what I mean:

1. Manager to direct report: "Set up a meeting with the Director of Sales, Europe to review the projections for next month."

Direct report doesn't know the Director. Conjures up images based on title, function, and location. Puts them through the "great mental filter of life." Starts to lose confidence about the ability to interact successfully.

2. VP of HR to external coach: "I'd like you to work with our CFO. She's a real detail person and needs to get the big picture regarding our business. The CEO has a time line for this. Could you get involved as soon as next week?"

Not unusual. If it were me I'd ask the clarifying questions needed to get a more complete picture. But all I can see at this point is the top of an organizational chart.

3. New Director of Customer Service, pointing to screen: "Here is the re-organization as I see it. Notice how the Call Center associates will have a dotted line relationship with Distribution as well as reporting directly to me."

OK. I know what it looks like in a presentation. But who are these people and how will we actually work together?

Humanize or Objectify: The Choice Matters

Humanize: The faster we can begin to relate to other people as people, the more of a chance we have of making a connection that matters. (You may find that you don't particularly care for someone, but at least it's based upon real data).

Objectify means that we assign meaning to things, people, places, activities, and the like. But they may not be correct and can be based upon preconceived notions, stereotypes, and the comments of others. The worst part: it makes the person an object. Once we do that, we no longer see them as someone with the same kinds of needs, wants, frailties, talents, and humanity as ourselves. And then begin to act accordingly.

What I hope you'll think about today:

1. When talking about your organization, talk about the people by name. Mention an interesting characteristic that you value about them. Then mention the title and role.

2. If you're calling a coach or consultant, talk about the person by name if you can (sometimes you can't at first). Offer some insights regarding their experience and background--their uniqueness. Then talk about their role and the developmental goals.

3.Talent Management. When you are discussing the movement of people up and around the organization, talk about characteristics as well as skills. Humanize the roles that need to be filled. How often have you seen really intelligent people cause distress because they simply didn't have the characteristics--or character--to relate to others.

4. It seems safe to keep a distance from others. It's dangerous if you want to have a fulfilling life on or off the job.

It would be useful to hear situations or comments around this phenomenon. It's tough for people to work with each other--or help each other--if they don't actual know each other.

What's your take?

Speaking of roles: We want to thank Kevin Eikenberry and Best Leadership Blogs of 2009 for nominating All Things Workplace. You can vote at the link and check out the lineup of terrific leadership blogs in the action this year.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Is It Really Just About Strengths?

Have you ever noticed people making excuses for poor performance or ugly behavior by invoking the "It's just who I am" defense?

Research (and common sense) show that focusing on peoples' strengths can have a positive affect on engagement and results.

But any approach or new , misunderstood, can actually cause negative side-affects.

 Have you seen any of these?

- Using  "strengths" research as an excuse for managers to avoid uncomfortable performance discussions with employees. ("Everyone knows that James is difficult to work with and shirks his responsibilities. No one wants to work with him and clients complain about him...but he's a really good analyst. Let's not rock the boat.")

- Hiding behind strengths as an excuse for bad behavior. For example, "I'm sorry that I snapped at you and called you a bumbling idiot. I have a short fuse. That's just how I am. Sensitivity is not my strength. You'll just have to accept that."

- Dumping mundane tasks (like paperwork, administration) on others because "it's not my strength." (For example, "Anne, you're so good at making the office coffee, cleaning out the pot and using the fax machine. Would you mind? I'm not good at that kind of stuff.") All jobs require doing some things we don't like, or aren't particularly good at...and most companies can't afford to give all of their employees an assistant to dump work on. Sometimes we just have to suck it up and do something, even though it's not our strength.

 All of that said, I'm still a huge believer in understanding one's strengths. I just get alarmed when I see a good concept spin out of control and become destructive.

What's Happening With The Strengths/Weaknesses Thing?

There are probably a number of reasons why, but I think there is a phenomenon that gets played out--at least in American business circles--whenever the latest and greatest thing hits the scene. And it's this:

What is actually a Principle is adopted as a Rule.

Instead of really taking time to understand all that lies underneath a principle, people run with the catch phrase and treat it as "the way." A book title becomes a buzzword that is then tossed around in meetings. It becomes problematic when the word doesn't have a shared meaning among the users. And that happens a lot. So it is with Strengths.

It's a lot easier to say "It's all about Strengths" than it is to live a life identifying and acknowledging our strengths; figuring out where we need to become at least adequate in some of our weaknesses; and respecting the people around us enough to behave unselfishly even when we "feel" like doing our own thing our own way.

When managers avoid uncomfortable performance discussions, they are showing disrespect for their employee. How can the person improve without hearing the truth, exploring ways to change, and growing as a result?

When we hide behind Strengths as an excuse for bad behavior, we're really saying "I don't respect you enough to bother to honor you with good behavior."

And when mundane tasks are dumped on someone else because "I'm not good at it," then I better ask myself just how I'm using my position power. Is one of my less attractive "strengths" the inclination to take advantage of others' weakness?

What I find ironic as I write this is: we're talking about Strength, yet the insidious culprit is Laziness.

What to do?

1. Take time to learn the "why?" behind the "what." When you can explain a concept accurately using everyday language, you've got it. If you or colleagues around you are still discussing things using buzzwords, stop and ask for an explanation of the meaning. That discussion could lead to shared meaning and deeper understanding.

2. When you hear a "performance excuse" disguised as a reason, follow up by asking: "What are you going to do about that? It's impacting other people and that's not acceptable." It's amazing how we'll make changes once we are called on our behavior and not allowed to explain it away.

3.  Make really bad coffee and jam the fax machine.

Related bonus post: From Lynn Mattoon: Millenials In The Workforce

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

How Wisdom, Discernment, and Integrity Matter

Building leaders is on almost every organization's agenda.

Hiring good people can be a costly process.

Losing employees--regardless of cause--can be equally expensive.

Wisdom, Discernment, and Integrity in Business created a lot of buzz, especially on Twitter.

And whether the long-time, ongoing issues are How One Bad Apple Can Create a Toxic Team, Crazy Co-workers , Bad Bosses, or the rule of No Assholes, people in the workplace are apparently driving other people in the workplace crazy.

What's Happening In Organizations?

Corporations have HR professionals, behavioral interview training, search firms that screen and test, assessment centers, assessment tests. . .

I believe that what is missing--and what needs to be purposefully added to the organization effectiveness equation--are Wisdom and Discernment applied with Integrity.

The vast majority of screening/hiring/promoting practices focus on education, experience, and task-related performance.

But take a hard look at the reasons for dismissal and lack of promotability (not a real word according to the spellchecker!). I've seldom seen well-screened people leave a company because of their technical incompetence. The issue is almost always one of "fit." "How" the individual operates is, in some way, inconsistent with what the organization really thinks is best for itself. (And vice-versa).

Do any of these reasons for separation sound familiar to you?

• He's not a team player
• We need people who can work without a lot of supervision
• We need people who can take supervision
• She doesn't provide enough direction for her people
• She provides too much direction for her people
• He doesn't think about options and possibilities when making decisions
• This company doesn't value my creative thinking
  
• This company doesn't value the fact that I always follow the rules
  

(Please feel free to click on Comments and add your favorites. If I get enough, I'll post a Top__List).

How Can We Change This To Make A Difference?

When we're hiring and promoting, wouldn't it be worthwhile to know who we're getting--not just what we're getting?

It seems to me that we need to understand at least two things in order to make that happen:

1. What "kind of people" do we want? (What values do we hold that need to be evident in our people)?

2. What does it take to develop and use wisdom and discernment needed in business?

What Kind of People Do We Want?

This seems to be the part that is overlooked. Sure, interviewers might say "I liked her" or "He seemed serious enough about the business." Deep down inside, don't we really need to figure out some general characteristics that will help the individual and the work team hit it off over the long run? If it's the kind of job that has management responsibility or potential, then what kind of characteristics do we want to see in our leaders? I know we want them to be able to reach their goals. But what kind of people do we want them to be while they are doing that?

When the issue of "best fit" arises, it becomes foolish to ignore the reality that "how" we are is, in part, the manifestation of "who" we are. To hire and promote based on intellectual/behavior criteria ignores the social and relational nature of organizations. An entire generation of managers, interviewers, and job candidates have been sold on the idea that "past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior." It sounds good. It sells well because it is "scientific." One can create behavioral questions or assessment scenarios that can surface and confirm whether or not a person has, or is able to, perform specific functions. That kind of validation is certainly important. But will that person be able to perform those things well in your organization, given your unique mix of relational expectations, communication patterns, systems, and management?

What if we decided to be intentional about the use of wisdom, discernment, and integrity in the process?

 

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Wisdom, Discernment, Integrity and Business

"A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches."
--King Solomon, Proverbs 22:1

How often do you hear the terms wisdom, discernment, and integrity used during the business day?

And just what are organizations looking for when they are hiring or promoting?

We hear words like intelligent, problem-solver, action-oriented, results-driven, and good decision-making ability.

But what good are any of those if they aren't carried out with wisdom, discernment, and integrity?

It's possible to be action-oriented and still take a lot of wrong actions.

Does intelligence guarantee sound leadership?  History reveals that many leaders with intelligence that was clearly "above average" have oppressed their people, ruined their economies, and even committed genocide.

What Are We Dealing With Here?

First, some slightly paraphrased definitions from Merriam-Webster Online.

Wisdom: ability to discern inner qualities and relationships : (insight) c : good sense : (judgment).

Discernment: the power to distinguish and select what is true or appropriate or excellent; the quality of being able to grasp and comprehend what is obscure.

Integrity: firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : (incorruptibility); the quality or state of being complete or undivided : (completeness).

Why Do They Make a Difference?

Let's start with integrity. It's probably the easiest to deal with and something that we do talk about on the job, at least when it is violated.

Integrity makes a difference because it's an outward indication of our internal character. If we say we have a set of "corporate" values and then live by them--even if it means sacrificing extra revenue--then we are known as having integrity. When we live up to our word, we have integrity. Most of all, integrity is what allows a person or a company to be trusted.

When you possess wisdom, you are able to make judgments that go beneath the surface issue or decision being presented. My observation and experience show that those possessing wisdom have actually learned from their previous experiences and mistakes; have confronted their own part in them; and now are able to see more clearly what is happening within other people and other situations. Maturity--not age alone--is necessary for wisdom.

Discernment is probably the least-used word in business. It implies a well-honed wisdom that allows one to accurately "read between the lines" when dealing with people and situations and see what is true. You and I know lots of people who say "I know how to 'read' people. However, I don't really know lots of people who discern the truth very well at all.

What Happens in The Absence of Those Three ?

When we hire and promote based upon education, experience, and behavioral traits, we're still working on the surface. To get "keepers" we need to dig one level deeper.

At a business luncheon meeting a few years ago our well-educated, high-level executive speaker spent his entire block of time talking about his accomplishments, what he was going to achieve in the coming year, and the plan to get there. When he asked for questions, the guy next to me said something gutsy. He said:

"I'm sorry. Who you are spoke so loudly that I wasn't able to hear what you had to say."

My neighbor had discerned the self-centered character of the presenter. The speaker had not discerned the values, maturity and character of his audience. As a result, his accomplishments couldn't overcome the low regard in which his peers began to hold him as a result of his bravado. It was a defining moment that impacted his career mobility.

When we're hiring and promoting, wouldn't it be worthwhile to know who we're getting--not just what we're getting?

It seems to me that we need to understand at least three things in order to make that happen:

1. What "kind of people" do we want? (What values do we hold that need to be evident in our people)?

2. What does it take to develop the wisdom and discernment needed in business?

3. How are you acquiring your wisdom in a way that leads to discernment and integrity?

How much value does your organization openly place on these?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Performance Tip: Recognize The Talent You've Got

When I check the keyword searches that land people here, a lot of them have to do with "find my strengths" or "how do I manage talented people?"

People at work appear invested in clarifying their own strengths and understanding the inherent talent in others. If that's so, I was wondering why there is so much angst about retention. It seems that people would be committed for the long term if their strengths and talents are being valued.

The Managerial Equivalent of "Your Lips Say 'Yes' But There's 'No-No' In Your Eyes"

There is at least one reason why some people--including managers-- are shopping their resumes. It has to do with the distinction between advocating development and then doing the opposite.

Here's a real life example:

Luke (not his real name) is an operations manager at one of my client companies. He's experienced and has been in the manufacturing industry for 20+ years. He is the most well-read client ever. Whenever I see him, he waxes poetically about the wonderful "new" managerial ideas he's picked up from the most recent leadership books he's read.

One of those ideas had to do with recognizing someone's small successes and following through with verbal encouragement or even a small reward (lunch, movie tickets, a $25 gift certificate. . .) Better yet, acknowledge the person's fete during a regular departmental meeting. He also talked about the importance of those ideas during a meeting with his supervisors.

But he wouldn't do any of those.

I asked him why not.

His reply "I'm not going to spend time rewarding or telling someone how good they are if the company is already paying them a salary. They are supposed to do good work."

He doesn't have the same approach with his kids. I've seen him. He acknowledges them when they've succeeded at something. Anything. And he does it spontaneously.

What the heck happens in life(?) between:

and

.

Every day we're all trying to learn or do something new. Let's be honest: part of our day is spent being a kid again when it comes to struggling with a new problem that needs a solution. And we could use a few encouraging words of recognition when we demonstrate a talent that helps the organization.

("Gee, that felt good. I think I'll do it again!)

What would a well-known, successful business person say about the importance of encouragement?

"My best friend is the one who brings out the best in me."
~ Henry Ford

What Do Our Brains Say About Encouragement?

According to the ATW resident neuro-gurette, Dr. Ellen Weber, brainpower is lost to common critiques. In this instance, the absence of acknowledgment can easily turn into the perception of a "critique." For those who can't seem to get their hearts in gear, maybe a look at how serotonin builds better businesses will offer an intellectual bridge to encouraging action.

What's going on at your workplace when it comes to recognizing and acknowledging people's strengths and talents?
_________________________________

Click on your preferred subscription area at the top of the sidebar on the right. You'll always get the newest post!

Photo attribution to:
www.mingara.com.au      
www.corporateclowning.nl

 

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Build a Culture of "Thanks"

I've been hearing more and more (you no-doubt have, too) about retaining good employees at all levels. Sure, there is plenty of downsizing. But organizations still want to hold onto the best. It costs a lot to find, hire, and get a new person up to speed.

Here are some thought-provoking statistics from an article I recalled some time ago from the UK's Management-Issues:

"Research by UK performance improvement consultants Maritz has found that almost one in five of us (19 per cent) have never been thanked for our efforts at work while more than a third only hear those two little words once or twice a year.

Perhaps not-entirely coincidentally, that's about the same proportion as another recent survey found have no loyalty towards the organisation they work for and couldn't care less about their job.

Yet at the other end of the spectrum, around a third of us do receive regular recognition and are thanked several times a week, something that (as more than eight out of 10 of those surveyed acknowledged) has a positive impact on their desire to remain with their employer."

"Thank You" & the "War for Talent"

Check out the screen shot of my " war for talent"  Google search. 504,000 results.  Books, articles,  training programs, software systems, and academic research. Conferences are being held to ponder the meaning of talent acquisition and retention.

 

Let's assume that the statistics noted in the article are a true reflection of the norm. The third who receive thanks regularly feel positive about their employer and are inclined to remain at the firm.

Easy action: Executives need to start thanking their managers regularly. Then they need to tell them to start thanking their people. Maybe we could get uppity and call it "Building a Culture of Thanks." Clearly, it would be more effective and less costly than conferences and software.

And it would make our mothers proud.

___________________________________

Note: My online friend and leadership guy Ed Brenegar takes this so seriously that he has a place where you can click and experience the transformational power of gratitude: Say Thanks Every Day. 

And you can help by...contributing to Norwegian friend and manager Frode Heiman's recognition survey at Never Mind The Manager.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Are You Really Developing Leaders?

"Most people who want to get ahead do it backward. They think, 'I'll get a bigger job, then I'll learn how to be a leader.' But showing leadership skill is how you get the bigger job in the first place. Leadership isn't a position, it's a process."-- John C. Maxwell

Respected leaders talk about the experiences that have shaped their abilities over a period of time, not their classroom learning. While intellectual endeavors offer a starting point and models for thinking about leadership, hands-on experience is the consistent theme in the lives of leaders who have been tested and found approved.

We did a survey of participants (senior managers) in four consecutive leadership development programs. They were asked what contributed the most to their leadership learning, confidence, and skill. The results were job and project assignments with workshops, seminars, and other methods well behind in the rankings.

So my question is:

Why aren't we  putting people into increased positions of responsibility so they can gain experience and maturity?

What do we expect from "real" leaders?

There's an entire industry built around Leadership. Graduate programs, consulting businesses, workshops, seminars, books, DVD's...I sometimes wonder if it hasn't become a cult in search of an idealized organizational savior. If that's the case for some, then the search will continue indefinitely but the conversation will be wonderfully angst-filled.

For those seeking a realistic and practical approach to building leadership abilities, maybe we need to start by asking:

1. What do we really expect? This is based upon each organization's strategies, value system, and the ability to bring in "the right person at the right time for the right leadership role."

2. Are we willing to invest the time, money, and energy to build mature leadership capability by purposefully putting people in positions of leadership? Are we committed to making an investment in a process?

3. If "yes," how will we do that?

4. If "no," then are we willing to change our expectations and live with the results?

If it's about speed, it isn't about maturity

The business climate now is about speed, quarterly results, and change. With people changing jobs so readily, it is almost impossible to develop people's abilities for the long run in the context of a single organization's culture and needs. When there was longevity as a result of commitment to and from employees you could track, train, develop, and promote much more deliberately. Companies had a sense of confidence about an individual's real capabilities because they had been tested and observed in different situations over a long period of time. You could assess, first hand, both skill and maturity under pressure.

Leadership and the "Project Culture"

With so much job-hopping due to corporate change and personal goals, the notion of a traditional "career" seems to be all but dead. Maybe we should get real and start to look at worklife as a series of projects. If so, then perhaps we're looking to develop leaders whose strengths include the ability to move in and out of new relationships and situations but who are adept at gaining trust and unifying people under those conditions.

One thing I am sure of: You can't microwave leaders and expect a 5-Star Experience

If we're genuinely concerned with developing leaders, it may be time to examine the validity and assumptions of our expectations. How much is driven by the cult of "celebrity leadership" or consultants and vendors who have never worked for any length of time in a corporation?  Are the criteria driven by agendas more akin to a "social experiment" or the realities of leading an entity through good times and bad?

Question for Today:

How will we influence (if we can) our companies in ways that define realistic expectations, create a series of leadership experiences, and allow the time and feedback for individuals to synthesize those experiences in a way that breeds the maturity necessary to lead effectively?



Photo Source: www.bren.ucsb.edu

                   

                                                                                                             

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Caution: Your Self, Your Systems , and Quaker Parrots

You and I may have something in common (in addition to work).

Anytime I come across a parrot, I try to strike up a conversation to see if the bird will talk back. Don't you? For some reason, it's perfectly acceptable for humans to be seen in public attempting to talk with parrots. And if they talk back, it's a treat.

At least for a while.

The problem that arises is this: the darned bird has no idea what it's saying or why it's saying it. Parrots aren't into context. Which is why they, uh, "parrot" things.

What does this have to do with you and systems?

Workplaces are all about systems, and rightfully so. Without systems we would waste time doing the same task differently at each attempt. Makes no sense.

So systems are good. Excellent, in fact. Learning what works and replicating it is a wise thing to do. All of you 5S, GTD, SAP, and PDQ Bach people know that.

So why is "Caution" up there in the headline?

There is a distinct difference between replicating successful systems and trying to mindlessly copy the behavior of managers or management "techniques" that have worked before. 

Take  inspiration from your mentors and models, but become a person who manages upon a foundation of guiding principles. Learn and understand why something worked in the past, taking into account the context in which it worked. That context will help you build a set of principles on which to base your management, your organizational life, and your career.

Use the best models out there to gain a better understanding of management and why you do what you do.

The caution?… None of your people really wants to speak with a managerial parrot.

Oh, why Quaker Parrots? According to this, they are "charming (with)comical personalities and a willingness to learn human speech; the Quaker Parrot is an excellent choice for those who want all the fun of a large parrot in a smaller package. They adapt well to living in a "human flock" setting, and enjoy spending time with their owners."

Could be better than having the teenagers around.

Bonus Alert: Dan McCarthy will get you TORC-ed up about what's most important to your career as well as a related hiring process. This is a primo post.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

But They're Sooo Intelligent...!

When you are discussing individual performance issues and the last phrase out of someone's mouth is always "Yeah, but (s)he's so intelligent," you have a problem.

For years I've watched clients try to figure out what to do with high potential, poor people-skills managers. Most of the companies I've worked with have invested huge amounts of time, money, coaching, and education in an effort to prompt behavioral change in some "exceedingly intelligent" people. Maybe you've seen the same things.

Do any of these look familiar?

Global Operations Director who hits all of the monetary goals but no one wants to work with him. They don't trust him because he withholds information and doesn't include other managers in decisions that impact how they do their work.

 Brilliant Vice President of Finance who can't conduct meetings, doesn't like to plan, and knows more ways to help the company earn money on its money than its bankers do. Up for promotion for top job. Really doesn't want it. People love working with him because they learn from him. He wants to continue developing investment methods and models.

Director of Regulatory Compliance. No one explains new (regulated) products to the government better than this guy. So what's the problem? To the company it means the difference between a commercial product or nothing new to sell. His direct reports described their feelings toward him as "hate" (never a real good sign). They say he is a "bully," "condescending," and "has no patience with anyone he thinks is less intelligent than him." When offered the possibility of being a high-level individual contributor, the director said "No. I want to be a manager."

What are we seeing here?

It's actually easy to explain: we simply cannot believe that someone we see as "smart" could actually be so "stupid." What we're doing is responding to a single, outstanding talent or skill and ascribing other attributes to it that we think must certainly be there. We then look at academic credentials and technical performance and believe that, somehow, we must be wrong. (Otherwise why would we have hired the person and promoted them to this point--here it begins to become a little self-defensive but we don't realize it).

Misunderstanding Intelligence

It's easy to make the mistake of believing that making great presentations, investments, operational decisions, or engineering breakthroughs is a sign of superior intelligence. And they might, in fact, indicate an outstanding ability to think and reason within given circumstances and topics. However, take a look at just a few definitions from those involved in intelligence testing and research over the years:

"The capacity to learn or to profit by experience."
(Dearborn, 1921)

"A global concept that involves an individual's ability to act purposefully, think rationally, and deal effectively with the environment."
(Wechsler, 1958)

"A person possesses intelligence insofar as he had learned, or can learn, to adjust himself to his environment."
(Colvin, cited in Sternberg, 1982, p.30)

Learn, adapt, adjust. None of our managers is either willing, able, or both. So we need to stop praising their "intelligence" and start recognizing an inability or unwillingness to adapt.

What to look for and what to do

If you are trying to manage situations similar to those above, here are some tips from experience:

1. When "intelligence" becomes a mantra after you've coached and counseled a person, you are stuck. Stop looking at where you would like them to be going in the company and start defining what they do well and where they are not developing.

2. When you've defined what they do well, talk with them honestly about where they'll fit best over the long run. Yes, they may not see it that way and leave.

3. When you find that 90% of your energy is spent trying to figure out or explain 10% of your workforce, stop. Look at what you want from performance; compare it with what you are getting; and avoid explaining away the gap. We've all done it. We want people to succeed. And if they are likeable it's even harder. Fact: We aren't being helpful to them or the organization.

4. Bad managers are toxic. It's easy to believe we're dealing with a single performance issue. We're not. Toxic managers are impacting the performance of everyone around them.

5. If you think you can't live without someone, you can. What would you do if, God forbid, they dropped dead tomorrow? It could happen. And life will go on.

What about our friends in the examples?

The Global Operations guru will soon become an individual contributor and technical advisor. It will work well.

Brilliant Finance Whiz has become the Chief Economic Officer (newly created role) of a major global enterprise. His second-in-command, a good manager, got the top job. Everyone is satisfied with the outcome and performance is top-notch all around.

Regulatory Compliance bully: we don't know yet. The company is still willing to invest in professional development.

Do you have a "But they're so intelligent. . ." story? Help the workplace community and send in your story through a Comment or email.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Knowledgeable Workforce Requires Knowledge-Filled Workers

Every company downsizing right now is factoring in the legal and financial benefits of some kind of "package" for employees nearing retirement age. While that approach offers some much-appreciated relief in the decision process, it may not turn out to be the best over the long run.

Older Workers More Engaged. Really.

It's easy to make assumptions based on any type of demographic. And it's certainly easy to figure that the longer someone has been working, the more likely they are to want out. However, a Hewitt Associates study showed that:

1. Older employees were more likely to be engaged in their work than younger ones, with 74% indicating their engagement on the job. That contradicts the belief that many older workers simply want to coast to retirement.

2. The least engaged group was generation X (26 to 40 years old) at 61 per cent.

I'm not suggesting that layoff/retention decisions be made on such statistics alone. I am suggesting that using  "age" or "years of service" as overarching drivers for these decisions might come back to haunt employers later.

These choices are difficult under any circumstances. Use the range of information available to make the best-balanced ones.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

"Happy Face" Performance Reviews Zap Everyone

Joane Bintliff-Ritchie, experienced HR and Talent pro, contributes this about "A" Players, Layoffs, and Missing Data:

 "I've actually lived this scenario with one exception. There were annual performance reviews for everyone but those employed <1year. However, the distinctions driving the 'who to cut' list were not matched in the reviews. Everyone had a performance rating of Acceptable or better, and the majority were better. So the legal eagles still stepped in and said our data was inconclusive and weak. We then had to fall back to data like time in position and years of service to identify the layoffs. We lost many strong performers and several new hires we had spent a great deal of $$ to recruit and onboard."

Now You Know, So. . .

Managers: Start talking straight during performance reviews if you aren't already doing so. Everyone isn't "Acceptable" or better, unless your criteria for "Acceptable" are exceedingly low. If that seems to be the case, re-visit the level of your standards and look at the actual performance of your group. If everyone consistently has these ratings, you aren't looking closely enough at what "good" really is.

Then, document the reviews.

Employees: If you aren't getting a review, demand one. Those of you who know you are top-notch performers can help protect yourself in the kinds of situations we've addressed these two days. If your boss doesn't/won't document, then you write out the salient points of the discussion, send it as an email attachment noting the date of the meeting, and keep the file for later access.

This can help you in the event of a layoff scenario or, better yet, when an opportunity arises and you have the concrete information that reflects your outstanding performance.

Many of you are managers and HR professionals. What else can everyone be doing to avert problems down the road?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

"A" Players, Layoffs, and Missing Data

Here's a real-life situation that I'll bet is getting played out in more than one company:

1. Company X identifies a  legitimate need to reduce headcount

2. Managers are asked to do an "A-B-C" performance ranking activity, with A being the stars and C being the lowest 10% (or whatever system is decided).

3. It is announced that retention decisions will be made based upon performance

4. It is then discovered that the "C" players (as well as others), many of whom have been with the organization since the first Reagan administration haven't received a written performance review since then, either.

5. All of those newly-identified low performers have also received regular pay raises over the years.

Ooops. I'm From Legal: Don't Do This.

• No performance review means no supporting written documentation,

• Regular pay raises imply satisfaction with performance.

The result? Your corporate legal eagles tell you that, absent defensible data, your downsizing will be done based on seniority--with the newest hires leaving first, regardless of performance.

If your organization hasn't demanded regular performance feedback and documentation, I hope this will cause all of that to change. In addition to the positive developmental aspect, having the data can protect your from what happened to the above organization:

1. Needing to manage lean in tough times.

2. Needing the very best people to do that.

3. Seeing some of the best people laid off while some of the lowest performers remain, hindering the ability to survive and hopefully thrive.

What's happening in your organization?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

How Age Impacts Your View of Life

We're living in a literal and figurative season where people are often waxing nostalgic over the "good old days." Holiday gatherings yield family stories that make one wish that somehow we could be back at Grandma's house again because it was, apparently, so wonderful. World financial markets prompt the same kinds of recollections of the past as well as--for some--grandly optimistic outlooks for a "new" kind future.

You may be either nodding or shaking your head in agreement or disagreement. Exactly.

"Looking at the world through rose-colored glasses" is a saying that we hear often. Many people look at things optimistically, regardless of the circumstances. However,  according to a psychological study our views on past and future happiness change according to where we are in our lives.

Dr. Margie Lachman and colleagues found that younger and middle-aged people tend to underestimate their past happiness and to overestimate their future happiness - probably because to do so helps motivate them to strive for a better life. This data came from a survey of over 3000 American adults conducted twice and spaced nine years apart.

Age Changes Outlook

Older people (aged over 65) were more accurate in recalling their past and future life satisfaction.  This probably reflected the need to accept their life as it had been lived, combined with their greater understanding of the human capacity to adjust emotionally to whatever life throws our way. Indeed, in line with the predictions of the older participants, most people's life satisfaction, in this study and others, actually changes very little through the years (in Western democracies, at least).

Lachman's study team also looked at how adaptive it was for people to have either rose-tinted or darkly clouded views of their past and future. The results showed that at whatever age, it is beneficial to have a more realistic view of the past and future. Those participants who more accurately perceived their past and future happiness tended to suffer less depression and enjoy better health.

"The young have an illusion of continued improvement, seeing the past as worse than it really was and the future as better than it turns out to be," the researchers said. "This illusion is consistent with their motivational orientation toward continued growth and gains."

Workplace Application

While the future belongs to the young, the absence of older workers could be a recipe for unrealistic decision-making. Adding reality and experience to idealism and energy doesn't equal "resistance to change;"it adds a much-needed dimension to decisions and execution that may provide a real pathway to move ideas and products forward.

During the past few years we've seen the headlines for Talent Wars, Saving Institutional Knowledge and Learning, and Diversity. My experience so far with recent layoffs has been that workers nearing retirement are being offered packages to accelerate their decisions. I understand the legal and financial benefits of such a strategy to the corporations involved. Howver, when the corporate sun starts shining brightly again, I wonder if the decision-making maturity and collective knowledge of these newly "retired" workers will be irreplaceable and actually prompt a lengthening of the recovery process. 

Then, who ya gonna call: Ghostbusters?

______________________________________________

For more on the research cited here:

Margie E. Lachman, Christina Röcke, Christopher Rosnick, Carol D. Ryff (2008). Realism and Illusion in Americans' Temporal Views of Their Life Satisfaction: Age Differences in Reconstructing the Past and Anticipating the Future Psychological Science, 19 (9), 889-897 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02173.x

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Time, Priorities, and Ordering Your Space

5S The Mess? There's Talent Involved

Jim Stroup's Captain of Your Own Fate post actually prompted this one. He has a clear and simple take on how executives really decide to allocate their time.

How do you allocate yours? Do you ever find it difficult?

One of my client companies is very committed to the 5S approach to organizing and ordering every workplace area. The system is crystal clear and has discreet steps that would seem easy for anyone to follow.

Not everyone finds it easy. The reason:

There are actually two separate, discreet Organizing Talents that we can possess (or not). Rather than beat up on ourselves or others, it might be useful to see these more clearly.

1. Time and Priorities. This is an innate tendency toward ordering one's own schedule to reflect what is the most important task at any given time and how long it will take. It does not automatically include the ability to order time and priorities for other people.

2. Order of Your Space. We all pretty much know whether this is a strong suit or whether we need to wrestle with it throughout life. People with this talent almost effortlessly maintain things in their proper place and even sense the most efficient positioning of physical items for easy retrieval. (This is not a gift with which I have been blessed. I actually have a 5S booklet that I follow to keep my space as organized as possible).

What is fascinating is this: It's possible to have a lot of #1 and almost none of #2 and vice-versa.

Your ability or inclination to prioritize and order your life and your space is a big deal.  People (often incorrectly) make assumptions about your other abilities based on these. My online friend Dr. Peter Vajda often reminds me that focusing only on strengths can get in the way of truly growing.

These two areas of life are so visible and have so many related implications, I'd suggest: "If you ain't got 'em, work at 'em."

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Creative Talents: Exactly What Kind?

Innovation and Creativity permeate the pages of business books and internet storytelling.

But, like the Persuasive Talents and Management Talents we identified here recently, Creative Talents aren't a homogeneous lump of artistic goo. (I haven't the slightest idea where that line came from. It just flowed at the end of the sentence. Must have something to do with my own hidden, artistic goo).

I know from work with client companies that the cry for "Innovation!" and "Creative Solutions!" is a loud one. I'm not sure that everyone has the same definition or really understands the distinct subsets of Creativity that individuals can offer.

Here is a way to begin to distinguish among Three Unique Creative Talents:

Creating. The inclination to form new associations among previously unrelated concepts, objects, or systems. These folks are continually experimenting with new ideas. You can observe this in any endeavor: office work, administration, sports, teaching, management...and, it doesn't necessarily require much knowledge of previously developed methods.

The gift here: creating something new out of what appeared to be unrelated, existing entities.

Imagining. Very different from creating and truly in the realm of the mind. Those of you with this innate talent will form new associations in your mind as a result of theorizing, philosophizing, daydreaming, and hypothesizing. This can extend to the development of story characters  and other entities that do not yet exist. In other words, the generation of something brand new.

I believe this is what many organizations claim they are looking for but then stop people from  "doing" it because it doesn't look like "work."

Inventing. This is a way to distinguish those whose tend to produce physical creativity from those who live in the world of ideas and concepts. Inventors--for classification purposes-- have a natural talent for developing new technical equipment and physical systems. One way to identify this kind of creative talent is to observe people who "act out" there ideas in tactile ways using substances such as wood, concrete, plastic, glass, etc.

Real-life story About "Creative" Differences

While doing consulting and coaching some years ago with executives and PECO energy in Philadelphia, I received a fascinating request: Would I meet with some of their almost-college-age children and do some "testing" to help the young people better understand their talents?

So, I asked: "Why do you really think that's important?" (Effective consultants, like effective counselors, never roll with the 'presenting' issue:-)

The real pain was not with the off-to-college crowd; it was with the parents. These adults were all highly educated, highly trained engineers who saw the "real world" as a very physical place. They were unbelievably creative in their problem-solving as well. However, the youngsters involved were making noise about majoring in Theater Arts, Fine Arts, and Music. To the executives involved, even if their kid sculpted the next "David," it wouldn't actually do anything.

From this brief description you could no doubt sit down with the parents and explain what was going on. However: these were engineer parents. So, I spent time doing talent assessments and interviews with the young people (thoroughly enjoyable) and then sat down with them and their folks. When the data were presented along with a list of actual talents and related careers--life at home became good again.

These were terrific parents who cared enough to do something about:

a. Changing the minds of their children as a result of good information

b. Changing their own minds as a result of good information

Thought for today: Begin to engineer your thinking about what it means to be creative. Take time to discern your own inclinations and those of your colleagues. When you begin to see that Creativity comes in different, useful forms, you'll start noticing and using more of it.

Create, Imagine, Invent. . .

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

What's Your Persuasive Talent?

I always thought I liked to sell. Even did a stint as a regional manager for a global training organization.

But I don't sell. I promote. Then comes the sale.

I'll bet you have fairly strong feelings about what it means to be "in 'Sales.' " Most folks I've met aren't very neutral about it. They either think it's terrific or an indictable offense. But the fact is, you can't get through life--or your chosen field--without understanding where your Persuasive Talents lie.

Which of These Three Do You See In The Mirror?

When I'm working with Sales groups or on Talent Assessment engagements, here are the three Persuasive Talents we focus on using the proprietary CareerMatch©. Perhaps you never thought of breaking down influencing/persuasive talents in this way, so I hope it is helpful:

Negotiating. See, got you already. People with this inclination are able to grasp the needs and desires of at least two unrelated people or groups. Then, they find a common denominator in both and are able to unite everyone in the agreement of a defined goal, idea, or project. These people are every bit as valuable as the "closers" because they give the "closers" something to close.

Selling or Recruiting. This is the traditional view of sales because, by our definition, you introduce a concept or product in a way that results in a "sale." Think: "Will that be cash or charge?" The purpose going in is to walk out with the order. This talent also applies to recruiting volunteers and fund-raising.

Promoting. If you are a Promoter, you directly or indirectly influence others toward accepting subject matter, opinion, or even another individual. Promoters are often passionate about their service, idea, or product and are successful "sales" people because others are drawn in by their willingness and ability to educate listeners. Unlike the second category, these are the folks who often make "assumptive" closes and simply have the kind of conversations that lead to acceptance.(They can be even more successful if they remember to deliberately discuss "the sale":-)

Whether you're thinking about a Sales career, are a Sales Manager, or simply want to get a better understanding of where your persuasive strengths lie, the three categories above are well worth contemplating.

Once you pinpoint your talent you'll have a much keener sense of your professional value--and a way to discuss it.

Note: Thanks to Steve Woodruff's "Why Don't They Get It/Me/Us? for sparking today's thoughts.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Which Management Talent Is Yours?

We all have natural talents--those inherent capabilities that put us in "the zone" when it comes to performance. We talk about that phenomenon here frequently. These are the moments when everything seems easy. And the results are first-class.

It's also possible and desirable to learn new skills. But unless they're directly related to our talents, we'll feel like we're actually working at something that's somehow, at some level, a mismatch.

Managerial Talent: The research

Research done by the IDAK Group shows that:

1. There are three distinct managerial talents.

2. No one in the studies has been found to possess more than one as a talent.

3. Thirty percent of respondents had a managerial talent. Yes, that means that 70% did not have a natural talent for management.

The 3 talents defined: which one is yours?

The following are from the CareerMatch™ diagnostic tool:

--Developing/Initiating. Successfully supervises others in starting up new programs, new systems, branch offices, etc. Think "start up" and getting things up and running. Then, likes to move on when the new thing becomes institutionalized. People like to follow because of the focused energy and enthusiasm this kind of manager brings.

--Planning. Successfully maps out long range details to reach organizational goals. People follow this kind of manager because of the sensibility and clarity of the plan.

--Managing. Successfully supervising others in an established organization, department, branch office, etc. This is the kind of person who enjoys managing performance, getting one-on-one with employees, and running an established system well. People follow the dependability and even-handedness of many of these managers.

Hmm. Every executive/management want ad I've ever seen reads something like this:

"Initiates new programs and implements related changes; responsible for strategic planning and industry-related trend analysis; develops and coaches employees and provides appropriate, ongoing performance feedback..."

Weighed against the research, these kinds of descriptions are setting unattainable expectations. If you have one of the talents you can develop skills in the others. But you need to know that they aren't going to shine through the way your inherent talent will. And that means that the performance expectations have to be discussed according to reality and what's possible in each area. (It's also a great diagnostic to let you know the kinds of people with whom to surround yourself).

We've used the CareerMatch™ assessment tool for the past five years with mid-career managers. Three things usually happen:

1. They are relieved to gain a reality-based understanding of the differences in their managerial performance by task. It delineates the various talents that are too often lumped together in job descriptions to try and describe one person--just like the typical ad.

2. Once organizations see a person's managerial talent strength, it becomes more productive for purposes of accurate evaluation and talent movement within the organization. For many it's the first time that actual talents have been identified. (Management is just one area. Communication, Relational, and Functional natural talents are also identified).

3. Managers whose talents really lean toward "individual contributor" are able to be matched with future positions that benefit both them and the organization.

The lesson? Let's take what we know and use it to help organizations, clients, and individual managers boost performance and satisfaction.

Photo Source: Indian Institute of Planning and Management

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Strengths, Weaknesses, and Genuine Growth

I decided to take a break for the past week, enjoy my family during the Thanksgiving holiday, and return renewed.

Doing What Comes Naturally was about paying more attention to what comes easily to us. Too often we ignore our talents because it doesn't "feel" like we are working very hard.

The reason I emphasized this is because of a tendency--beginning with elementary school education--to point out the deficiencies in one's performance based upon another's perceived sense of what is important, worthwhile, and desirable. We tend to hear more about our downsides than our inherent gifts. Later on in life, organizations tend to do the same thing with gap analyses based upon competencies. That's not bad at all if the competencies are related to your desired professional development. It works better if the gap analysis is tied into agreed-upon goals. That way, you are looking at performance vs. results instead of performance vs. behaviors which may not, in fact, have anything to do with your success. My experience with a number of competencies is that they fit into a textbook, social-engineering "this is how you should be" framework that can be inaccurate and merely reflect the fad-du-jour in management.

Strengths vs. Weaknesses: It's Not An Either/Or

If you are going to be really good and really satisfied with your life's work, you need to pinpoint--and accept--your talents and strengths. I say "accept" because they may not be what you want or what you had hoped for (or what your parents, teachers, and friends believe you ought to have).

Yet in order to reach star status, you'll need to bump up your game in other areas. I like this addition from Dr. Peter Vajda:

Focusing on one's strengths alone supports one to move from good, to better to best where they "are." Focusing on one's weaknesses, potential, ares for development, etc., supports one to move the action of their life forward, beyond where "I am"....towards a deepening self-actualization, and holistic sense of growth.

It's also well to remember that one's virtues often become one's vices...as when one becomes an "expert" at some ability, skill, or talent and often becomes overbearing in the way they feel they need to manifest that talent, etc. "When all you have is a hammer..."

Here are three related examples I've seen in the past month:

1. A PowerPoint pro unwilling to teach colleagues a few tips and tricks that would help them save time and improve the quality of their visuals. The issue is not blatant selfishness--it is unwillingness to stretch a bit in order to stand in front of a small group and "teach." However, the unwillingness is perceived in some circles as "not helping the team."

2. Global manufacturing manager not initiating conversations with boss in order to keep him up-to-date. When asked "Why not?", the response was, "It's just not me."

Fact: This guy is unbelievably knowledgeable and experienced.

Fact: He is perceived that way by the boss.

Fact: The boss needs information and will not allow this to continue, even if it means getting a replacement who is not quite as experienced but is more forthcoming with information.

3. Engineer using "I am an engineer, not a people person" as an excuse not to cooperate with others whose points of view are different. His posture: "This is what I was trained to do, this is why you hired me, this is my opinion, I don't need to 'defend' it to non-engineers."

Unfortunately, this example is one that has become more common. Technical prowess has been increasingly allowed to hold hostage the most basic elements of effective organizational behavior. In this case, the individual will retain a technical role but will end up losing managerial status. He's not willing to acknowledge weaknesses which, if addressed, could put him at the level he believes he "deserves" to be.

None of these people is using their talent to move their lives forward and contribute in bigger ways to their organizations. Each is talented, yet each is choosing not to broaden the impact of their talents. They don't have to be "as good" in the areas desired by others. They need to reach what may be considered, like vitamins, a "minimum daily requirement."

A good question to ask yourself is: "What else do I need to develop in support of my strengths?"

It may only be a minimum daily requirement.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Thanks to everyone who has been adding to this discussion:

Jackie Cameron at Jackie Cameron-Coaching and Communication

Entrepreneur Karin H. at The Kiss Business

Tom Magness, LeaderBusiness

Dr. Peter Vajda, partner at SpiritHeart

Michelle Malay Carter, consultant at Mission Minded Management

The talented Meg Bear at Talented Apps

Brain-based Dr. Ellen Weber at her new site Brain Leaders and Learners

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Finally: Talent War Re-Visited

Last Wednesday I mentioned I'd be back shortly with a follow-up on talent war confusion followed by reports from WorldBlu Live! "Shortly" extended way beyond the most liberal meaning of the word due to a mixture of no wireless at the conference site and unexpected business that emerged.

The  "Talent War" Thing

Check out the in-depth comments from managers and other consultant/coaches.You'll see varied and thoughtful responses, each reflecting insights from different vantage points. If you are at all interested in the whole "talent" thing you won't be disappointed.

My original issue was about the mixed message we are all hearing:

Business: We're in a "War for Talent."

Employees: My company isn't using my talent.

It's easy to point fingers at powerful, uncaring corporate entities. But I don't think that's the real answer,  as attractive as it may seem to many. Here is what I've watched unfold in recent years:

1. Companies--especially publicly-held companies--are under pressure to produce short-term numbers. That's simply a fact.

2. Part of those numbers are generated by keeping costs down.

3. Statistics from ASTD and other sources show that large corporations are spending less money on professional development than they did, say, 10 years ago. There are fewer opportunities for workers at all levels to:

     a. Participate in the kinds of developmental workshops that help them focus on self-development within the organization. Part of those programs were dedicated to identifying strengths, areas of further development, and ways to initiate developmental discussions with bosses and others in the company.

     b. Be exposed to others who could see their talent and do something about it. Most of the leadership and management programs with which I've been involved have had a heavy participative component that included senior managers and executives. Their interactions with participants offered a first-hand look at people outside of their own functions. Informal  sessions provided a give-and-take about where the company was headed and what the future might look like. Workshop participants had the opportunity to talk about their interests and aspirations with those who could help the most.

4. One's talents need the light of day to find expression. That means being given the chance to "try things out" in different areas of an organization. Right now, there appears to be an emphasis on lowering risk while increasing current workload. This does at least two things:

     a. It discourages employees from "trying out" new ideas and demonstrations of talents not present in the immediate job description. This breeds a focus on "more of the same," but under stress. Therefore, one's talents may actually be subverted as a result of demands that are near-impossible to meet.

     b. It drives people to seek expression of their talents elsewhere. At a moment when organizations want to do more with less, the very people who may be capable of doing more don't see their current employer as a vehicle for their growth.

5. Many people haven't deliberately identified and acknowledged the range of talents that they possess. This isn't the fault of their employer; it's also a self-responsibility issue. In some cases, people over-estimate their inherent abilities. In others, they grossly underestimate themselves. What is most helpful to all concerned is a deliberate and accurate assessment regardless of age, industry, or level.

Are You "Talent" or "Talented?"

I don't really like the label "talent." I understand the goal and am involved in designing ways for companies and individuals to come together productively. But language is a powerful thing. We're talking about "talented people" not "talent" or "human capital." To the extent that language becomes impersonal, our ability to objectify people increases.

Here's another thought:

If the War for Talent turned into a Search for Talented People, the subjects might feel a bit safer and come out of hiding. And those doing the searching would have a more accurate picture of whom they were seeking (rather than "what").

This isn't a warm and fuzzy conceptual plea for a group hug. It's a hard-nosed look at a fact of life: You'll get what you ask for. If you want a "who," don't ask for a "what."

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Talent: What You Can't Not Do

Successful People and Their Struggles

Richard Branson, the Virgin brand mogul, gets bored easily. He channels this "problem" into a positive by "getting himself into numerous businesses that he can spread himself around in."

Charles Schwab was dyslexic and almost flunked out of Stanford, having failed English twice. In business, he overcame this reading problem by speaking from the heart (nixing the need for reading and writing long memos and speeches).

Cisco CEO John Chambers was also dyslexic, so he relies on memorized speeches and interacting personally with people as much as possible.

Each of these people found a way to succeed in the face of some weakness.

Strengths from Weakness and Natural Talent

I'd like to propose that you and I look at our lives in light of those two gifts. And they are both gifts, although the first one may be difficult to see at first.

Strengths from Weakness

This isn't happy talk or psycho-babble.

Each of us is faced with some struggle around which we have to make a choice. Either we succumb to the struggle or we see it through. What we label as "overcoming" is really the molding of our character through adversity. In that process, we discover and develop strengths that serve our natural talents and purpose in life. All of the examples above reflect that.

If you choose to acknowledge your struggle and see it through, you'll end up leading and mentoring others who are struggling with similar challenges.

Why?

You'll possess knowledge, wisdom, and empathy about the issue that others cannot gain from classroom study. It will become an area of passion and personal meaning. You'll become known for your insight and strength.

What You "Can't Not Do"

Your Natural Talent(s)

If you're reading this, you are probably committed to personal and professional development. So at some point, you ask yourself "What are my real talents?"

I do a lot of mid-career counseling with executives who also wrestle with that question. Every one has read about  Following Your Bliss, Pursuing Your Passion, and Discovering Your Strengths. They get the idea. But they find it difficult to separate skills that they've developed from the talents they possess.

During one session--in the midst of my own frustration--I blurted out, "What can't you not do?"

That proved to be a breakthrough question and has turned into a cornerstone of the career counseling part of my practice.

Look at your life. What can't you not do? No matter what your job title or job description, what do you find it impossible not to get involved with? What are you always getting in trouble for because you're not supposed to be doing it--or doing it that way?

Start paying attention to that and you'll start to identify your natural talent(s). And when you're using those talents, you won't even feel as if you are working. That's one of the reasons they can be hard to identify. We're so good at them, we don't recognize them for what they are. And we tend to place a low value on them because they don't "seem like work." Yet they are the part of you that makes you a star.

What to take away

1. When faced with a struggle, recognize that seeing it all the way through will present you with a new strength. You don't yet know what that is.

2. When you make that choice, it will become an area of your life where you will help, guide, and mentor others. Your burden will become one of your gifts.

3. If you are an HR person or manager who is interviewing candidates: Ask the candidate to describe a struggle that has led to a new talent, and how they use it. Pay attention to this. It will be a powerful part of their career potential

4. What can't you not do?

Stop not doing it.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.