Needle, Meet Haystack

Autonomy: it’s something that everyone says that they want in their job, but how many can deal with it?

Though some may be micromanaged and tasked to deal with bosses day in and day out, their desire for a more independent work environment may be based more in fantasy than in reality.

The truth is, having a boss inspires productivity, though many think that they destroy it.  But consider that not everyone is motivated to pull themselves by their own bootstraps, nor are they prepared to deal with self-management for a full work day.

So, as a location-independent worker who sees his boss about once a week, I’ve developed a tactic that helps me keep my manager up to speed, keeps me focused, and serves everyone’s best interests.  It’s called the Three Call Rule.

Basically, I can call, text and email my boss no more than three times (combined) in a day.

I will usually call or email him at least once to check in, but beyond that, I manage myself.  The two extra calls are in case I have exhausted all possible venues and need his help resolving an issue, or if his input is needed before something is finalized.  And it’s worked pretty well.

Instead of going to my boss with every little problem, I only contact him if the issue is one that I cannot solve on my own, which fulfills my need for autonomy.  And instead of becoming lazy and complacent through a lack of management and oversight, our communications serve to inspire me to be a more diligent worker.

So if you find yourself in a location-independent situation but are unsure of how to get the most out of it, try the Three Call Rule – it’s simple, effective, and lets you enjoy the advantages of a cubicle-free lifestyle.

With the economy continuing on a downward trend, customer service and retail jobs are becoming a better option.  But dealing with irate customers is not only one of the major drawbacks to such a career, but also one of the things that contributes to high turnover rates and employee dissatisfaction.

I’ve been working in customer service off and on for over a decade, and in that time, I’ve dealt with some of the best and worst examples of customers that you can find.  Some of them made my day through our interactions, while others made me want to jump over the counter and beat the holy hell out of them.  But through it all, I found a number of strategies that apply not only to dealing with customers, but with people in general.

• Appeal to self-interest.  People like talking about themselves and what’s going on in their lives.  By asking them about this through something as innocuous as “How’s your day going?” or “How are you?”, you can connect with them on a level that’s much deeper than a superficial transaction, establishing the base for a relationship and trust.  This works especially well when talking with gatekeepers.
• Never apologize.  When you’re dealing with someone who has a problem with your business or product, never apologize for the situation.  This may sound counter-intuitive, but if you guide them through the proper procedure and arrive at a solution that gets them what they want, you won’t have to.  We often use apologies to diffuse a situation when someone is emotional or agitated, but doing so relinquishes much of our power and authority.  If you calmly and respectfully deal with the issue, your customer will feel just as (if not more) appreciated.
• Use incentives sparingly.  Another way around the apology problem is to offer a special bonus or incentive.  It works as an unspoken apology and increases customer satisfaction – let them know that you appreciate their patronage and suggestions (if an error is discovered).  However, you shouldn’t give these incentives out too freely – the reason that it works in the first place is because it is seen as something special and rare; if you dilute the incentive, customers will expect them regardless of the situation and will not grant any additional fealty (or possibly will give less) to your brand.
• Always stay calm.  Sometimes, people are looking for a solution that you can’t give them, and will accept no substitutes.  They will refuse all other options and suggestions, and will become increasingly irrational, despite what they see or hear you do.  Stand your ground, repeat the message as necessary, and don’t waver.  You can’t always make exemptions, nor can you please everyone all the time.  Maintain your integrity; the argumentative person will either fold or leave.
• No one is more important than anyone else.  You may have friends, regulars or special clients, but there’s no reason to give them preferential treatment over others.  You don’t always know the circumstances of each and every person: one could be a powerful connector and could bring in a lot of new business; one could be a critic or secret shopper; one could be a first-timer who has a lot of brand loyalty.  Don’t misplace your priorities for someone who you think is important – treat everyone with respect.
• Appeal to authority when it’s your last option.  Unless you have a boss who micromanages to an extreme degree, you shouldn’t have to run to them when you encounter a problem.  If you take the time to think about solutions to similar problems that you encountered in the past (some may even be identical), you can quickly find a resolution that doesn’t require running to your manager for help.  By taking initiative and showing that you are attentive to customer (and corporate) needs, you not only prove your value to those you’re helping, but to your company as well.

It’s easy to want to write off solutions as unsolvable or customers as bad, cranky people.  But if you take the time to think out the situation and take appropriate action, you’ll achieve better results that can lead to more business, happier customers and a better work environment.

As I glanced over the new 500 page book in my hands, hoping to find something to ask about before the event started, I felt a pressure on my shoulder.  Glancing over, the source of the pressure was discovered to be a large hand with long, thick, sausage-like fingers at the end.  They belonged to a large man, dressed in a black suit with a white shirt and black tie.  His head was shaved, and he was wearing sunglasses indoors, giving him the impression of a stereotypical bodyguard or secret service agent.  He smiled a wide grin.  ”Hi, I’m Sultan.  Are you excited for the reading?”

Yes, I really should have thought this through more.

The last book signing I had gone to was when I was 11 or 12, and Walter Cronkite had been in Phoenix signing his autobiography.  Having recently learned about the early days of television, I begged and pleaded with my parents to let me go.  Luckily, the persuasion worked, and I soon found shaking hands with the greatest newsman of the 20th Century, who had a surprisingly strong grip for an 80-year-old.  At this signing, people just lined up to have copies of A Reporter’s Life.  But the author that I was going to see was definitely not Walter Cronkite.

Looking around the room, I saw that I might have been the only guy there whose decision was based off of the author’s work rather than his reputation.  All around me, men (and a few grumpy-looking girlfriends) shifted in their seats with nervous anticipation, some wearing leather pants making an almost fart-like noise against their chairs.  Turning around, I saw that there were even more people standing behind the seats, a cloud of hair products and cologne almost obscuring the crowd.

When Neil Strauss finally arrived, the crowd applauded and cheered loudly for what seemed like a full minute.  Their reactions to his stories and comments seemed almost over exaggerated, like a sitcom laugh track.  But by the time that everyone jumped in line to get their books signed, I was sucked in.  When I finally got the chance to talk to the author, I was a nervous, blubbering mess.

Why?  Because the energy from the crowd caused me to hop on the bandwagon of excitement.  Although I had really only gone to support an author whose work I enjoy, I wound up a drooling fanboy.

Although groups can be more knowledgeable and accurate than experts, they can also suck people in and project their collective feelings onto them.  A group is a powerful social organism and a crucial element of social change.  Think about the times that you’ve bowed down to peer pressure, wondered about how so many people could like something, or made a concentrated effort to be  nonconformist – these are conscious steps taken to resist the pull of a group.

Social media people know this.  Marketers know this.  Hell, most everyone knows this.  And yet, time after time, we fall victim to the power of groups over our individual preferences.  But if you can transition your personal brand into a driving force for a crowd of people, you’ll find that your status goes up considerably.

I’d had little to no interest in seduction community stuff before I came to the book signing, despite it being the field in which Neil is most widely known.  But after my experience with the crowd, I wanted to buy every pick-up artist-type book that was in the store.

Neil Strauss created a personal brand that developed a loyal and passionate following.  Doing so has allowed him to cut his time spent working on his brand, allowing his crowd of fans to do the work for him.  And maybe that’s the goal of creating a personal brand in the first place – to let the group take over, spreading excitement and energy to others, giving your brand even more power than you could have harnessed on your own.

We’ve all got our own routines designed to help us maximize our time and become more efficient.  And there are many methods to chose from.  Unfortunately, there are lots of counterproductive things that many people do without realizing it, creating problems for their careers, job searches and personal lives.  Here are five of them.

1. Using job boards.  Recently, Dan Schawbel wrote a post in which he discusses why using job boards is not practical.  And while it’s true that the amount of people hired from online applications has gone up considerably (I recall a figure from six years ago citing the average as 6%, Dan cites 12%), a lack of responses from employers, potential subscriptions and all of the problems that they entail, the odds of your application even being seen and dozens of other problems make job boards a time-waster.  Instead, try some of Dan’s suggestions, which include the most successful method that leads to employment: networking.
2. Using social networks poorly.  There are many articles and websites dedicated to the abuse of social networking sites.  Whether it’s a lack of self-censorship, not using privacy settings or general stupidity, a lack of concern for one’s personal brand through social media can lead to a host of problems.  But if used properly, the sites can be a great boon to individuals and businesses.
3. Forgetting social barriers.  Web 2.0 has made people more informal with each other, but the degree to which casual relationships are used is becoming absurd.  Sure, it might be fine to friend someone you sat near at lunch in 7th grade but never talked to, but playing on your social networks without an established interpersonal relationship is never a good idea.  What’s even worse is treating one’s superiors and co-workers in a non-professional way.  Not only does it lower the respect others have for you, but it can do damage to your reputation and personal brand both within the company and outside of it.  As unappealing as it might seem, show respect and restraint for others at the office, and if it helps, pretend that there’s a generation gap to blame for this.
4. Forgetting how to plan.  Communication in the modern world is instantaneous.  Internet and cell phones have made almost anyone available for contact at almost any time.  But a lack of foresight when it comes to scheduling can cost you dearly.  Try going low-tech and prepare your agenda days or even weeks in advance.
5. Ignoring history.  If you turn on the news and listen to the discussions about the economy, you’ll find a lot of comparisons to earlier economic downturns.  So shouldn’t this foresight have helped prevent the current slump?  And if you’re having trouble finding work or with a project that’s similar to a situation that you (or others) have been in before, shouldn’t you be using that experience to make your current problems more manageable?  As much as we’d like to think that things are always new and exciting, there’s usually enough patterns and repetition that exists to help us come up with a solution without reinventing the wheel.  So if you’re stuck in the present, don’t forget to take a look in the past before you stretch yourself too far into the future.

Sure, there are lots of mistakes that thousands of people unwittingly make every day.  But with a little self-awareness and planning, you won’t be one of them.

A while back, I was reading an article about the Radical Honesty movement, something that has a lot of potential to be a constructive development in the workplace.  Unfortunately, its potential is equally destructive.

Radical Honesty, as the article puts it, is the complete abdication of lying and secrets:

Everybody would be happier if we just stopped lying. Tell the truth, all the time. This would be radical enough — a world without fibs — but…we should toss out the filters between our brains and our mouths. If you think it, say it.

The nice thing about Radical Honesty is that it would make work more efficient and effective.  People would speak plainly and directly, getting what they need quicker.  The dance of office politics would be mitigated by open communication, which could lead to more merit-based advancement within organizations.

The downside, of course, is that everyone would be a jerk.

If the filter between the brain and mouth is lifted, politeness goes out the window.  This would lead to greater conflicts (though admittedly, the possibility of conflict resolution in a timely manner is significantly higher) and more interpersonal problems between workers, as the thin veneer of civility is ripped away.  Conversations might go like this:

Boss: Frank, where’s the report you were supposed to have on my desk two hours ago?

Frank: Well, boss, I blew it off because I don’t like being given busy work so instead I played Farmville on Facebook and chatted with my friends on Gmail.

Boss: I don’t like you.

If all of this seems a bit familiar, it might be because the concept was explored pretty well in the first third of the recent movie, The Invention of Lying.  But might a bit of Radical Honesty be a good thing?

The problem with verbal communication is that the words spoken to others mean very little.  We rely on tone and body language far more than what is actually spoken to decode what others really mean.  But if language is delivered plainly and directly, with no hidden meaning, the other signals become complimentary and inconsequential.  This means that any method we use to communicate with others, be it in person, over the phone or in text, is just as valid as the others and eliminates some of the weaknesses in non-physical communications.

Even though Radical Honesty would create a culture of jackassery, using some if its principles to create more clear and concise communications with others can help you to become more efficient and effective in the workplace.

In case you guys are not aware, Chuck Klosterman is one of the greatest pop culture writers of all time.  If I could siphon off a bit of his genius every time I wanted to do an extended metaphor, I would be so happy.  And by bit I mean sliver.  Like a tenth of a microgram (I’m too lazy to look up the proper measurement).  In case you haven’t read any of his books, buy them now.

Now that the literary gushing is over, let’s digress to the topic at hand: method actors and groupthink.

During a very strange interview with actor Val Kilmer of Batman Forever and Top Gun fame, Klosterman asked him about his experience in the movie Tombstone, which led to this exchange:

I ask him about the “toll” that he felt while making the 1993 western Tombstone. He starts talking about things that happened to Doc Holliday. I say, “No, no, you must have misunderstood me. I want to know about the toll it took on you.” He says, “I know, I’m talking about those feelings.” And this is the conversation that follows:

Me: You mean you think you literally had the same experience as Doc Holliday?

Kilmer: Oh, sure. It’s not like I believed that I shot somebody, but I absolutely know what it feels like to pull the trigger and take someone’s life.

You understand how it feels to shoot someone as much as a person who has actually committed a murder?

I understand it more. It’s an actor’s job. A guy who’s lived through the horror of Vietnam has not spent his life preparing his mind for it. He’s some punk. Most guys were borderline criminal or poor, and that’s why they got sent to Vietnam. It was all the poor, wretched kids who got beat up by their dads, guys who didn’t get on the football team, couldn’t finagle a scholarship. They didn’t have the emotional equipment to handle that experience. But this is what an actor trains to do. I can more effectively represent that kid in Vietnam than a guy who was there.

Although this assertion seems a bit (okay, very) strange, it’s possible that Kilmer is on to something.

In his book, The Wisdom of Crowds, author James Surowiecki offers the theory that groups can be more knowledgeable and accurate than experts.  So if Val Kilmer changes his example from talking about himself to talking about groups, it might be accurate.

When we work in groups, it can be a frequent source of aggravation and stress.  But given that groups pull from a variety of competencies, experiences, knowledge bases and skill sets, there’s much more to be gleaned from working with others towards a common goal then against them.  While some may feel that they best fit a particular niche in the group, collaboration with others can (and often does) produce better results.

Employers are often looking for team players, people who will fit into established groups and who will hopefully step up to lead them, if need be.  Even work-at-home positions require group collaboration.  And since the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, it stands to reason that your group may know better than you.

Collaboration isn’t a four-letter word, but it is difficult to accomplish when egos, pride and presumptions get in the way.  By working with your team and acknowledging their separate and combined power, you will be able to achieve better results than if you try to fly solo.  Or explain method acting.

A few posts ago, I mentioned the Peter Principle, and a few readers have asked me to clarify what that is and how to combat it.

The Peter Principle* is the theory that in a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence, a point best illustrated by Michael Scott on The Office (or David Brent to those in the UK).  Although realistically, both bosses would have been fired long ago by their respective companies, their continued employment not only shows further evidence of the Peter Principle in action, but also that the same incompetence exists among their superiors.

However, after considering my personal experience and reading Penelope Trunk’s book, Brazen Careerist (specifically the chapters on managing one’s boss), I’m not so sure that the Peter Principle can exist for long in any setting.

While the promotion of people past their point of efficacy does happen, it tends to be less frequent.  Whether through extensive training, a strong vetting process or required examples of matching core leadership competencies, promotions to managerial positions are made through a more exact and detailed process than being based simply on current performance.  And the option of demoting those who show themselves to be incompetent leaders is always open.

As companies become more wary about offering promotions due to expanding costs and shrinking returns, they may alleviate problems within their organizations by adding additional responsibilities or finding new ways to offer employees benefits instead of giving promotions.  As a result, promoting employees becomes a greater undertaking and it becomes more critical for them to ensure that they are choosing the right candidates.  So in cases where companies do not have room for expansion, the Peter Principle can be a deadly mistake.

While Michael Scott could become a manager in a real-world office setting, it’s unlikely that he would stay as one for long.  His standing as an avatar of the Peter Principle would move him quickly from “world’s greatest boss” back to sales.

* Not to be confused with the Dilbert Principle, which states that “leadership is nature’s way of removing morons from the productive flow.”

So the eagerly anticipated new movie about abstinence vampires and the women who love them comes out today.  And I’ll admit, I’m not a fan.

I tried reading the books (well, the first one, anyway).  I couldn’t get past the first 100 pages.  I tried watching the first movie, and wound up leaving the room after the first hour*.  I wanted to understand this trend; I really did.  But I’m just not in the demographic that enjoys this sort of thing.

Maybe my problem lies in the central conceit of the story’s romance between the two characters, which has been elaborated on many times, most notably in this review, this analysis and on a couple of lists (as number one and number six).  But it basically boils down to this: pretty people can get away with anything.

The female lead falls in love with the male lead, who is constantly referred to as an “Adonis,” and forgives his trespasses of being a creepy vampire (more details in the links from the last paragraph) because of her love for him and his sexy, sexy sparkling vampire body.

But then again, being attractive can get you in anywhere.

A  study from Rice University determined that pretty people appear more trustworthy to others.  A survey from London Guildhall University indicates that those seen as attractive earn more money.  The APA released a paper that shows physical appearance is a key determinant in success.  And these standards are global.  So if you’re more likely to get a job, a raise, a promotion, the attention of your boss and so on because of your physical characteristics, how can you turn this to your advantage?

One of the points made in many of these papers is that confidence from recognizing one’s own attractiveness is a vital component of the resulting success.  Similarly, beauty is subjective.  So if you project confidence and look your best (through personal grooming and appropriate attire), you can achieve more success at work, regardless of your personal feelings about your own attractiveness.

We’ve been told our whole lives that beauty is something inside, to never judge a book by its cover, to not blindly follow someone because they are attractive.  But then again, the story is that the ugly duckling turned into a beautiful swan, not that the beautiful cygnet (baby swan) became an ugly duck.  And before you start blaming society, consider that many of these predispositions towards attractiveness come from evolutionary (re: genetic) imperatives.  Really!  It’s in those links!

Whether you’re on Team Edward, Team Jacob or Team Why Am I Here, you will deal with shallow assessments of physical attractiveness.  And though being judged on beauty is an unfortunate fact of life, that doesn’t mean that you can’t use it to your advantage.

* Movie theaters will refund your ticket if you leave the movie if you walk out in the first 45-60 minutes.  Since most movies are around 90 minutes (based on an average I made up), this is ample time for one to make a fair assessment of the film.  I apply the 45-60 minute rule when I’m watching something I rented.

It’s 10 PM on a Sunday.  You and your team have a presentation on Monday at 9 AM, and yet, you’re the only person working on it.  The rest of your team, if they’re physically present, is not mentally “there”.  And come Monday, no one will know that you did the lion’s share of the work.  It’s not fair…or is it?

Group members will  never completely function at the same level of competency or productivity.  But when one member is doing most, if not all of the work, there’s something very wrong with the group dynamic.

Or it could be that your group is composed of selfish, lazy stupid jerkholes (except for you), but for the sake of argument, let’s assume that that’s not the case.

Regardless of the touchy-feely lessons you may have been taught in your youth, everyone is not equal.  We each have particular strengths and weaknesses that characterize us as achievers in certain areas and failures in others.  And as such, some of us excel at organization, leadership and self-motivation, while others do not.  So if you find yourself in the position of being the sole organizer and motivator for your group, perhaps you need to step into a leadership role as well.

No one sets out to be disruptive when they have something big to (lose or) gain by (not) participating.  We don’t want to procrastinate and be counterproductive, but if our accomplishments and contributions are overlooked, indifference and laziness begin to seep in.  And while this may not be true in all cases, it’s a better way to start looking at the actions of one’s teammates.

Regardless of if you can do something better than the others on your team, you should still make sure that everyone has individual responsibilities and duties to perform.  In addition to ensuring that everyone feels that their contribution is essential, you’re taking the stress off of doing everything (in addition to organizing and leading) off of yourself.  After all, successful leadership is more about delegation than doing things for others.

So if you find yourself in a situation where you’re doing all of the work for your team, it might be time to rethink how to work with them to get better work results.  Who knows?  You might pull off that rare balancing act known as “teamwork.”

By mid-2008, the Phoenix, Arizona Police Department was in trouble.  As the city expanded, so to had the need for more uniformed officers patrolling the streets.  But no one in Phoenix seemed particularly interested in becoming an officer.  In fact, the department had to look for recruits outside of the state of Arizona just to maintain its current numbers.  But luckily for the Phoenix Police, something great came along and changed everything: the recession.

Now, people who previously might not have considered working in law enforcement as a career were banging down the doors and sending in applications with such great fervor that for the first time in a while, the police department got to be more selective with its hiring processes.  After all the screening, tests and the academy, the top-tier applicants were accepted, giving the force the numbers it needs.  The recession saved the Phoenix Police.

The above story is true, and from an article that I can’t seem to find a link for (I read it in the Arizona Republic a while back if anyone wants to look it up).  And while some people might take it as an isolated incident of a positive trend in employment that has occurred during the current recession, it isn’t the only case.  After all, the Great Depression helped to redefine career roles across gender lines and provided the US with a solid road system.  But regardless of historical precedent, it still stands that companies are hiring less and operating with fewer employees.

These operations, in some cases done with only a “skeleton crew” of workers, are still churning out profits.  Businesses are redefining corporate structures as they trim the fat and eliminate redundancies.  As such, they become more effective and efficient, able to respond to client requests, crises and public trends more quickly.  Their brands develop from being faceless corporate logos to living entities, connecting with consumers on a new, more personal level.

Additionally, the lack of funds that may create a decrease in available traditional benefits, including health care, has led to businesses developing new ways to compensate their employees.  Partial work-from-home agreements, more casual workplaces, better financial compensation offers and other new forms of reimbursement are leading to more personalized and comfortable work experiences for employees.

Employees in these companies find themselves granted more responsibilities, but autonomy and greater value to the organization are there as well.  Skilled workers become more skilled, and the best in their respective fields are left to produce higher quality results with less interference.

Similarly, unemployed workers can benefit from their current situation by developing their skills and competencies.  Rather than limiting themselves to a single pursuit, they find themselves faced with more options to develop their skills and competencies.  This leads to a more competitive job market, but also encourages greater knowledge, skill, experience and specialization.  So even if we have more unemployed people, they will be smarter and more competent unemployed people.

The desire for work also creates a more eclectic work history for those who grasp onto contract or temporary jobs.  Much like those who suddenly found themselves applying to be members of the Phoenix Police, workers are discovering new skills and abilities in areas they may not have previously thought of entering.  Our specialized workers become better at their jobs, and have a greater breadth of understanding of their careers and those of complimentary positions as well.

So even though unemployment numbers are rising (though not necessarily as you might expect), companies, employees and job seekers are benefiting in new ways that will create lasting changes on corporate and social cultures.  And I mean that in a good way.