From Dysfunction to Function

After posting Albert J. Bernstein's list of 15 Signs Your Workplace is Dysfunctional, I worried it might leave the impression that most workplaces are so screwed up it doesn't matter where you land -- the workplace is doomed to equal dysfunction.

That why I'm happy I came across a recent column by leadership consultant, coach and speaker John Baldoni. He's author of the book "Lead your Boss: The Subtle Art of Managing Up." In his article for the Washington Post blog on leadership, Baldoni offers his insight on The Upside of a Bad Boss and offered his perspective on the opportunities which may be presented inside the dysfunctional workplace:

"Fortunately most bad bosses are not bullies; they are merely incompetent, promoted into positions based on past performance where perhaps they did a good job. Now they are in roles where they are responsible for others, and so they are hopelessly lost and often they are very afraid.


"Such bosses need (and might even welcome) leadership from below, anything that will help them save their jobs which by rights they should not hold. Such bosses create opportunities for bright, energetic souls of good intention to exert their leadership. Before one can lead up, it is essential to be a capable performer. That is, you need to do your job and do it well. Such competence gives you the credibility you need to act."

Read all of Baldoni's article for his suggestions on "managing up from the middle."

Sometimes the example of one person can be the catalyst for change.You don't have to be the boss in order to show leadership and create an atmosphere for positive change. Or to show the path from dysfunction to function.

The Fun in Workplace Dysfunction

A friend passed along this column by Albert J. Bernstein PhD, author "Am I the Only Sane One Working Here? 101 Solutions for Surviving Office Insanity."

His list -- 15 Signs Your Workplace is Dysfunctional is so spot-on that many people will think he's been hiding in their office, taking notes.

That certainly seems to be the conclusion of the readers who chose to comment on the page.

Notice how the comments come from people in a variety of work environments and industries. Which may indicate we have more company in our misery than we realize.

I've listed a few of my favorite signs from Berstein's list:

Sign No. 1: Conspicuously posted vision or value statements are filled with vague but important-sounding words like "excellence" and "quality"

These words are seldom defined and the concepts they allude to are never measured

Sign No. 4: Double messages are delivered with a straight face

Quality and quantity are both job one. You can do it both cheaper and better, just don't ask how. If you're motivated enough you should know already.

Sign No. 13: You are expected to feel lucky to have a job and know you could lose it if you don't toe the line

Dysfunctional companies maintain control using the threat of punishment. Most will maintain that they also use positive rewards ... like your paycheck. A few people are actually fired, but most of those who go are driven to quit.

Sign No. 14: Rules are enforced based on who you are rather than what you do

In a dysfunctional company, there are clearly insiders and outsiders and everyone knows who belongs in each group. Accountability has different meanings depending on which group you're in.

My point in highlighting Bernstein's column is not to make people feel hopeless, but to recognize bad habits, patterns that can be changed. Change that can lead to a more functional, productive workplace.

There's more to fun than dysfunction.

Every Man (One) for Himself (Themselves). Is That So Bad?

A recent article in the Los Angeles Times chronicled the latest round of musical chairs among moguls in the entertainment industry. Too rich for my blood, but I paused to focus on this quote from Martin Kaplan, who chairs the Annenberg Norman Lear Center at the University of Southern California:

"The era of lifelong loyalty is long gone. People don't have careers, they have jobs, and their loyalty is to their own goals, which can be fulfilled in different settings."

At face value, Kaplan's words can read pretty harshly -- dog-eat-dog world and all that. Makes people long for a world where a handshake was as good as a contract, and the employer/employee relationship implied a lifetime commitment and mutual responsibility.

The evidence is all around us on how unrealistic those expectations are in 2009. But is that so bad?

What if employees came to work each day with the intention of doing their best, because that's the standard they hold for themselves? What if the idea of being loyal to yourself meant putting forth your best effort for a sense of self-respect, no matter where you work or for how long?

What if employers realized it would further their own selfish goals to treat their employees and customers well, because their good reputation would grow their business?

Excuse me. I got carried away.

Yet, wouldn't that be a nice place to go?

Coaching For Everyone

One of the things I most love about coaching is that there are about as many ways of being a coach as there are people to coach.

There are life coaches, dating coaches and parenting coaches; career coaches and executive coaches; coaches who specialize in biotech research, law firms, philanthropic organizations; myriad variations that I could not begin to list here.

I think everyone can benefit from coaching (me included). And the more people who learn about coaching and its benefits, the better for everyone.

That's why I'm so pleased to bring attention to this column by master coach Jill Geisler, who heads the Leadership and Management Group at the Poynter Institute, a training institute for journalists. Fans of this blog know they can find a link to Jill's column, "Leading Lines," on the left rail of this page.

Jill writes about what great bosses know about coaching their employees to higher levels of performance. She explains why it's worth the additional effort to resist "fixing" or doing everything yourself, and encouraging workers to discover their own talents.

Imagine what the workplace would be like if more bosses and supervisors saw themselves as coaches, empowered to support employees in finding their best, most creative and most resourceful selves.

As far as I'm concerned, the more coaches, the merrier.

Enjoy Jill's thoughtful analysis. And be sure to read more of Jill's work through the link on left side of this page.

A Different Frame

This clever video, produced for AARP, shows how you can take the same words, put them through a different frame, and come to a different conclusion:

"I Suck At This"

The Washington Post website offers a series of of video interviews offering opinions on various qualities of leadership. Today's feature focuses on a personal crusade of mine: the ability to admit mistakes.

Paul Schmitz, CEO of the nonprofit organization Public Allies, tells Washington Post business columnist Steve Pearlstein "why fessing up about your failings strengthens your role as a leader."

One of my favorite "ah-ha" moments in the interview is when Schmitz discusses the "risk" of acknowledging weaknesses.

"It's not like these things are secrets," Schmitz says. "Everyone knows it; everyone sees it. And so I think that a lot of times that we have this denial in ourselves that people recognize...but everyone knows. And if we just say it, it makes it a lot easier to deal with."

Watch the whole interview here:

What Would You Give Up To Be Right?

Human beings are rational, right? That's what separates us from other mammals, our ability to make rational choices, right?

So why do people chose to cling to an opinion even after they are presented with verifiable but contradictory evidence?

An article by Lane Wallace in The Atlantic Magazine examines research by multiple social scientists which shows that people often employ "motivated reasoning." "Motivated reasoning" helps fend off any evidence which might prove strongly held beliefs are wrong.

Wallace describes this "motivated reasoning" as a response to "cognitive dissonance" -- discomfort caused by the presence of two irreconcilable ideas in the mind at once. She writes:

"One way of resolving the dissonance would be to change or alter the originally held opinion. But the researchers found that many people instead choose to change the conflicting evidence--selectively seeking out information or arguments that support their position while arguing around or ignoring any opposing evidence, even if that means using questionable or contorted logic."

We can see this type of motivated reasoning all around us in the current political climate -- the decision to reject ideas or opinions we might otherwise embrace when those ideas come from the opposite side of the political spectrum.

However, we don't have to wade into civic debate to see this concept at work. You can look around your own office, or the private chambers of your own mind to witness how hard it is to release old ideas.

Within the research, UCLA public policy professor Mark Kleiman observes "the brute fact [is] that people identify their opinions with themselves...to admit having been wrong is to have lost the argument, and (as Vince Lombardi said), every time you lose, you die a little." Kleiman adds: "there is no more destructive force in human affairs -- not greed, not hatred -- than the desire to have been right."

Another way of seeing this pattern is "It's my story and I'm sticking to it" approach. I've written about this presentation before in this blog; the embrace of a well-worn personal story even when it no longer serves you or your needs.

Kleiman describes the struggle this way:

"I would define a true intellectual as one who cares terribly about being right, and not at all about having been right."

As Wallace says "Easy to say, very hard to achieve."

The use of the words "true intellectual" make this internal struggle sound lofty and high-minded. And it is. But at the same time, this is the work that faces each of us; in our internal dialogues, with our families and friends, in the work place, and in our evaluation of the great issues of the day.

Are we willing to receive and consider knowledge that goes against what we think we already know?

What are you willing to give up to truly be right?

The issue is not certain

"Point bein', even in the contest between man and steer, the issue is not certain."

Movie fans reading this will recognize these previous words as a quote from the Coen brothers Academy Award winning film, No Country for Old Men.

I'm a big fan of the brothers Coen, going back to the bizarre and hilarious Raising Arizona through Fargo and beyond. I love their ear for sharp, memorable phrases that stay with your long after the final credits have rolled.

In No Country for Old Men (adapted from the Cormas McCarthy novel of the same name), set in 1980, a kinda of regular guy with shifting ethics comes across a boatload of money left in the aftermath of a drug deal gone murderously wrong. Llewelyn Moss, a Vietnam vet, is a survivor at heart and believes he ultimately will be able to outsmart and escape the sociopath hit man who's been tasked to retrieve the money Llewelyn found in the Texas brush.

Llewelyn's wife, Carla Jean, knows her husband's gotten himself into a mess, but knows none of the details. She also doesn't know what the local sheriff, Ed Tom Bell, has seen in the wake of this debacle -- more dead bodies and more brutality that ever in his decades on the job.

Ed Tom Bell believes that Carla Jean's husband is involved in some way, and that Llewelyn has bitten off far more than he can chew in this situation. Bell tries to persuade Carla Jean that her man needs help. She doesn't disagree, but knows Llewelyn has complete faith in his ability to make things turn out right.

So Bell tells a little story about a freak accident involving a man slaughtering cattle and concludes:

"Point bein', even in the contest between man and steer, the issue is not certain."

The coach in me sees this two ways.

1) Even when all the cards are stacked in your favor, even with all the preparation in the word, the outcome is not certain.

But that also means 2) Even when all the cards are stack against you, you still have a chance.