PUTTIN' COLOGNE ON THE RICKSHAW

In case you haven’t heard there’s now a new skill set that employees will have to worry about come review time. It’s called “Emotional Intelligence.” While I haven’t personally seen this attribute included in a performance review form, I’m sure it’s just a matter of time before this is included in the list of skills that the untrained boss will be asked to evaluate his or her employees against.

A national survey was conducted by Harris Interactive© on behalf of CareerBuilder, questioning 2,662 hiring managers asking them about Emotional Intelligence (EI).  According to the survey:

• 34 percent of hiring managers said they’re placing greater emphasis on Emotional Intelligence when hiring and promoting employees.
• 71 percent said they value Emotional Intelligence in an employee more than IQ.
• 59 percent of employers wouldn’t hire someone who has a high IQ but low EI.
• 75 percent said they’re more likely to promote the high EI worker.

When asked why Emotional Intelligence is more important than high IQ, employers said (in order of importance):

• Employees [with high EI] are more likely to stay calm under pressure.
• Employees know how to resolve conflict effectively.
• Employees are empathetic to their team members and react accordingly.
• Employees lead by example.
• Employees tend to make more thoughtful business decisions.

In other words, the typical management sociopath is looking for the exact traits in their subordinates that they, themselves probably do not have.

So what is this new psychological attribute that’s so cherished? In their influential article “Emotional Intelligence,” Peter Salovey and John D. Mayer defined Emotional Intelligence as “the subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions.”

Salovey and Mayer have been the leading researchers on Emotional Intelligence since their article was first published at the University of New Hampshire in 1990. In fact, the current professional measure of Emotional Intelligence is the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT), which is a series of emotion-based problem-solving questions. It’s the only accurate and reliable way to measure EI. Since the MSCEIT is an abilities test, unlike standard IQ tests, its questions don’t have objectively correct responses. Therefore, it requires evaluation by a trained professional.

An organization’s management doesn’t constitute trained psychological professionals, so now we have potentially yet another subjectively measured behavior, administered by novices, used to evaluate employee performance.

Don’t misunderstand, I agree wholeheartedly with the concept of Emotional Intelligence and its importance. After having had many people, in both professional and non-professional roles work for me during my career I have to admit I’d much rather have people displaying those attributes versus just having a high IQ. However, I do not claim the ability to accurately (objectively) evaluate someone for them.

From my perspective, those EI traits detailed above all seem familiar. In fact, they’re all the traits of a good servant leader. This leads me to the disturbing concern that by adding this new attribute to the measure of an employee’s worth, the very people who are saying they value these attributes, and are evaluating the employee against them, are the same people who themselves most often don’t practice these servant leadership fundamentals.

So that leaves us with the question of how exactly might management measure their employees for Emotional Intelligence?

Again, according to the above noted survey, HR managers and hiring managers assess their candidates’ and employees’ EI by supposedly “observing” a variety of behaviors and qualities. These are the top responses:

• They admit and learn from their mistakes.
• They can keep emotions in check and have thoughtful discussions on tough issues.
• They listen as much or more than they talk.
• They take criticism well.
• They show grace under pressure.

Ironically, these sound like all the behaviors expected of an employee as they’re forced to suffer through a performance review. They are expected to listen to their mistakes (and how they are not “responsive” or exhibit a lack of “initiative”); keep their reactions in check and show grace under the pressure; listen to the “expert” reviewer and don’t talk back; and take their medicine and learn from it so they can change. Ironically, these are all the behaviors that the sociopaths are not good at, so if we ever see EI become part of the performance review process we’ll have a real dose of hypocrisy in action.

Also, show me one boss who spends the appropriate amount of time calmly observing his inmates to be able to reasonably assess those traits. In most instances the only one-on-one observation the boss has of an employee is when the performance review is administered. And how long does that last−a half hour at best?

My fear is that EI could become yet another vague yardstick for the boss to rate his or her employees very subjectively providing yet more ammunition for negative feedback during the performance review. And we all know that the performance review process is aimed at exposing the negative versus the positive.

Do you work for a Chicken Little? These are the “sky is falling” sort of leaders who always has some pet problem that they consider to be the top priority for everyone to address? In your organization is there always some fire that’s front and center and must be fought taking precedence over everything else you’re doing? This is a real problem in many organizations. It’s a product of the insecure, narcissistic, egomaniacal, type leader that knows no other way to manage than through constant turmoil. In fact they even thrive on the disruption and angst it causes the organization. This behavior is a part of the typical command and control mentality that drives modern business management.

Leaders like this will demand that their sycophantic minions jump to attention and respond to his crisis du jour; and unfortunately they typically have no choice but to salute smartly and go into fire-fighting mode. And in true “__it runs downhill” fashion, what eventually happens is that the sycophants force their own direct reports into the same witch hunt, and so on down the organizational hierarchy. Before long you have the “student body left” syndrome where everyone is off chasing the latest problem at the expense of doing their regular jobs. When the organization’s top leader’s behavior gets reflected down through the organization like this, everyone spends their time just jumping from one fire to another.

This sociopathic behavior is called “pyromania” and I believe this is one of the worst behaviors that someone in a management position can practice.

In his March 2007 article, “Are You a Pyromaniac?” Michael Watkins explains, “These are the organizational pyromaniacs; leaders with impulse-control issues who start the fires that waste so much precious time and energy in their organizations. For them, every day is a new crisis to be managed; and they want you to come along for the ride. All it takes is for a few key management people behaving this way and it will drive everyone lower down in the organization into a constant state of hyperactivity. For some, it satisfies a deep need to feel powerful and important. Others find that injecting anxiety in subordinates lessens their own. Some pyros are just suspicious that everyone is slacking off behind their backs. Creating a [fire] can be very satisfying for those who don’t trust employees to put in an honest day’s work.”

I think one reason pyromaniac management may be so prevalent in today’s workplace is because of the sociopath’s need to judge everyone constantly. They use the daily weenie roast as a way to thin out the herd, get rid of those they find weak. Remember the “Selfish Herd Theory” that I covered in a previous blog-post. Pyromania becomes the screening process for the sociopaths to identify the targets they’ll use when they need a fall guy. Anyone who can’t be jerked around by their idiocy becomes useless to them, as is anyone who doesn’t measure up to their standard of commitment to their cause. In other words the more captivated you become with fighting the boss’s latest crisis, the better off you are in his eyes.

They see themselves as the savior of the organization and without them problems that they think threaten their existence would go un-fixed if not for their diligence.

This behavior makes your daily routine anything but sane and manageable. You can’t plan your day in advance−so much for proactiveness. Every day becomes chaotic and unpredictable. The irony is that, come review time, one of the soft skills you’ll be measured on is “effective time management.”

Over time, an environment mired down in fire-fighting turns dysfunctional fast. The sane and talented workers depart, leaving an entourage of sycophants who actually enjoy the false urgency of the daily fire drills. It’s their chance to shine in the eyes of the sociopaths over which they fawn.

In my book Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw I delve more into the phenomenon of the pyromaniac and the methods used by this ilk to wreak havoc on their organizations, however the most common tool used by today’s pyro is simply his computer.

Today, everyone’s exposed to the electronic age and the availability of e-mail as a way to speed-up communication. But is it also has its dark side because it becomes the favored method for a pyro to ensnare people into chasing his latest catastrophe. Using e-mail this way is actually called cyber-bullying and bullying is exactly how to describe this behavior. For the pyromaniac their favorite incendiary devices are BlackBerrys and their smart-phone cousins.

The problem with e-mail is that it implies that any message received must be “hot” and must be addressed immediately. This then becomes an immediate distraction for the recipient deferring them from what may be more important. It’s the same with the telephone–ever notice when you’re being waited on at a store and the phone rings and the employee will place you on hold while they service the person on the phone? That’s the same mechanism at play with e-mail.

As Watkins explains, “Thumb-based communication tends to magnify the firefighting problem because the typical message is short, so the recipient lacks the context necessary to interpret its true urgency and feels it’s safest to respond right away; it interrupts the receiver in the midst of whatever she’s doing, so she might as well respond; and is often beamed out to multiple people, and so generates a flurry of back-and-forth requests for elaboration and action.” If the recipient is a manager he or she then has to set his or her staff into crises mode in absentia. Let the games begin.

Is your boss a Chicken Little? Here’s how you can tell:

• Does your boss demand immediate responses to his requests for information from you? Are you never given enough time to do a thorough job?
• Is your organization mired down in The Action Item Syndrome?
• Will your boss go over your head to your direct reports when he feels he needs information? This happens whether you’re absent or not.
• The instant you go on business travel or go on vacation, do you receive the hand-grenade e-mail message asking why something happened in your absence or bringing to light some fire du jour that needs your immediate attention?
• Do most of your email messages from your boss have the “important” flag checked?
• Does normal e-mail correspondence in your organization typically have numerous people cc’d? This is a defense mechanism used by people so as to “spread the blame” when the stuff hits the fan.
• Does your boss use the term “sense of urgency” and measure people’s performance using this vague yardstick?
• Is the term “accountability’ bandied about as a vague threat to hold everyone in fear of being blamed for things that have gone wrong?

If you answered ‘yes’ to any these questions, then you are working for a boss who’s leaning toward pyromania and you’d better always have a fire extinguisher nearby.

The real problem with this behavior is that fire-fighting is only a short-term fixing of symptoms, and is used in lieu of taking the time to fully understand and address the root cause of a problem. Also, “urgent” very seldom means “important.”

The pyromaniac, in his sense of urgency style, allows little time for the organization to seek out and correct the root cause of problems, even when they’re real. In this way real change never really takes hold and the organization doesn’t grow. In my experience only a handful of the problems, elevated to crisis mode by the pyromaniac, really are a risk to the survival to the organization.

Unfortunately pyromania isn’t limited to the executive suite. Pyromaniacs reside in all levels in an organization. Some even create crises only to solve them themselves. These are the organization’s knights in shining armor–the heroes who are always saving the day.

“If you believe it, it isn’t a lie” -George Costanza, Seinfeld

Have you ever found yourself telling a story about a previous job, or project, (or something you’ve done) and consciously, or unconsciously, embellished it ever so slightly? As time passes even our bad experiences seem to not be that bad after all. Thus, over time, the embellishment will build up, like compound interest; to the point where what was originally a steaming POS seems like the crown jewels. We also do this with our past good experiences–continuing to build them up. Self-deception is at the root of why whenever we talk of our past we remember it as “the good old days.”

The only problem with this type behavior is that if you repeat these trumped-up stories enough times you start believing them.

Self-deception is the process of denying or rationalizing away the relevance, significance, or importance of bad experiences and embellishing them despite opposing evidence and logical argument to the contrary. When we practice self-deception we are convincing ourselves of the new story (our story and we’re sticking to it) so that we can rationalize our past as not having been as bad as it really was–or as being better than it really was. Most often we do this with our memory of bad jobs and failed projects that we may have endured. Interestingly we usually never portray evil people that we’ve met along the way as being better than they really were, in fact we demonize them even more. But even that is self-deception.

Such is the subtle power of self-deception–a powerful mechanism that can be used to mask deep-seated insecurities, make our past seem tolerable and project blame for our failings onto others. We distort facts to support our particular point of view–our recall of history–or to sustain our beliefs about the kind of person we are or want to be. This denial of reality is most often an unconscious, psychological defense mechanism designed to ward off unacceptable or inconvenient truths. In psychology this is called the “confirmation bias;” a tendency for people to only seek out information that conforms to their pre-existing view points, and subsequently ignore information that goes against them.

Pulitzer Prize-winning author Upton Sinclair’s once said: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”

Sinclair hit the nail on the head when it comes to explaining why we practice self-deception in our jobs. Our jobs many times depend on it. Probably the most common practice of self-deception is what we write in our resumes. While I’m not accusing everyone of lying on their resume, I am sure that all of us have stretched the truth here and there–admit it. You see it every day on LinkedIn where people embellish their profiles by claiming every skill imaginable.

You might think that someone practicing self-deception is only lying to themselves. So what–if someone wants to live in a state of denial, so be it–that’s their problem. However, the effects of self-deception run much deeper. The problem is that this behavior affects everyone and is especially deadly in the workplace. It leads to what my book Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw is all about–dysfunctional workplaces.

These lies (?) we tell ourselves and others may seem innocuous and harmless but they contribute to molding the culture present in any workplace organization. Since for all of us “perception is more important than fact,” self-deception helps create a workplace culture based on misconceptions. No wonder organizational amnesia runs rampant in today’s workplace.

That all said I’m personally not convinced that self-deception is necessarily all about lying. Personally I think “bullshitting” is what’s at the heart of our self-deceptions.

I’ll explain why.

Dictionary.com defines a lie as: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood; something intended or serving to convey a false impression; an inaccurate or false statement; the charge or accusation of lying.

In contrast, the dictionary.com definition of bullshit is: foolish, deceitful, or boastful language; something worthless, or insincere; insolent talk or behavior; to speak foolishly; to engage in idle conversation.

Why do I think the average worker partakes more in bullshitting than lying? First, understand that most people use these two terms interchangeably to describe the typical behavior they see and practice in the workplace. At first blush you may contend that our self-deceptions certainly falls under that definition. However, when we look closer at the definitions, the difference stands out.

In the definition of lying, the word “false” appears numerous times, yet in the definition of bullshit, it doesn’t appear at all. Since a falsehood is defined as an untruth, a lie is therefore the telling of an untruth. On the other hand bullshitting is boastful, worthless, insincere language. There’s a big difference. Boastful, worthless, insincere language doesn’t necessarily equate to an untruth.

In his essay, “On Bullshit,” philosopher Harry Frankfurt presents a very detailed contrast of these two concepts. Frankfurt postulates that the liar, “to tell a lie; in order to invent a lie at all, must think he knows the truth.”  That’s an important point. The liar knows, or thinks he knows, the truth, and then consciously elects to present the opposite.

Remember what George Costanza said. This is why self-deception is not a lie. We actually begin to believe the crap we fling thus making them (to us) not a lie. According to Frankfurt, “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such condition.” The key is the intent to deceive others that’s associated with the lie. We don’t tell these embellished stories to deceive others so much as to make ourselves feel better about ourselves.

While both lies and bullshit can either be true or false, bullshitters in general are unconcerned with the truth or falsehood of their statements. Isn’t this the reason why we self-deceive? As Frankfurt notes, “this indifference to how things are is the essence of bullshit.”

To me, it seems that bullshitting better serves our need to self-deceive, especially when we want to change another’s perceptions of us.

Why is my diatribe on bullshit important? Because, as Frankfurt explains, “bullshitting one’s way through [life]; not merely producing one instance of bullshit, [but] producing bullshit to whatever extent the circumstances require” is common behavior.

People become masters at this “art,” and it spreads like wildfire throughout the workplace. In this way the bullshit flung around the workplace creates an environment that’s not based in reality. Frankfurt explains it best: “The contemporary proliferation of bullshit has deeper sources; in various forms of skepticism which deny that we can have any reliable access to an objective reality and which therefore [we] reject the possibility of knowing how things truly are. Convinced that reality has no inherent nature, which [the worker] might hope to identify as the truth about things, [the worker] devotes himself to being true to his own nature.”  In other words our self-deceptive bullshitting explains the fact that we are such a self-centered society.

Our self-deception then becomes the motivation for someone to bullshit in retaliation, thus perpetuating the bullshit syndrome that has overtaken the average workplace. Bullshitting thus becomes one way in which people practice what’s called “impression management,” since the only thing they can truly control (or so they think) is their own image. It’s also called building your “brand.”

Bullshit becomes the primary factor in defining the people, and thus the organization, and it molds the organization’s culture. In fact, one might say that bullshit is the fuel that powers the engine of business. For this reason, Frankfurt claims, “Bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.” Think about it. The next time you describe a past experience, or update your profile on LinkedIn, are you telling it “as it is” or are you bullshitting just a bit? I think I know the answer.

The original Star Trek, created by the legendary Gene Roddenberry, was a classic science fiction series that ran from 1966 to 1969. It was one of my favorite shows of the time–along with Twilight Zone. The series had a couple later spin-off shows, like Star Trek: The Next Generation, as well as the film series. While I’ve seen all the films, I never really got into the spin-offs (I did watch them on occasion but they just never measured up to the original–although the special effects were definitely better).

While the Star Trek series has had a lot of influence on the genre of science fiction and we also see its inspiration for some technological inventions such as the cell phone, I’ll bet you never thought it could provide some useful lessons in management and leadership?

One of the reasons I like the original version of Star Trek over its successors is the main character, James Tiberius “Jim” Kirk played by William Shatner. As the captain of the starship USS Enterprise, Kirk leads his crew on their five year mission “to go where no man has gone before.”

In my view Kirk provides us some useful lessons in good leadership. That said however, it’s not just Kirk that exemplifies good leadership. He also had his loyal (and sometimes recalcitrant) sycophants and his interaction with them was a central theme carried through most episodes. The characters of Spock and Bones display how the next level down from the top should be acting–not afraid to tell the boss the truth–providing critical inputs–even if the inputs were negative. The key is that for that to happen it takes a special kind of leader.

There’s also some obvious leadership metaphor at work in the series. Leonard Nimoy, who played the Science Officer Spock, and DeForest Kelly, who played McCoy, the ship’s Doctor, metaphorically represents the logical and emotional sides of all of us that are constantly in opposition. The key is that they both were essential for Kirk to make the necessary managerial and leadership decisions as Captain of the Enterprise. Their personalities played heavily in making Kirk the leader he was. Our lesson is we shouldn’t be afraid to let both the logical (data) and emotional (empathy) side of us play a factor in how we lead.

And of course we have Scotty, the ship’s Chief Engineer, played by James Doohan. Scotty consistently provided Kirk with a dose of negativity just when Kirk needed him to come through and perform a miracle. The episodes were few and far between where Scotty didn’t report back to Kirk that fixing the Warp drive was impossible, yet Kirk never reacted negatively but only provided gentle nudging to bring out the best in Scotty. And for his respected Captain, Scotty somehow would always come through in the end.

To add the younger, less experienced, element to the show we have Ensign Chekov, portrayed by Walter Koenig. Chekov was the navigator/helmsman and was always Kirk’s go-to guy when they needed to get the Enterprise out of a tight jam quickly. Kirk’s relationship with Chekov offers an insight into how mentoring can play an important part in the success of a young subordinate.

There are other critical characters in the show; Chief Communications Officer Uhura, portrayed by Nichelle Nichols, and Lieutenant Sulu–George Takei’s character. Both provided their particular brand of expertise to the, most often, chaotic happenings on the bridge of the Enterprise.

Of course every episode had its nemesis–someone, or something, the crew came into contact with in their journeys that had plans to destroy the Enterprise. The take away–if you’re on the cutting edge of your industry, or niche, it’s to be expected. It always pays to be good at crisis management–because stuff happens. Kirk was always able to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

All of the supporting characters were essential in making the series the success that it was. All played a part in providing the necessary background for Kirk to display the traits of good leadership that make the show a learning experience for all of us. So with that, here are my ten takeaways from the show–the leadership skills that can be observed in Captain Kirk:

• Step Up and Be the Leader–never follow or have to get out of the way–Kirk never shied away from a tough predicament and was always the calm, consummate leader during trying circumstances
• Allow Everyone in the Organization to Speak Freely–censorship begets fear and mistrust–Kirk always listened to everyone on the bridge letting them voice their opinions and concerns. Remember you’re not a leader without followers and you won’t have followers unless you listen to them
• Allow Everyone to Do Their Job Without Interference–Kirk never pushed Chekov aside so that he could pilot the ship himself–he trusted even the young to perform in a crunch–he provided the necessary mentoring even in times of chaos
• Be a Servant–Kirk was always looking out for the welfare of his crew–putting himself in harm’s way before ordering others into compromising situations–he was always part of the “away-team” to a hostile planet putting himself in harm’s way–he didn’t lead from his Captain’s chair
• Shared Accountability–Kirk took responsibility if things didn’t go as planned–he didn’t hide behind plausible deniability and pin failures on his team–at the end of every episode there wasn’t a witch hunt
• Limit the Number of Meetings–Kirk held few “meetings” to discuss problems–his decisions were “stand-up” and made right in the thick of things–on the spot–yet always after consulting with his trusted advisors
• Rely on Your Inner Moral Compass–Kirk always took the path that led to the right moral and ethical outcome–practicing his values were a key part of his leadership approach
• Teamwork–Kirk created an atmosphere where teamwork was rewarded. At the end of every episode the crew shared in the victory–there weren’t any crew member of the month awards
• Never Lose Your Temper With a Subordinate–Kirk never lost his cool no matter how dire the situation–how badly someone had screwed up–or if he got push-back to his orders
• Never Talk Down to a Subordinate–condescension ruins trust and respect–Kirk always treated his crew and immediate subordinates with respect no matter how absurd he may have thought their opinions or when they said they couldn’t do something he had asked

As you can see there are quite a few useful lessons that can be gleaned from the Shatner character. It’s a shame that modern business doesn’t have more Captain Kirks at the helm, but then again that would require the next level down to step up and perform like the officers on the Enterprise. In any organization, leadership usually doesn’t come from just a single person. Whether an organization is functional or dysfunctional revolves around that relationship between the Captain and his executive officers. That interaction, and how the rest of the organization views it, is what set the stage for the organization to err toward dysfunction–or not.

Cindy Perman’s Jan 23, 2013 CNBC.com article, “There Is No ‘I’ in Team” is very interesting and an enlightening read. The quip “there is no ‘I’ in team” has floated around the halls of business for as long as I can remember. I must confess I’ve even stooped so low as to use it myself on occasion. And as Cindy says in the article, “Man, if we had a nickel for every time we said “there is no ‘I’ in team,” we’d be rich!”

What I found most interesting in the article were some interesting statistics on how the typical worker feels about teamwork and the link between teamwork and organizational dysfunctionality. The statistics noted in the article come from a recent survey by the University of Phoenix. The article tells us, “A whopping 95 percent of people who have worked on a team say teams play an important role at work. But, when pressed, just 24 percent said they would like to be part of a team. Thirty-six percent of young people (ages 18 to 24) said they, too, recognize the importance of teamwork but would prefer to work alone all the time.”

The article goes on to tell us something I’ve known for a long time; “the biggest problem [deterrent to teamwork], it turns out, is–everyone act surprised–dysfunction. Nearly seven in 10 people (68 percent) surveyed said they had been part of a dysfunctional unit.”

When survey responders were asked about their exposure to workplace dysfunction, the article tells us, “Forty percent said they had witnessed a verbal confrontation and 15 percent said they had seen a confrontation turn physical. Forty percent said they’d seen a team member blame another team member, and 32 percent said they’d seen a team member start a rumor about another person.”

It’s no wonder that teamwork is so elusive in many organizations and why people shy away from getting involved in one if they can avoid it. In my book Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw I detail many different aspects of what makes a workplace dysfunctional–lack of teamwork is but one.  In past blog articles I’ve talked about many behaviors that lead to a dysfunctional workplace, but this week I want to concentrate just on those that are most counter to teamwork. To start–what is true teamwork? Too often teamwork is envisioned as some small close-knit group assembled to solve some specific task or problem−e.g. a Skunk Works™ type environment.

However, that’s not really the kind of teamwork that I think is most important. Don’t get me wrong, it’s important but not as important as the “global” teamwork that organizations really need to survive and be competitive. It’s the “all are one” team rallying behind the organization’s vision statement–everyone in the organization pulling in the same direction toward an accepted organizational goal (vision). Anyone can convene a small team to solve a particular problem, but getting everyone in the organization singing from the same hymnal is tough.

The reality is that few organizations experience that type of “global’ organizational commitment and buy-in. And, when it comes to the teams we typically think of–ones that are needed for the organization to effectively function–teamwork usually means that commitment to the team has been gained only because it allows people to blame someone else when things go wrong. This is not the brand of teamwork that will set aside an organization as world-class. Unfortunately, in today’s workplace, “team” usually means “together, everyone annoys me.”

The problem with establishing teamwork is that many of the factors that inhibit teamwork (and create dysfunction) are innate human characteristics–making them hard to overcome. Let’s face it–people are naturally averse to working in teams. In his July 2010 article, “Teamwork in the Workplace,” Dr. Dale Roach provides an interesting view of the typical types of teamwork-averse people:

• The Super Ego Factor: This super-human doesn’t need the help of anyone else to accomplish the task or at least this is what he or she thinks. If you’re super-human, teamwork makes no sense to you.
• The Isolationist Factor: This is the Lone Ranger of the work place. He does his own thing without asking the advice or input of anyone else. Teamwork makes no sense to this person.
• I’m Smarter than You Factor: These people are the Einsteins of the group. They’re so smart that simple communication with anyone on the team is an absolute waste of their time and energy. They seek out the highly intellectuals, and anything or anyone not in that camp is a second-class citizen.
• The Moody Factor: This is the Incredible Hulk. You just don’t know what his temperament will be.
• That Was My Idea Factor: This is the Spoiled Brat team member. Everything has got to go his or her way. These types of people have such a severe case of being introverted that they simply can’t see beyond themselves. Their lack of teamwork is so severe it is difficult to get these people to see the big picture.

When these type personalities are forced into the team environment it’s no wonder it usually doesn’t work. As Dwight Schrute noted in the TV show The Office, “These are no more a team than people staying at the same hotel are a team.”

Luckily the above type people are usually a minority in an organization. Ironically, for the rest, most are adverse to the team environment for exactly the same reason that some people are for them–blame. You have more control over “not” being blamed when you work independently.

So how does an organization overcome these natural human tendencies? I believe there are only two fundamental conditions that need to be in place for teamwork to flourish. The first is establishing a culture of mutual respect and trust. Most of the above mind-sets can be tempered if everyone respects and trusts each other. Specifically, they respect each other’s opinions and they trust that everyone in the team/organization is pulling in the same direction–they have a common vision or goal. Establishing this culture of respect and trust is management’s responsibility–not the employees.

Second, an organization that’s blame-oriented is not the perfect nursing ground for “constructive” teamwork to take hold. In this environment teams exist for just the reason I mentioned above–they provide people who can be blamed when something goes wrong (The Selfish Herd Theory). People will naturally open up and be more collaborative if they know that they won’t be blamed for whatever might go wrong. Again, this behavior starts with management–only if they stop the blame game will teamwork have a chance to take hold.

The bottom line is–management sets the tone for how the members of an organization behave. Dysfunctional management = dysfunctional workplace = no hope for teamwork. So the next time your management team feels the need to preach to the employees for more teamwork throughout the organization it’s because they haven’t done enough self-evaluation regarding their own behavior for teamwork to take hold. Remember, the neck of every bottle is at the top.

The December 7^th, 1941 surprise attack on the American pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor, by Japanese naval forces, was the singular event that drew the US into WWII in the pacific.

The Pearl Harbor attack launched an official Congressional investigation. In the investigation report, blame for the disaster was laid at the feet of everyone from the Secretary of War, to commanders on scene, and even President Roosevelt. After the attack, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel–Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet–and General Walter C. Short–the Army commander on Oahu–were relieved of duty and demoted.

The report cited that Washington-based officials failed to give proper notice to a series of intercepted Japanese messages that indicated their keen interest in the harbor berthing plan and placement of US ships. Also it cited that Washington didn’t react quickly enough to the message sent from Tokyo to Japanese diplomats in Washington, ordering them to destroy code books and indicated that hostilities were to begin.

Much of the dysfunction was centered in Washington yet it was the field commanders at the lowest level that suffered the wrath of a country on a witch-hunt. I find that interesting because it mirrors what typically happen in the modern workplace.

There’s been a lot of finger-pointing over the last 70 years and the controversy over what could have, or should have, been done prior to the attack will continue for many years to come. One thing is certain–the field commanders could have used a rock-solid paper trail to bail themselves out when the investigation started to turn on them. In other words, they could have benefited from what’s now called a “Pearl Harbor File.”

A “Pearl Harbor File” is a file (or database) maintained to show one’s innocence after an anticipated disaster takes place. It takes its name from the attempts to avoid blame for the failure to prepare to defend the U.S. Naval Base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii from Japanese attack.

You might not yet think that having a Pearl Harbor File can benefit you at work, but wait until the first time you’re targeted for blame for something you didn’t do or where told to do by a higher-up. This kind of blame-setting happens every day in workplaces all across the business world.

So how does one create a Pearl Harbor file? Whenever you are told to perform a task which you believe to be questionable, write an email that says “per our conversation, I’m doing x, y and z”. Then print a copy, save the electronic copies, or whatever you have to do to be sure that 3 days, 3 weeks or 3 years from then you have your Pearl Harbor audit trail that proves you weren’t the stupid one. To be on the safe side keep copies of all correspondence that involves any decisions being made or direction being given. In the case of the Pearl Harbor commanders, they could have benefited from a paper-trail showing not so much what they were told but what they “weren’t told.”

Remember the words of Dean Acheson, President Truman’s Secretary of State; “The memorandum is written not to inform the reader but to protect the writer”

If you find yourself in an organization mired down on fear and where blame is regularly metered out–regardless of how insignificant a problem may be–then you definitely need to keep a Pearl Harbor File. When an entire organization practices this CYA game they are said to suffer the “Pearl Harbor Syndrome.” Once it gains a foothold, this syndrome spreads like wild-fire.

In my book Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw I detail fifteen characteristics of a dysfunctional organization–sort of a checklist that you can ask yourself to see if your organization fits the model. One of the major characteristics of a dysfunctional workplace is the need for inhabitants to keep a Pearl Harbor File.

So how do “you” know you should be keeping a Pearl Harbor File? Here’s a quick checklist of questions you can ask yourself:

• Does your boss leave you to figure out your direction on your own
• Does your boss avoid making decisions that are crucial to your particular work
• Does your boss withhold information crucial to you performing your job successfully
• Have you been instructed to do something that seems a little odd or even unethical
• Do you find yourself the target of any of the slanderous interpersonal games that I detail in my book Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw
• Does your organization practice repeated “lessons-learned” goat-ropes with little constructive results
• Does management constantly voice their abhorrence of “surprises”
• Do you repeatedly see your peers and colleagues being blamed for everything that goes wrong
• Do you hear management preaching; “it’s the process, not the people,” when problem solving, yet someone always ends up being blamed
• Is employee turn-over high in your organization
• Is the threat of holding people “accountable” used by management whenever problems arise
• Does your organization appear bankrupt in practicing their stated values

As I mentioned earlier, you may not think you need a Pearl Harbor File, but in a dysfunctional organization, run by sociopaths, it’s just a matter of time until you pull the short straw in the blame game. That said, I must add a caution. A Pearl Harbor File may not be your savior in an organization that scores high on the above checklist because of another dysfunctional management practice called “plausible deniability.” In this lecherous management behavioral practice, blame is metered out to underlings regardless of any evidence to the contrary. It was the mechanism that brought down the commanders at Pearl Harbor.

In my book Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw, and in a previous blog post, I lampooned the obsession that many management teams have with chasing the all elusive ‘best-of-the-best’ employee. Many organizations are on a constant quest to “upgrade” their organization in this manner. They think that if they could only hire the crème de la crème all their visions and values and financial goals would miraculously become reality.

The problem is that most organizations aren’t prepared to pay the kind of salaries that the true “best of the best” would demand. That’s evidenced in the way that most organizations present themselves. I’ve worked in many organizations in which HR flaunted that they offered “competitive wages and benefits” and a “professional environment.” It sounds like a great place to work, right? However, in his book The Gifted Boss: How to Find, Create and Keep Great Employees, Dale Dauten dispels this as nothing more than self-defeating. “When you say ‘competitive wages’ what you’re saying is ‘ordinary, average, about like everyone else’s.’ And when you say a ‘professional environment,’ you are saying the same thing. ‘Professional’ means that it’s typical of the profession, which is another way of saying that it’s what’s common or standard. So you have, in effect, told me that your policy is to offer average rewards in an average environment. In other words, you are trumpeting your mediocrity.”

The fact is that salaries for a particular job, no matter where you go or what organization you work for, are all set to be “competitive” just as Dauten tells us. That said; let’s take a look at how these “competitive’ salaries are set in most all organizations.

First, every job has a salary range that a company is willing to pay for a particular job. It’s set by doing a comparison of what other employers in the locale and industry are paying for the same job function or position. In other words, every company sets wages that are “usual and customary” for the job and locale. Employees holding that particular job are paid somewhere within that spread–mostly hovering around the median of the range.

Second, most companies try to hold an individual’s compensation to no higher than the nth (typically the 75^th) percentile of their salary range.  That nth percentile, of course, can vary from company to company, but typically not by much. So once an employee reaches, through yearly raises, that threshold, a company will do anything and everything it can to limit further pay raises, regardless of the employee’s level of performance. This is a pretty universal salary, and raise, setting practice. In this way companies in an industry or locale virtually conspire to keep salaries as low as the market will bear.

This is the same process used to determine starting salary offers for new hires.

Most organizations try to entice new employees by offering a wage that’s between the median and the 75^th percentile. If this range is higher than the salary the employee is making at his/her current job then an offer will be tendered with a commensurate salary. However it will be typically set so as to offer no more than a 10% raise. You don’t want to overly motivate a new employee do you?

That’s how most people get hired. However remember there’s a limit to this–if the employee is currently making “a lot less,” then the job candidate will be passed over–the thinking being that if the previous employer wasn’t paying a higher salary then the there’s something wrong with the candidate–no matter how well he/she interviewed.

Conversely, if the candidate makes more than the targeted range would justify, then the employee is also passed over–the thought being that the candidate is too expensive and to pay him/her a high salary will result in them not being motivated to excel, i.e., they’ve already received their reward and thus have nothing more to strive for.

The first problem with this whole wage/raise/hiring process is that it dramatically proves that pay-for-performance is truly but a myth. However the big question becomes how most organizations reconcile this wage setting process with their goal of only hiring the “best of the best.” As you can probably see the two are diametrically opposed. You can’t hire the “best of the best” by paying average salaries.

Once, at a large multi-national company (which will go un-named to save them the embarrassment), management held a meeting to explain the above compensation setting scheme to the masses. The executive explaining it was then asked, point-blank, how the above described salary-setting methods reconciled with management’s stated goal of only hiring the “best of the best.”

For any normal person, caught trying to explain this dichotomy, this would be a “stump the dummy” moment–having to justify the unjustifiable and do it without that deer-in-the-headlights look. However the executive, in a rather deadpan manner, proceeded to explain that if the company were to offer higher than “competitive” salaries to new hires it would be akin to placing a “Golden Chain” around their neck forever committing them to work at that company. They would then be out of the competition for jobs anywhere else because they “made too much money.” Thus, in fact, employees were being done a “favor” so as to not place them out of the job pool and out of reach of other companies.

Sadly, this is a true story but we can learn a lot from it. There are a couple things, fundamentally wrong with management thinking, that are exemplified in the above anecdote. The first is that this salary setting practice does in fact nullify the “best of the best” mantra making it little more than laughable for management to continue with this charade. And, as I note above, it makes pay-for-performance but a myth. But more fundamentally, there’s a much more subtle mechanism at work that gives us a glimpse into how sociopathic management thinks.

The very fact that an executive would think that he could bullshit a group of highly intelligent people (in this case engineers) into believing his bunk is both disturbing, yet indicative of the typical sociopathic command and control management thinking. This is a result of the narcissistic “holier than thou” personality trait, found in many management teams today, who consider their employees as unintelligent “tools” who only exist for the purpose of performing needed labor. Most management teams fundamentally believe that everyone in the organization is naïve and that any technical sounding answer will be greeted with rapt acceptance.

So next time you’re in the job hunting mode and a company offers you a new position at little more than what you’re currently making (or they turn you down) don’t be offended–it’s not you who’s not worthy of a big raise–you’ve just fallen victim to “The Golden Chain Syndrome.”

In his February 2007 Strategy and Business article, “The Favoritism Test–Learn to Avoid the Pitfalls of Rewarding Sycophants in the Workplace,” Marshall Goldsmith talks about the phenomenon of sycophancy in the modern workplace.

Goldsmith tells us, “I have reviewed custom-designed leadership profiles at more than 100 major corporations. Not one profile has ever included a desired behavior that reads ‘effectively sucks up to management.’ Although given the dedication to fawning and sucking up in most corporations–and how often such behavior is rewarded–it probably should. Almost every company says it wants people to ‘challenge the system,’ ‘be empowered to express their opinion,’ and ‘say what they really think,’ but there sure are a lot of companies that are stuck on sucking up.

“Not only do companies say they abhor such comically servile behavior, but so do individual leaders. Almost all the leaders I have met say that they would never encourage such a thing in their organizations.”

In my book Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw, I devote an entire chapter to the widespread problem of sycophancy in the ranks of management. I make the case that sycophantic behavior has been around since the middle ages, and despite the stated abhorrence of the behavior, most management teams are nothing but a legion of sycophants that fawn over whoever is in the top management position. The fact is that, despite the voiced position to the contrary by management, sycophants play an important role to any organization’s management team. I’ll explain later.

First however, let’s understand exactly what constitutes a sycophant. According to Webster’s New World Dictionary a sycophant is “a person who seeks favor by flattering people of wealth or influence.” Personally I like Ambrose Bierce’s definition; “one who approaches greatness on his belly so that he may not be commanded to turn and be kicked.”

Sycophancy has been alive and well for as long as there has been people competing for power and prestige. Baldassare Castiglione’s The Book of the Courtier, published in 1528 was the first attempt to describe the sycophant behavior in detail. Despite being circa 1500s, what’s interesting about this work is that it describes perfectly the ilk that usually surrounds the top levels of management in today’s modern organizations.

What are the characteristics of the sycophant? According to Baldassare, all sycophants (his courtiers) must possess a certain “sprezzatura” or “the ability to hide what one really desires, feels, thinks, means, or intends.” This sounds exactly like the typical devoted sycophant.

Sprezzatura apparently was a vital quality for a courtier to have back in the 1500s and I think the talent is just as applicable today. Baldassare explains that courtiers essentially were sucking-up on a grand scale to try to create the impression that they were competent. These courtiers had probably reached their level of incompetence; thus the purpose of sprezzatura was to make them appear to be competent, in control, and a master of themselves and their domain, despite the reality. Sprezzatura is also described as “being unable to make mistakes or do anything wrong.” Certainly in the mind of a sycophant he can make no mistakes.

Even back in their day, courtiers were reputed as being “insincere suck-ups, prone to drama, overly ambitious and lacking any regard for people.” Add to that the more sinister part of their duties of acting as the Lord’s spies, bringing forward information about the subjects, and you have the model for a modern middle-management sycophant.

I don’t think much has changed since the middle ages when it comes to who hangs out with the top levels of management. In the 1500s the sole duty of the courtier was to make the boss look good and so it is today.

I mentioned earlier that sycophants play an important role to any organization’s management team and the reason for that is that sycophants are allowed to exist solely because of what’s called “The Selfish Herd Theory.”

The Selfish Herd Theory was proposed in 1971 by British evolutionary biologist W. D. Hamilton.  In our context it means “the risk of an individual [the sociopath in top management] being blamed for something is reduced if that person places another individual [the sycophant] between himself and the accuser [or the problem itself].” This is why top management likes having an entourage (the herd) of sycophants; it reduces any risk that their position can be jeopardized. Just like in the wild, where the weakest are pushed to the outside edge of the herd, so that they become expendable when a predator attacks, so do top management types place their sycophants out at the edge of the herd so that when the inevitable problem arises they have a sacrificial lamb that’s expendable. This is plausible deniability in action.

Like my previous post,“The Alice in Wonderland Syndrome,” there have been a number of metaphors derived from Alice in Wonderland, but I will present another one here about which you won’t find much written. It’s simply called the “Alice Syndrome.” This term is used to describe what happens to students as they make that final move from school to the workplace and find that “nothing is as it should be.”

The syndrome is derived from Chapter 5 of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, when Alice has a conversation with the Caterpillar.

The Caterpillar and Alice looked at each other for some time in silence; at last the Caterpillar took the hookah out of its mouth, and addressed her in a contemptuous voice. “Who are you?”

Alice replied, rather shyly, “I – I hardly know, Sir, just at present–at least I know who I was when I got up this morning, but I think I must have been changed several times since then.”

“What do you mean by that?” said the Caterpillar, sternly. “Explain yourself!”

“I can’t explain myself, I’m afraid, Sir,” said Alice, “because I’m not myself, you see.”

“I don’t see,” said the Caterpillar.

“I’m afraid I can’t put it more clearly,” Alice replied, very politely, “for I can’t understand it myself, to begin with; and being so many different sizes a day is very confusing.”

“It isn’t,” said the Caterpillar.

“Well, perhaps you haven’t found it so yet, but when you have to turn into a chrysalis–you will someday, you know–and then after that into a butterfly, perhaps your feelings may be different,” said Alice.

In their article, “Through the Looking Glass: Identifying Causes of The Alice Syndrome in Undergraduate Engineering Writers,” Natasha Artemeva and Janna Fox explain the syndrome; “We use this term to describe what happens to some engineering students when they move from academia to the workplace and find that “nothing is as it should be.” Alice moved from a regulated, rule-governed, familiar space with well-defined roles and clear expectations into a fuzzy, unfamiliar and often unsafe world on the other side of the looking glass.

“In the same way that Alice could not explain who she was because of all the changes taking place in and around her, so too student writers in engineering may wonder who they are and what has happened to them once they leave the university.”

In reality, The Alice Syndrome affects “all” students in the same way that Artemeva and Fox describe, not just engineering students. Recent graduates expect a workplace where everybody plays by the rules, but in reality nothing is further from the truth.

Despite all the regimen, process, procedure, and bureaucracy that drive business, the workplace can be, and is, a hostile environment. There are plenty of downright dysfunctional organizations out in the real world, and even those that are relatively smooth running and sane can still suffer from the games people play to better themselves at the expense of their colleagues. As I note in my book, Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw, “every organization has its own brand of dysfunctionality.” It’s just a matter of degrees.

Newcomers can pose a threat to incumbent employees so they enter the workplace many times already a target of bad behaviors. Woe to the person who enters a dysfunctional organization on their first job–the damage to self-esteem can take years to overcome.

Combating this syndrome is primarily why I wrote my book, Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw. It tells the truth about the modern workplace and arms newcomers with the necessary understanding to combat the behaviors they’ll encounter. In this way their indoctrination into the mainstream workplace won’t be quite so traumatic.

Ever notice how people who achieve high status in an organization begin to become aloof and start acting as if without them the organization couldn’t possibly survive and function. These people all suffer from what’s called “The Wizard of Oz Syndrome.”

“The Wizard of Oz Syndrome” finds its roots in the 1900 novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum; however most people are probably more familiar with The Wizard of Oz, a 1939 film starring Judy Garland.

The story tells of a young girl–Dorothy–who’s house gets picked up by a tornado and gets carried from her Kansas farm to a fantasy land. In landing Dorothy’s house falls on and kills the Wicked Witch in Munchkin Land and is welcomed to the new land by the Munchkins. The nice witch–Glinda–explains to Dorothy that to find out how to get back home she needs to follow the yellow brick road to the Emerald City and ask the Wizard of Oz. Along her way down the yellow brick road Dorothy meets the three characters the cowardly lion, the scarecrow and the tin man, who all have something they want to ask the great wizard. However, when they finally get to the Emerald City and meet the wizard, they discover he is just a fraud.

The Wizard in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is this unseen ruler of the Land of Oz who has the characters believing that he rules with an iron fist by the way he manifests himself to them in the story. In the movie the Wizard appears to all of the characters in the same way but in L. Frank Baum’s original story he appears differently to each of the characters. Depending on whom he’s appearing to, the Wizard manifests in different forms−once as a giant head (the omnipotent one), once as a beautiful woman (to be adored), once as ball of fire (the dictator), and once as a horrible monster (the bully). His real name is Oscar Zoroaster Phadrig Isaac Norman Henkel Emmanuel Ambroise Diggs, for short: OZ-PINHEAD.

According to the author L Frank Baum, The Wizard of Oz is just a fairy tale for the enjoyment of children. But there are those who see within Baum’s work representations and symbolism that aren’t acknowledged by him.  There are many opinions about the symbolism of the Land of Oz and what each of the characters represent, but it seems the most popular is that it is a political and monetary allegory of the times.

I’m not going to go down that path in detail here, but I will offer another, more focused, look at the symbolism of one of the main characters in the story–the Wizard. I believe there are parallels between the behavior of the Wizard and today’s corporate world of management.

My premise is that the typical workplace sociopathic management acts no differently than the Wizard. They can exhibit many personalities that manifest themselves depending on whom they are targeting at the time. To the organization as a whole, they are the giant head; to the loyal sycophants they are like a beautiful woman; to those being bullied they’re a horrible monster, and to all others (who get in their way or challenge them) they are a ball of fire–a dictator. This then is The Wizard of Oz Syndrome.

People in management that suffer with this syndrome begin to believe they are behind the metaphorical curtain, pulling all the strings and that without them the organization just can’t function.

A person exhibiting The Wizard of Oz Syndrome is usually your typical sociopath suffering a severe psychological issue called Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). Psychiatrists describe it as “a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy.” People will rationalize the behavior of these wizards by saying they just have a “big personality,” or charisma. However they are dangerous when in management positions as they are excessively preoccupied with personal gain, power and prestige. And let us not forget those pesky flying monkeys–the sycophants that surround your typical sociopathic management and do their bidding.

While everyone has some need for attention, managers with The Wizard of Oz Syndrome are pathologically obsessed by it, when in reality they’re just little people behind a curtain pulling the levers. Is your organization run by a wizard?

There’s another side to The Wizard of Oz Syndrome that’s much more personal to the average person fighting their way through their careers. Maybe, you, yourself, are most like the Wizard. Maybe you find yourself hiding behind a curtain of your own doing, pulling the levers and pushing the buttons just so that you can keep up appearances–what you want people to think of you–or to just maintain the status quo, all the while really wanting something more in your career?

In my book Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw, I talk about “authenticity’ being one of the keys to effective servant leadership. If more people where to strive for authenticity–simply being trustworthy, or genuine–in their everyday dealings with peers and subordinates, more people would realize they don’t need to put up a false persona. They might be prone to open up and come out from behind the curtain. Then maybe the universal organizational problem of “perception being more important than reality” wouldn’t be so rampant and the typical workplace just might become a better place for all.