What I find to be true most of the time is that people have a fundamental misunderstanding of what leadership is.  They tend to think of the NOUN “leader” and ascribe the notion of leading to people who are executives, who sit at or near the top of the organizational pyramid.    They likely see themselves more as “managers” – a somehow lesser species more engaged in tactical matters related to making their organization function.

I find this is a common misconception, no matter if I am speaking with bright MBA students, or experienced middle managers.   (Most execs characterize themselves as “leaders” without hesitation.)

We think that instead of thinking about the NOUN, “leader” it is more relevant to think instead about the VERB “to lead”.  Leading, after all is an action verb, and it is related more to what you do than what box you occupy on the organizational chart.

When we think about leading as a stream of actions, driven by feelings and emotional energy, we start to see that true leadership is all around us.   And, we all have the capacity to lead, should we choose to do so.

We can award you a title, give you a budget, a corner office, company car, and POWER.   But, no, that does not make you a leader. Sorry.  It is what you choose to do with these things that count more.

It is not only about how we conduct ourselves in our professional lives, but in EVERY aspect of our lives.  Leading, we have found, is more about influencing the thinking, feeling, and action of others; than it is about exerting power and control or developing bold directives.  By this definition, it matters not how many people report to you, or even IF anyone does.   We all project and example by what we do every day.  We are all role models.  We are all being watched by others (our kids, spouses, friends, and co-workers) – and we are all judged by what they see us do.

No, it is not limited to position, to gender, to line of work or even to age.

Take Severn Suzuki, for example.  In the 6 minute YouTube clip below, watch this 12-year-old speaking as he addresses the plenary session of a 1992 UN Conference on the Environment and Development. (It will make most of us reflect on what under-achievers WE are.)

Raised in Vancouver and Toronto, Severn Cullis-Suzuki has been camping and hiking all her life. When she was 9 she started the Environmental Children’s Organization (ECO), a small group of children committed to learning and teaching other kids about environmental issues. They were successful in many projects before 1992, when they raised enough money to go to the UN’s Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Their aim was to remind the decision-makers of who their actions or inactions would ultimately affect. The goal was reached when 12-yr old Severn closed a Plenary Session with this powerful speech that received a standing ovation.   In case you think she peaked at 12, consider that she also graduated from Yale University in 2002 with a B.Sc. in ecology and evolutionary biology. After Yale, Cullis-Suzuki spent two years travelling. She co-hosted (with her dad) Suzuki’s Nature Quest, a children’s television series that aired on the Discovery Channel in 2002.Today.  She is still speaking and influencing today.

As you watch this video, notice how the adults in the room are impacted by Severn and her words.

What did you think, watching her?   She had no direct power or authority.   She is just someone who has extreme passion for the environment, and decided to choose a life’s path in pursuit of it.   She seems to be living based on a leadership lesson she attributes to her father, who once told her that “You are what you do, not what you say”.

Not a bad lesson.  Leadership, too, is like that. It is not who you are it is what you do.   What are you doing?

So then, which jobs round out the bottom of the list?

The 10 Most Hated Jobs

1. Director of Information Technology:  While IT directors hold positions of great influence in many companies, they reported the highest level of dissatisfaction with their jobs. Why? “Nepotism, and disrespect from co-workers.”

2. Director of Sales and Marketing:  These people reported the second-highest level of job dissatisfaction, citing often “a lack of direction from upper management and an absence of room for growth”.

3. Product Manager: This next group complained of restricted career growth, and boring clerical work even at this level.

4. Senior Web Developer:  This is related to the same stressors as with IT directors with a high degree of unhappiness caused by their employer’s inability to communicate coherently, and their lack an understanding of the technology.

 5. Technical Specialist:   (People who work on the installation and maintenance of large infrastructures – like oil refineries) This group often feels they are treated with a “palpable disrespect”. Also, they say, their input is not taken seriously by senior management.

6. Electronics Technician:  These experts work in many industries (like the phone company), maintaining and troubleshooting our electronic systems.  They complain of having too little control, crushing work schedules, a lack of accomplishment, no real opportunity for growth, no motivation to work hard, no say in how things are done, and mutual hostility among peers.

7. Law Clerk: Clerkships are considered by many to be highly sought-after positions in the legal profession because they can really “beef-up” a resume. Yet law clerks feel their hours are long and grueling, and the work is subject to the whims of sometimes egotistical, selfish, and mercurial personalities.

8. Computer Technical Support Analyst: They may keep our laptops working even when WE are panicked and frazzled, but the job can get to you because the work is unpredictable and crises can appear without notice.  They too feel under-appreciated.

9. CNC Machinist: CNC machinists operate sophisticated machine tools. As the technology has advanced, some feel the job has been reduced to a lot of button pushing and maintenance, with little room for advancement.

10. Marketing Manager: Marketing managers often cited a lack of direction as the primary reason for job dissatisfaction.

Some Final Thoughts:

As you look at this list, you can see that even an education and higher level position does not always bring with it a sense of accomplishment that we hope comes when we pursue a career that we thought you would enjoy.  At all levels, being unappreciated, doing work that has no meeting, feeling unable to exert influence based on your own abilities, and not being heard — all seem to contribute to a lack of satisfaction in our work lives.

Conversely, having a sense of control and autonomy, and being able to achieve something you can be proud of – seems to help.

So, if you fall into the unappreciated and unhappy category, it may be time to do something about it, especially if your boss or company leadership is unable to.

And, if you are a boss, there is a lot you can do to listen to people, appreciate their contributions, and connect daily work with a purpose that has more meaning.

There is a difference between our JOB DUTIES and our JOB PURPOSE.   We all have stuff we need to do every day, whether it is to answer emails, or fix someone’s PC.     We all get that.   But, our Job Purpose is a different thing.  If you work at Disney, the PURPOSE is “to create happiness for families everywhere”, if you work for Wal-Mart, it is to “help people save money so they can live better lives”.  Our job as bosses is to help people see the relevance of their work in the context of the broader purpose, and to reinforce why WE think their work matters.

If we can’t creatively figure out how to make people feel their labors are worthwhile, they WILL become part of the 80% of workers Deloitte says are disengaged, looking elsewhere for personal satisfaction.  Wouldn’t you rather they found meaning through efforts that resulted in higher quality, better customer satisfaction and higher productivity?

And another question: think of your least enjoyable job to date — why did you find it so unsatisfying?

He was right, and so I started to do some research about the BEST and MOST HATED jobs in the hope it may help you think about your “relative happiness.”

I came across two interesting pieces. One is from the Christian Science Monitor, about The 10 Happiest Jobs, and the other in Fortune Magazine called Think Your Job is Bad, Try One of These.

The types of “happy” work outlined in the Christian Science Monitor piece were based on research conducted by University of Chicago’s National Organization for Research.

According to the Deloitte Shift Index study, only 1 in 5 American workers say they are fully engaged in their work.  So, it’s not hard to imagine there are people who don’t like their jobs.

So what were the 10 Happiest Jobs?

1.  Clergy: Experts say that social interaction increases job satisfaction.  That may help explain why Clergy topped the list.

2. Firefighters: Eighty percent of firefighters claimed they are “very satisfied” with their jobs, which also involves helping people in meaningful ways.

3. Physical therapists: Social interaction and helping people apparently make this job one of the happiest.  (Are you starting to see a trend?)

4. Authors: This one seems more intriguing. It can’t be due to the pay.  For most authors, the pay is ridiculously low or non-existent, but perhaps it is related to the autonomy they have and the satisfaction of writing down the contents of your own mind?

5.  Special education teachers:  The annual salary of most special education teachers is less than $50K per year.   But if you have the emotional stamina, Special ed teachers I know find a great deal of satisfaction in their work.

6. Teachers: Teachers in general also report being happy with their jobs (I wonder if that applies to college professors as well?).  I suppose that despite the current issues with education funding and classroom conditions, education still attracts many young idealists, although studies show that fifty percent of new teachers are gone within five years.

7. Artists: Sculptors and painters report high job satisfaction, despite the great difficulty in making a living from it. Well suited to those who cherish their autonomy.

8. Psychologists: Seems hard to imagine how listening to other people’s problems all day wouldn’t be trying, but apparently the idea of helping others has its benefits.

9. Financial services sales agents:  This seems unlike the list so far, but sixty-five percent of financial services sales agents are reported to be happy with their jobs.  Perhaps it is because some of them are clearing more than $90,000 dollars a year on average for a 40-hour work week in a comfortable office environment?

 10. Operating engineers: If I could start a new career now, the idea of playing with giant toys like bulldozers and front-end loaders would be both fun, and bring with it a sense of power!    Right, guys?

Are there some themes that seem to tie most of these jobs together?  We will consider this question in Part 2 of this series when we look at the 10 Most Hated Jobs.

In crisis, you can rely on “management by fiat” (just decide on a course of action yourself and issue the command).  But, a little heavy-handedness goes a long way, and when you are not in crisis, people are prone to resent an overly autocratic style.  So, you are left needing to be good at reaching consensus if you want to move your agenda forward.  But, why is it so hard?

Let’s start by considering why people disagree, and the strategies that may help in each situation.

1. They do not see the situation in the same way.  We all look at any situation though our own lens.  Our perspectives are influenced by our different accumulated life experiences or are based on our organizational department (members of engineering, finance, IT, operations and sales – just as examples – all have a point of view based on the issues they face daily).   All of these views are “right”.  It helps to appreciate that they are so, based on different sets of data or assumptions.   The hard part is that the data and assumptions used by others are often hidden from our view.

Strategy:              Engage the broad group in a joint effort to collect data, define the problem, and research relevant facts.  (When we are all working from the same data set, it is much easier to find areas of agreement)  Many techniques are available to build a common platform of understanding.  Some include:  mind mapping, value stream mapping, doing joint research (on-line and by interviewing system participants) and sharing the data as you go.   Also, I like the idea presented by Steve Tobak in How to Build and Drive Consensus.  He says it is important that you use a formal process, and that all the participants understand what it is before you begin.  It should be one that is transparent and open, leading to a GROUP problem definition and action plan.   The process should include phases like: collecting information (group learning to inform everyone), defining the problem, developing alternative solutions, establishing criteria for evaluating them, evaluating the alternatives, and developing the execution plan.

2. They disagree on philosophical grounds.  Sometimes, people just disagree with an idea on principle.  Some people vote Republican, others Democrat.  Some believe in a woman’s right to choose, while others see abortion as murder.  Disagreements on principle generally run deep, and are very difficult to surmount.  Compromise is often impossible because all parties feel they cannot give up their core values and beliefs (just consider the stalemates that have been defining Federal policy making process lately in the United States).

Strategy:              Consider changing your agenda in favor of another where there is more common ground.  Or, wait for a crisis to occur, and use it as the common ground you need to gain consensus.

3. They are pursuing a different agenda.  Sometimes, while your idea or initiative has merit, other people have different agendas they feel are more important to them at this particular time.  These agendas may be driven by their boss, the company incentive system, your last performance appraisal, or promises you or your team have previously made.

Strategy:              Escalate this matter higher up in the organization to align priorities and goals. If your plan is truly for the good of the organization or the team, and you have sound, credible and compelling arguments in your favor, management will listen — especially if your plan is in alignment with their ultimate needs.

3. Interpersonal or emotional drivers.  Too often, our attitudes are colored by the way we feel about others, whether we like them, if we see them as a personal rival, how we judge their motivations, if we trust them, if we respect them and their abilities, and various other dimensions of company politics.

Strategy:              Form a guiding alliance of like-minded people before you begin, who share a common view and can form a core group with enough influence to press an idea even in the face of some resistance.  Accept the idea that gaining 100% buy-in may not be feasible, or may take more time and energy than you have.   Be willing to build enough momentum led by even a small group of passionate prophets to advance your idea.   In another helpful piece by Michael Wilkinson called Building Consensus The Art of Getting to YES,  he argues that you need to be willing to do some amount of one-on-one interfacing to help uncover the reasons for someone’s resistance, and seek to resolve them if you can.   (This article has several other helpful suggestions for managing disagreements as well.)

(Another interesting resource for those in the public sector is Consensus, Power and the Art of Getting Things Done by Otis White. White has several posts on related topics including forging a guiding coalition, the art of persuasion, and others.)

Also for those of you in the public sector, I would recommend the following YouTube video by Jeff Risley called Building Consensus: Overcoming Us vs. Them.  (It is 32 min long, and addresses the need to seek and exploit common value systems.)

So there is an idea, do the problem sets in class under the watchful eye of a teacher so that when they stumble or are confused, they can be redirected. Students can learn from each other in a much more humanized environment.

What a different idea about how to leverage e-learning not as a way to drive down the denominator of the ROI calculation, but to make the LIVE learning experience much more impactful!

Changing Educational Paradigms

To further this thought, watch this TED talk by Sir Ken Robinson about how our education system – developed during the age of enlightenment and designed to support the needs of the industrial age – must be re thought in the 21^st century.  (I would argue this is relevant to us as we seek to train our adult employees, because how we prepare professional training today flows from this educational tradition.)

All too often, our current mode of teaching does perhaps nothing better than kill creativity.  This 20 minute talk explores how our innate creativity is gradually squeezed out to us as how we move through the educational process:

(If you enjoyed Robinson’s views, you might also look at this TED talk about how he believes schools kill creativity.)

To me, I think these all point to the need to ABSOLUTELY restructure our approach to educating, not only at the K-12 level but for adults as well.

 GOOD LEARNING SHOULD

•  BE A STRUGGLE (if the answers are given too easily, then it produces superficial knowledge. We appreciate things more when we have to work at them.)

• LEVERAGE TECHNOLOGY in a HUMANIZING WAY (not solely to reduce cost.)

• RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS NOT SO MUCH ABOUT TEACHING AS IT IS ABOUT CREATING LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES (we are all born with the ability to learn.  Our goal as educators should not be so much about telling others what we have learned, but about creating environments within which our students can learn largely by their own labors.  That’s what makes it stick.)

• START WITH THE IDEA THAT WE ALREADY HAVE TOO MUCH “EDUTAINMENT” OUT THERE (and there is absolutely no need to create more.)

• START BY DEFINING NEW BEHAVIORS WE ARE SEEKING (you can’t design an effective learning strategy without considering first, how you want participants to think, feel or act differently as a result of the training.)

We (at XLC) may not have all the answers.  But this topic is vitally important to all of us who feel that we must continually to develop the abilities and patterns of thought among our workforce.

We believe that a constant spirit of experimentation is helpful if we are to create learning that sticks, and has lasting impact.

What about you? What training experiences were the most creatively engaging for you? And was the learning that resulted sustained?

I can remember many times when I really tried hard to do well in a challenging course.  I read the chapter in the text.  I highlighted relevant passages.  I took notes on what I read.  Then, during the lecture I paid careful attention, copying down every word the instructor wrote on the board.  By the end of the class I walked away feeling pretty good about what I had learned.  I felt confident that I understood the topic.   So far, so good.

Then at night, I started to work on the problem set handed out by our professor.  (Do you remember those?)   These problem sets contained maybe 6 to 10 problems for us to do as homework.  The first three were usually trivial – exact copies of problems that were in the text or on the board during class, but with the numbers changed.

The second third of the problems were more difficult. Often, the form of the equations were different so you had to rearrange the terms before you could solve them, or perhaps you had to solve one equation and insert its answer into another one to solve it.   Generally I could successfully complete these as well.

But then there were the last three questions where you could only ask what sadistic beast of a professor could have created them.  These seemed to bear no relation whatsoever to what you had read or heard in class.  It was rare that I could solve these.

If you think about it, this example reveled how superficial my understanding actually was.

Let me illustrate this further with another story.

A few years ago, I was interviewing a Toyota executive for a paper I was writing.  He was of an age where he learned the ideas behind TPS (Toyota Production System) from Mr. Ohno himself.   (You might think about Mr. Ohno as Japan’s equivalent of Dr. Deming.)

Here is how it went.

“At the time”, he said, “I was a fresh out of school engineer, assigned to Ohno-san.   He took me with him to visit a Toyota supplier company, and I followed him into the factory.  Ohno-san walked around some, and then gravitated toward a particular work cell.  When we got there, Ohno said ‘Ah. . . here’s one that has 10 people in it. . . should  be about . . . five.  See if you can figure it out.  I’ll see you on Friday.’”  And, without saying another word, Ohno turned and walked away, leaving his student a little scared and confused.  But the student had a lot of enthusiasm, and a desire to please his teacher.

He continued with the story.  “When Ohno-san left, I knew nothing about mapping processes, or standardized work, or any aspects of TPS.  I didn’t know where to start.  But, by Friday, I had eliminated 2 workers with my process redesign . . . but, it wasn’t a very good solution.  The line did not run smoothly.   Then, on Friday when Ohno-san reappeared, he walked up and said ‘Ahhhh . . . I see you have made some progress.  Please explain how you analyzed the work cell and how you came to this solution.’   And so, I started to tell him what I had done.”  After about 2-3 minutes, Ohno shook his head and waved his hands to stop the conversation.   At that point Ohno said “Did you think about reassigning the work tasks differently among the members of the team?”   And again, Ohno, without another word of explanation, turned, and walked away, saying only. . . “I’ll see you next Tuesday”.

My interviewee recounted that “over the course of 2 weeks, Mr. Ohno came back three times like that giving me only a clue about how to think.  It wasn’t until after the third visit, did he actually start to teach me.   But by then, because of how I had struggled for the past days on my own, EVERY word Ohno-san said was like a gemstone to me.  It all made so much sense. I couldn’t believe I couldn’t see it for myself.”

And then came this comment from him.  “I have been in America for many years”, he said, “and I think that in the West your education system is backwards. . . I think here, you tend to give more answers than you ask questions . . . and when the answers are given too quickly . . . it produces only SUPERFICIAL KNOWLEDGE.”

At that moment, you could have knocked me over with a feather.  Until that moment, I had never thought about it in that way.  But the more I did, the more I thought he was right in his diagnosis.

So why DON’T we think about learning as the kind of experience he had with Mr. Ohno?  Why do we only consider that learning takes place in a classroom?

This was the seminal idea behind the notion of what we at Xavier call “Facilitated Learning”.   It is sometimes a challenge for organizations to consider this type of training, however, because  it is hard, unstructured, sometimes messy, and seemingly slower and more costly.   But if the goal is DEEP KNOWLEDGE, then maybe it should be all those things . . .

In Part 4, the last piece in this series, we will look at what other visionaries are starting to think about how we may be thinking about learning backwards.

What about you? What is the “messiest” learning experience you’ve had in your personal or professional life–and do you still retain those lessons today?

We can appreciate how this happens: companies have many people to be trained, and have many competencies on the list. However, we want to challenge the quantity vs. quality mentality.

It is reasonable to consider productivity when thinking about the ROI calculation for Education (ROEI).  So if we deliver more training sessions to more people within the enterprise, doesn’t that deliver more value?   I guess you could make that argument.

Or, you might think about benefits of learning in terms of their impact on people and the organization (what the original Kirkpatrick Model challenged us all to think about back in 1959).

So the notion that we should concern ourselves with impact on peoples’ behaviors and on business results  are big ideas – just as elusive today as when Kirkpatrick initially developed his call to arms.

It seems to me that the first challenge we face, is that learning does not really occur in the classroom.   We can deliver the concepts to program participants (the intellectual elements), but until those participants apply these concepts in their own world, do the concepts sink in?

For example, let’s say we teach you a new approach to planning and managing performance appraisal discussions.   If the ideas are new to you, we can hope at best, that you might be inclined to try them on your own at the time of your next performance appraisal session.

When you do, if the outcome was a “good” one, you might be encouraged to try the new methodology a second time – or even a third (if the 2^nd went well also).  Then gradually your confidence grows and the new behaviors become your new norm.

But what if your outcome using the new method was not a positive one?   In this case, I think most of us would be quick to abandon the new idea in favor of our historical behaviors (EVEN if we believed our past practice produced mediocre results.)

Without some means of ongoing reinforcement or coaching, the new behavior is likely to fall by the wayside.   This coaching could come from your boss, co-workers, or a trained facilitator (it doesn’t matter which). But the act of coaching is essential. This is why our hypothetical 12 hour MBTI workshop described in part 1 of this series was broken into 4 sections – allowing participants time to experiment, to share their results with the class, and to experience that vital coaching opportunity.

So, let’s recap what we have concluded thus far.  Here are some important points to consider when developing effective learning and development strategies:

• WHEN PRACTICAL, TRAIN WHEN THERE IS AN URGENT NEED (we are MOST receptive to learning new things when we are trying to solve a problem where we recognize the need for new skills.  The best way to teach Lean or Six Sigma is when your group has a process they want to improve.  Teach MBTI when people are already frustrated with some of the human interactions they face.  Teach Project Management when you have formed a new project team.   This creates a built-in mechanism for immediately applying what is taught.)

• DO FEWER, GO DEEPER (if budgets are limited, doesn’t it make sense to reduce the number of topics covered, so that we can actually work on changing behaviors?)

• THERE MUST BE AN EXPERIENTIAL COMPONENT (most of us do not learn in the classroom.  Some of us have to see it with our own eyes to get it.  And others of us have to actually DO IT.)

• If we do not have good outcomes when we try something new, THERE NEEDS TO BE REINFORCEMENT AND COACHING for the learning to stick.

• TRAIN AROUND ISSUES THAT ARE OF STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE to the enterprise.   (Many HR people develop lists of “leadership competencies” and train to them.   While these may be good, another way to think about it is to focus on the main initiatives that the C-suite is interested in, ask what skills or attitude gaps exist, and then train to those. This approach is more likely to enlist senior management support.)

In Part 3 of this series, we will consider why we need to rethink the entire way we conventionally design learning experiences to make learning stick.

What about you? Have you had an experience where a crisis or significant opportunity “forced” you to embrace training? What was the outcome?

Everyone in the Learning and Development field is trying to determine how to measure Return on Educational Investment.   ROEI = (derived benefits from training and development) / (education and training cost.)  As you can see from this 15-year-old article from Jack Phillips, we’ve been at this for some time.

Or, you can check out the ASTD Handbook for Measuring and Evaluating Training, which also attempts to address the issue.

As another alternative, here is a brief video from a training expert (Lynn Johnson).  See if she makes a convincing business case from your perspective.  (I surely didn’t think so).

How to measure the benefit to the organization of its learning and development effort IS the right question, but most would agree that measuring the benefits is difficult at best.

I have three degrees in engineering and science, and consider myself to be pretty strong analytically.  I believe I can develop a way to measure learning benefits. I can suggest ways to produce data spreadsheets and metrics.   But, if I am completely honest, while I can produce a report measuring such benefits, I’m not sure even I would believe that report.

As the CEO of my own business, I can tell you we spent a lot of money on training that I didn’t think had any measurable impact on our bottom line.   So, as CEO I tolerated it, largely because I didn’t want to be seen as being opposed to learning (that’s like being against puppies and clean air).   However, I allowed money to be spent without a high expectation about the outcomes.   I don’t think I am alone among C-suite inhabitants.

To combat this feeling that training just isn’t “worth it,” in many companies the L&D people are under increasing pressure to manage the DENOMINATOR of that ROEI equation – something we at least have control of.   With this approach you end up offering classes for more people, in 3 days instead of 5, on-line vs. live etc.

However, and in spite of the incumbent problems in measuring educational benefits, it is way too soon to give up on ways of increasing the NUMERATOR.

I am surprised by how often we encounter L&D professionals who ask us to teach a topic, and when we ask “Why do you want to teach this?” or “What is it that you want your employees to think, feel or do differently as a consequence of the training?”  they often have no good answer.

So we may get asked to teach a class on, say Meyers Briggs.   It is perhaps a 1.5 – 2 hr module.  The participants fill out their MBTI survey and then in class we can explain the various dimensions and how to interpret their results.    Now you may be pretty confident you have a facilitator who can teach this and receive very high student evaluation scores.   BUT . . . I would challenge you to survey the participants 2 months after the module, and ask 4 questions:

1)      Can you recall your MB Type indicator classification (like INTJ)?

2)      Can you explain what the dimensions mean (what is I, or E, or T?)

3)      Can you GUESS the MB type of your closest co-workers, based on your observations of their behavior?, and

4)      Given a particular scenario, can you describe how your human interaction strategy could be tailored to match their MBTI classification?

When I did such an evaluation in my own company, we found that only about 30 % could answer question one successfully, and the success rates dropped from there on.   0% (out of 25 participants) could answer all 4 questions.  Hopefully your results would be better than these, (but I would be surprised).

So, if you permit me the luxury of cynicism for a moment, if that is the measure of success for this workshop…  why do it at all?

Here is another way you could approach it.

If we wanted to teach MBTI in an impactful way, this might be a possible approach:

• For admission to the class the employee first must have a co-worker or 2 with whom they had difficulty interacting – or who challenges them interpersonally.  They should be asked to write a description of the kind of situations that are problematic.   Their REASON, then, to come to the class is to gain some new ideas about how to interact better with that person.

• Then, in the first 2-3 hr module, we ask participants to describe their problem scenarios, and challenge the class to discuss why these interactions are problematic.  We ask the group how to approach such individuals differently – and see what the group can come up with on their own.

• Then, in the next 2-3 hr module, we administer the MBTI survey and explain the concepts behind it.

• In the next 2-3 hr module we invite the class to consider what MBTI profile their personal antagonist has, and then invite them to reconsider the scenarios discussed in session 1 to arrive at a better way to handle interpersonal communications.

• In between module 3 and 4, we challenge participants to  go back and experiment with their new skills with their problem co-worker

• In the final 2-3 hr session, participants report back on what they tried, and what happened.  Their fellow participants and the facilitator can offer coaching suggestions as needed.

The problem, of course, is that this approach is 12 hours, rather than 2, and therefore costs 6X as much to deliver. . . In an era of budget constraints, who is looking for a 6X budget increase?   So this latter approach is most likely to be rejected.

But perhaps we should change the structure of training overall to do Fewer trainings… while Going Deeper. Our next post covers just that.

What about you? What’s the most impactful training you’ve ever experienced–and why?

1)     Don’t Say Anything New.   Never have an opinion, and repeat mainly what you hear others say.  It is always safer – if people disagree with you, you can ascribe your comments to someone else.  Oh, and if you DO have a new idea, make sure to keep it to yourself. It is much safer.

2)     Don’t Let Yourself be Inquisitive.  When you see things that are problems or that are interesting, be sure you don’t ask more questions that could produce more work or lead you into areas that challenge established thinking.  Someone will likely be made uncomfortable or even get upset with you.   If you are speaking with a customer, and someone makes an interesting comment, never follow-up with another question . . . the conversation could run on and on.

3)     Never Share What You Know.  Knowledge is power.  Isn’t that what they say? So keep what you know to yourself. If you tell others about your insights, maybe they won’t need you any longer.   The pyramid gets narrower at the top, so don’t let co-workers gain any advantage over you.  If you get good at withholding, sometimes it can cause your co-workers to falter.  How amusing is that?   (See Schadenfreude)

4)     Put Away Your Thoughts About Research.   Research is a process of asking questions, and then seeking answers.  The only problem is, that often your answers only raise more unanswered questions.  (This is a corollary to item 2 above.)  Learning can become a vicious circle . . . a slippery slope!

5)     Don’t Ever Scan Your Competitors.   It is safer to keep your focus internal, so you can convince yourself that you are great and things couldn’t be better.  If you learn things from suppliers or others outside your industry, it is always better to dismiss them because they don’t have to deal with the things unique to your industry.   If they are better than you, then their example cannot be relevant.   If it was a good idea, you would have already thought about it. Wouldn’t you?

6)     Never Dive Deep.  When you are solving problems, pick the first possible answer you can – otherwise you can get bogged down in endless searching for root causes that will only lead you across departmental boundaries where you can’t count on their help anyway.    The more doors you open, the more problems you are likely to uncover.   No one else will likely help you with any of it.  Better to leave well enough alone.  Sure the problem may re-emerge – but you can deal with that then.

7)     Keep a Low Social Media Profile.  As Betty White once said when hosting Saturday Night Live of Facebook:  “It sounds like a huge waste of time.  . . If I want to communicate with old friends, I need a Ouija Board.”  The less you communicate with those who Betty calls “losers”, the better.   If you never make a comment, your comments will never be shared in ways you don’t approve. Who needs to connect with more old high school buddies anyway?

8)     Use Your 15 Minutes Wisely.  Andy Warhol once said that everyone sooner or later gets their 15 minutes of fame.  You never know when that will happen for you, maybe in a meeting when the boss goes around the room and ultimately asks you what you think.  Be sure to speak in a way that’s. . . oh, just watch this video on How to Give a Speech Without Saying Anything.

So . . . that’s it – a starting guide on how to go through life invisibly, without leaving any footprints, or making a difference.

It’s easier to do than you may think! But… Why would anyone want to?

The shortest wait time was about 70 min for any attraction (except the Hulk coaster which only attracted a few hardy souls who love 4G’s upside down – no, not the cell phone kind).  As you might imagine, there were a lot of unhappy and cranky visitors that day.

One of the memorable experiences had to do with a visit to the ladies’ room by my wife and our daughter in law.  Ladies, you can imagine the mob scene, with lines out the door, and more chaos than anyone should have to endure to address a bodily function.   In this particular restroom, Mary and Lisa encountered a Universal employee named Tina.  She was the attendant in that rest room.  (Here is what I think her job description was, from the Universal Studios web site.)  What amazed them was how she performed her work.  She was boundless in her energy and enthusiasm.   She was directing ladies to the next available stall, telling people that she would hold their bags, and even watch their kids while they went inside.   With eagle-like attentiveness, she scanned the scene, provided direction, told jokes, and provided a refreshing level of service to masses of tired park-goers.   She did this with pride, energy, and caring.

Tina was a blond-haired woman in her late 40’s or early 50’s.   I have no idea what Tina’s pay grade was at Universal, but I can’t imagine many people aspiring to be where she was at that stage in her life.  But if she had any misgivings, you surely couldn’t see them.  You saw a sparkle in her eyes, a bright smile, and a sincerity in her voice that my family talked about a lot that evening over dinner.  Tina had left an impression.

This episode also reminded me of my grandfather, who in his late 60’s took a job as janitor in the High School I was attending.   I think he was just looking for something that allowed him to stay active.   Back in Poland when he was younger, he was a school teacher himself, and I think he liked being around young people.  Since he was old, and didn’t speak English well, he was a source of amusement for my then-classmates.  The kids would sometimes make messes deliberately – just to see him come around with his mop, bucket and waste bin.     Even while being taunted or made fun of, he just held his head high, as he continued to sweep or to mop.

I sort of felt embarrassed about this situation at the time, and one day I asked him about his job, and if he knew that the kids were making fun of him.  I wanted to understand how he felt about the job and why he did it.  When I thought about how Tina had made such an impression on my wife and daughter, I remembered what my grandfather told me during that awkward conversation.  When I asked him why he took a job that was beneath him . . . he thought for a moment and then looked at me with his piercing green eyes, as he replied . . . “I believe” he said, “that there is honor in any job if you do it to the best of your ability.  The honor”, he continued, “does not come from the job, it comes from here” (as he pointed to his chest).

For most of us, jobs matter.   I think it is fair to say that for many of us our job IS our complete identity as an adult.  If someone asks us who we are or what we do, we mostly describe our job title and who we work for.     Job titles seem to matter.  They define our status, our measure of our contribution to society, and seemingly define our worth as people.   These are notions that I think are well worth challenging.

Sometimes we can be disappointed that we didn’t get a promotion, or a raise, or a bonus.   It can let the air out of us a little.   But these have little to do with honor or value . . . and shouldn’t have much to do with how we choose to do our jobs.