Let's Be Successful Again!

You'll be better...

I am currently reading a fabulous parenting book by Elizabeth Pantley called "The no-cry discipline solution" (part of a series of "No-Cry" books I can highly recommend to any parent of young children).

A quote from one of her case-study fathers made me smile. He said there was a saying in his family "You'll be better before you're married", in other words, what ever it is that is bothering you today is likely to be resolved by the time you are married.

He admits it doesn't cheer his children up much but it makes him feel better! It reminds him that the problems he is facing with his children today are probably not that serious. They will be over and forgotten by tea time, let alone by the time the children are adults.

This means he can quickly calm down and respond to his children in an effective way, rather than simply shouting "Stop that!". 

It is a tip worth remembering as we deal with the every day frustrations of work. How many times have we been wound up for days, weeks or even months about situations which now seem insignificant? And even those which were significant were dealt with eventually, either by a change of circumstance or by our response. 

I have certainly spent time worrying about business, annoyed by the behaviour of others or upset by someone's comment. And, yet today, with the sun shining and everything ticking along, I found it hard to remember the details or the significance of any of them. The problem was, indeed, over before I was married. 

Contradictory trends

I was going to write today about the newly elected mayor of Doncaster who I watched on TV the other day. 

I was going to comment on his right wing politics and a growing concern in this country that the recession and disaffection with the main political parties, is going to result in a turn to the right.

But is this really the trend we are witnessing? Because at the same time as watching this British Democratic Mayor, I was also flicking through the latest update from freecycle - a virtual group which enables you to find takers for your junk.

I recently found two people to take two large Phormium plants which have been slowly dying at my hands for the last 5 years. I wouldn't feel comfortable selling them as they are in need of some TLC. But two very keen gardeners replied to my offer and will be coming to collect the said plants tomorrow.

Since finding someone to take these items off my hands I have noticed fantastic give-aways (literally) such as a large metal bin for burning stuff (slightly grubby), a large LCD TV and three white floor tiles. People are typically polite, friendly and pretty generous. After all, they could get a few quid for some of this stuff on ebay. But instead, they give it away to a good home and, probably, pick up something for free themselves at a future date.

Rather left-wing don't you think? Even, dare I say, communist?

I am not a political commentator but I am interested in behaviour, why certain people respond to a stimulus in one way and other people respond in almost the opposite way. And, of course, as a leader, one must be aware of this. Everything you say and do can, and will, be interpreted in a unique way by everyone you have contact with.

The key is to adapt your style and message to every audience in order to influence the reaction you get rather leaving it to chance. In the past you could have said "Turn right" and people will have done. But today's leaders must persuade, convince, inspire followers which requires an understanding of how what you say is received by the different audiences who hear it. 

It might sound rather political and it is easy to get this wrong. Be thought of as a manipulator and you will lose every audience, even the one which might have wanted to follow you. But get it right and you are simply a masterful communicator, someone who can get a message across to a variety of individuals. 

At a time when people are wondering which way to turn, a leader who can speak and be heard by everyone will be a valuable asset to any company.

A problem shared...

As a coach I am obviously a supporter of talking about challenges. Speaking an issue aloud often helps you to solve it without any input from the other person. As long as they are listening, you find the right solution on your own.

But I am also a fan of sharing problems in order to gain insight and feedback from others. What matters most here is that the mindset of the person speaking and the person or people listening is right.

If you are seeking input from others you need to be open about ideas. You need to be able to hear feedback about you or about your situation without a need to explain, justify or give excuses. You need to overlook when people state the obvious as if you are some kind of idiot who can't think of the most simple option! And you have to be able to assess your own reactions to ideas e.g. Am I resistant because this is a bad idea or am I resistant because it is tough to hear the right answer?

At the same time, if you are asked for feedback or ideas by someone else your mindset must also be right. You are not being asked to solve the problem, you are being asked to put some ideas in a pot. You must not be offended if the person rejects all your ideas. Also, you should not assume the person coming to you for advice is inferior in any way to you. They have probably considered all the obvious ideas already. They have probably wrestled with this issue at length before coming to you. This doesn't mean you cannot state the obvious but only to ensure the basics have been covered. Chances are all the obvious ideas are not suitable for a range of reasons. You need to listen and understand what they are without wading in with your wisdom. 

If you struggle to listen to advice or find it frustrating to give advice, consider whether the other person is the problem or whether it is your own mindset which needs to change.

Be more political

I heard a lovely Pause for Thought today on Radio 2 (towards the end of the programme for those wanting to fast forward the iplayer!). Rabbi Pete Tobias was saying the almost unsay-able - that politics and religion should be more closely linked. But his argument was more subtle than it seems.

He was saying that religion should be political in the sense that religious people should be fighting for justice, for the rights of the less fortunate and drawing attention to those who need help. And politics should be more religious in that it should be more about values and right and wrong rather than who did what to whom.

I do not consider myself a religious person but I do consider myself to be moral (as we all do, I suppose). There is a tendency today to be disparaging about politics and to believe that nothing can be achieved through our political system.

But politics isn't innately bad. It can be about getting things done, making a difference, changing society for the good of all who abide by its fair rules. We might not hear much about that in the headlines but that kind of behaviour isn't what makes news. It is the exceptionally bad, the shocking, the entertaining which makes headlines.

And the same is true in the workplace. Workplace politics has a bad name, but there is nothing inherently bad about it. It can be about influencing, using bonds to get the right result which benefits the business, the people who work in the business and hopefully society at large.

I have taken a little flak for my support of workplace politics (I argue in favour of it in my book The Recipe For Success) but I wish we could reclaim the word politics to mean what it should mean. Maybe then, politicians (in parliament or in the office) would have something to aspire to.

A Tip for Restaurateurs

The recent news that some restaurants are taking waiter tips and adding them to wages to make salaries up to the minimum wage got me thinking.

Restaurant owners must believe it is acceptable to take tips meant for a specific member of staff and include that in the takings of the restaurant. They must believe that the restaurant deserves it because, ultimately, all the waiter did was serve the food. The tip is rarely left for the kitchen staff or the managers.

This, to an extent, is fair enough. It doesn't recognise the specific service of a particular waiter and this could certainly discourage waiting staff from doing anything extra special. But if the tips were split amongst staff in addition to their wages there would be some element of fairness there - a recognition of the team effort required to provide a great experience.

But the restaurants go one step further and deduct the amount of the tip from the waiter's salary before giving them their tip back. This means no matter how good or bad the service you provide you still get the minimum wage. No matter how good or bad the restaurant as a whole, those who prepare and serve the food get the same amount as they would whether diners left a tip or not. 

On a radio phone-in earlier this week I heard a caller say he would not be leaving tips in future, especially as service in British restaurants is generally so bad anyway. 

It occurred to me that this is unsurprising, given the climate that waiting staff work in. They are treated like cannon fodder by their bosses, they are pressured in to encouraging diners to leave tips (in some cases being "fined" if they do not get customers to leave a tip) and then the proceeds are shared out amongst the management. 

How highly motivated would you be to work for an employer who treated you in this manner? How committed would you be, no matter how much you valued doing a good job, if this was the reality of your working life? 

Not surprising that so few people see their career as being in waiting tables. It is hard work for little money and, it seems, absolutely no appreciation or respect from your boss. 

The law will be changing later this year but it will do little to protect restaurant staff. My tip - leave your tip as cash, in the hand of the person you want to receive it.

No idea

One thing that troubled me throughout The Apprentice process was the lack of good ideas to come out of either team in any challenge. The focus was, by and large, selling, and this is a vital skill of course. But if the idea is wrong then no amount of salesmanship will be enough (That's not strictly true - some people will buy a terrible product once...but they will rarely buy it again).

Perhaps we did not see the hours of deliberation and the thoughtful consideration of ideas. Maybe those scenes are on the cutting room floor.

More likely, in my opinion and based on my own observations of "brainstorming" meetings, such discussion didn't take place.

In order to generate a fresh idea, you must be willing to say something stupid. You must be willing to put forward a concept which isn't fully formed and may not make the final cut. You must be open to developing the ideas of other people rather than shooting them down. There was very little of that and a great deal of sitting in silence trying to come up with the perfect answer.

Who can forget "Pants Man"? How on earth did that idea survive? In a way I contradict myself because someone was willing to say something stupid and put forward a concept which wasn't fully formed so I have some respect for that. But selection of the right idea is the second vital step. The most likely reason that Pants Man survived was because there were so few other contenders. When you only have three ideas, you have very little choice. What you need are 50 ideas or 100 ideas. You need to keep going, and going, and going with the brainstorming well beyond the point at which you think you have a good idea. The first few ideas you have are generally obvious or bad. It's the ones that you struggle to find which are often the diamonds.

The Rules vs The Spirit

Much of the behaviour we have seen from MPs lately has been legal. They have put their claims through the Fees Office and had them either accepted or rejected. That is the process. And many are now confused, I am sure, about what exactly they have done wrong when they simply followed the process.

The problem is that when we tell people specifically what they can do they believe they have permission to do it. Rather than thinking about what is right, they simply think "If I am told it is OK, it must be OK".

The same is true in any walk of life. When you tell people what they are allowed to do, they do it to its maximum. You are "allowed" two drinks before you drive. That doesn't mean it is advisable. It doesn't mean it is a good idea. But people often treat this as if it is the rule - "Have two drinks before you drive"! In that sense the MPs are not so different to the rest of us. It is human nature to fight against stringent rules and other people's efforts to control us. We want to see how far we can push the limits.

However, when you deal in "values" and give people the space to decide how to behave within these values, you start to see some surprisingly positive behaviour. In companies with strong values, people are their best selves.

A young man came to repair my dishwasher a few days ago. This was a chap who took huge pride in his work. Because he had worked swiftly and found the source of the problems he had faced that day quickly, he was going home after fixing my machine (about 3pm). This was not someone who needed to be told specifically what to do. He had values around doing a good job, being professional and keeping customers happy. When we try to control other people by telling them exactly what to do and giving them very little room to manoeuvre, we actually encourage people to see how far they can stretch the rules. When we give people the opportunity to live by their values, most will behave well.