PUTTIN' COLOGNE ON THE RICKSHAW

In Seth Godin’s November 16^th blog post titled “This is the best I can do” vs. “It’s not good enough,” he brings to light a problem that I’ve personally witnessed in my career.

Godin explains, “Both are symptoms of a huge problem that doesn’t even have a name. Entire industries lull themselves into believing that what they make and how they make it is good enough–until someone comes along and turns the market on its head by proving them wrong.

“At the same time, countless projects go un-launched, improvements hidden, thoughts unstated–because the person behind the idea is hiding behind the false understanding that their work isn’t good enough yet.

“Which problem do you have?”

Probably both as both are distinct problems that plague modern business. Let’s take a deeper look why.

I call the first problem “The 80% Solution Syndrome” or, less elegantly, “The Good Enough Syndrome.”

In my line of work, I’ve heard this solution (usually voiced as a goal) offered many times by management when faced with a tough product specification to meet or when designing a new product. The real goal should be to offer a design solution that meets (or exceeds) the customer’s requirements while beating the competition’s product however, many a management team will start the design process only expecting to get an 80% solution to the customer’s needs. Why is that?

Admittedly, many times the 100% solution is much more than the customer really needs and more importantly, if met, would be much more expensive to design. That’s because there’s much data proving that to get that last 20% of the product performance it will double the cost to design the product. The question then is this: in this highly competitive business environment can a company afford not to try to make their products reach 95% or even 100% of the desired capabilities. This is what Seth Godin talks about in his book Small Is the New Big, when he stated that instead of following the herd and doing what every other company is doing−companies should be focusing on doing one thing “remarkably.” Steve Jobs never told his design staff he’d accept the 80% solution–he demanded 100%.

Of course, whether that added 20% benefit is worth the cost depends on the particular case–not every product is a “bet-the-company” proposition. Not every product requires that every rock be turned over in its development. Fortunately the consumer has grown to accept that products won’t meet all their expectations−and good enough will do to meet the needs of the masses. But does that automatically mean that companies should start a design process targeting only the 80% solution. This is basically the same point I made in the previous post on Quality needing to be Job #1, instead of cost.

Lately it seems everything I buy fails shortly after I bring it home−coffee maker, laptop, can opener−I’m sure you also have a list. This is proof that in product development the focus is solely of cost, not Quality, and certainly not on trying to produce a product that will meet 100% of the customer’s expectations. Remember it’s not just performance that the customer expects–its quality, i.e., that the product won’t fail shortly after they take it home. I’m always amused by companies that pride themselves on their return policy and on how easy they make it to return unwanted or defective product–in my mind there’s something wrong with that thinking.

The second of Godin’s points deserves attention also because it may give insight into why the 80% solution reins supreme. The 80% mentality is a result of the typical environment found in many workplaces−that of negative reinforcement. An organization that must settle for the 80% solution is an organization where trust and respect are nil and employees are, as a result of the way they’re treated, afraid to take risks and make suggestions–afraid to give 100%. Why? Because they’re constantly being told they aren’t “good enough.”

In my book Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw, I lampoon in great detail the inhuman practice of the yearly performance review. This dehumanizing (for the both the giver and receiver) process is carried out religiously in most organizations under the guise of “improving employee performance.” The cold hard fact is that this process has proven to be the biggest demotivating action that management can take. This is because most organizations focus more on the negative than the positive and, as such, squelch any willingness for employees to want to stick their necks out of their comfort zones, i.e., to do the minimum to survive.

This means that improvements to product quality and design capabilities that most employees have knocking around in their heads are never surfaced for fear of being ridiculed or, worse yet, not given the appropriate praise.

In most cases the 80% solution mentality is spawned by this second problem that Godin talks about; “At the same time, countless projects go un-launched, improvements hidden, thoughts unstated–because the person behind the idea is hiding behind the false understanding that their work isn’t good enough yet.”

This willingness to settle for an 80% solution has been spawned by management itself–they only have themselves to blame. It’s payback for command and control leadership and their practice of negative reinforcement. Thus because their employees won’t give 100%, management can only expect an 80% solution to anything they do and they forfeit ever being able to do anything “remarkable.”

Last week I read an interesting article on the CNBC website that got me thinking. The article, “2012’s Most Overused Buzzwords,” CNBC, 12/6/12 detailed the most overused buzzwords found on LinkedIn profiles. For the second year in a row, “creative” topped the list. The top 10 detailed in the article included:

1. Creative
2. Organizational
3. Effective
4. Motivated
5. Extensive experience
6. Track record
7. Innovative
8. Responsible
9. Analytical
10. Problem solving

These are not the buzzwords most heard echoing the halls of business these days−those were detailed in a previous post−the buzzwords above are different−these are the ones we use in our resumes (and LinkedIn profile) to fluff ourselves up with bullshit in the hopes that it will hornswoggle someone into hiring us. Of course we can also intensify the BS by pairing these up to produce an even more vague bullshit smokescreen, e.g. “innovative problem solver.” The fact is we didn’t create this necessity; these same buzzwords are found in job descriptions written by companies in their attempt to add discriminators to help them ferret out potential candidates. In fact it’s these buzzwords in the job descriptions that force us all to have to parrot them back in our resumes.

They all sound so professional and attributes we truly want to believe describe ourselves. From the management perspective these are all attributes we wish we had in our underlings. But what do these words “really” mean? Let’s take a look. Here’s the list again with my take on the true meaning:

1. Creative (able to doodle in a meeting and look like you’re interested and taking copious notes)
2. Organizational (means you can keep up with the best of the sociopaths in the organization when practicing self-serving interpersonal gamesmanship)
3. Effective (probably confused with “efficient” because few understand the difference)
4. Motivated (comes to work every day)
5. Extensive experience (a job hopper)
6. Track record (everybody has one and they’re not necessarily good)
7. Innovative (can make things up as you go−of course this isn’t all bad−the sense of urgency mentality of most organizations requires this ability)
8. Responsible (the dictionary definition of this is: being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it−blame being the operative word)
9. Analytical (defined as: pertaining to or proceeding by analysis−constantly searching for the facts−thus contradicting the claim that you’re innovative)
10. Problem solving (able to firefight−the thing you’ll spend most of your time doing thus the only thing most people can do “effectively”)

The irony is that based on the above definitions you just may have all these skills.

Let’s take one of these and dig a little deeper. I personally find the last one on the list the most interesting because it reveals a lot into what the modern workplace is all about. In our resumes we respond to this job description requirement with phrases like;

• Expert problem solver
• Creative problem solver
• Strategic problem solver
• Innovative problem solver

But what does being a good “problem solver” really mean in the business world? For most companies when they include this in a job description they are just admitting that they value fire-fighting over pre-planning and effectiveness, i.e., true proactiveness. They include this because they, consciously or subconsciously, admit they are a “reactive,” not “proactive,” organization.

True proactiveness means tending to initiate change rather than reacting to events−so if you’re truly proactive, problems shouldn’t happen in the first place. Thus what may be a more beneficial buzzword to use would be: “problem avoider.” Of course don’t get me wrong, the ability to “solve” problems still exists because “surprise” problems do still happen in the workplace regardless of how truly proactive we are.

Stringing together buzzwords makes these idiotic phrases little better than doubletalk (bullshit) and doesn’t make them anymore a real estimate of your capabilities. In my book Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw I make the case that bullshit fuels the engine of modern business, and nowhere is it more true than on job descriptions and resumes.

Experts estimate that over 50% of job applicants lie on their resumes to embellish their credentials and cover letters are notorious for embellishment and exaggeration. The fact is most resumes are written with a specific job in mind, crafted to address a specific job description. Few people create a generic resume any more that they send out to all job openings. It’s a game to see how well you can parrot back the buzzwords used in the job description seamlessly into your resume.

The sad part is that this practice isn’t limited to the meaningless words above−many people also parrot back more concrete and critical capabilities that they don’t really have−witness many LinkedIn profiles−it’s a game to see how many “skills and expertises” they can add to their profile.

The problem is we start believing the bullshit we fabricate on our resumes and profiles and the reality is most often we don’t know what these words really mean. Do you think people really know what it means to be creative? Shakespeare was creative; you’re probably not (unless your use my definition above). This contributes to the largely narcissist, self-serving attitudes that permeate the modern workplace and why resumes, in and of themselves, are worthless as a gauge to determining whether someone is the perfect candidate for a job.

This mentality to have to use (i.e., to bullshit) the latest and vague buzzwords to pump ourselves up and make us look good, is what I call “The Beeblebrox Syndrome.” This is named after one of the lead characters, Zaphod Beeblebrox, in Douglas Adams’ humorous science fiction story; The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. In the book, Beeblebrox is opportunistic and narcissistic and lacks any empathy for those around him. His famous quote; “If there’s anything more important than my ego around here, I want it caught and shot now,” explains The Beeblebrox Syndrome perfectly.

Back in the 1980s Ford Motor Co. had a marketing slogan, “Quality Is Job One.” Catchy slogan; however in the final analysis it did little to raise the quality of Ford’s cars. For that matter all American cars of 1980s and 90s vintage were junk and thus there’s no doubt why the Japanese auto makers soon took center stage in car quality and thus sales. Ford’s car quality, and that of the rest of American auto industry, really didn’t see any improvement until the 2000s.

For the Japanese their preeminence was spawned by the work of people like W. Edwards Deming (1900 – 1993), an American statistician, professor, author, lecturer and consultant, who is best known for his work in Japan from 1950 onward, where he taught Japan’s top management how to improve design and product quality, through the application of statistical methods. The rest is history regarding the quality of Japanese cars.

For American car makers it really wasn’t until they had lagged so far behind that they were on the verge of going out of business that they finally got a clue; that buyers wanted quality products not just cheap throw-aways. It wasn’t until faced with bankruptcy that they finally realized that quality really is job one.

Why did the Japanese seems to “get it” while the American car industry didn’t? Well for starters the Japanese had Deming. Deming preached what is now known as The Deming Philosophy, which simply states;

• When organizations focus primarily on quality, defined by the following ratio;

Quality = Results of work efforts / Total costs

              Then quality tends to increase and costs fall over time.

• However, when organizations focus primarily on costs, costs tend to rise and quality declines over time

With the help of Deming the Japanese focused on the first path, focusing their attentions on product quality and they reaped the rewards, not only in the quality of their products but in the market share they captured. If Deming’s principle is right then their resultant declining costs, coupled with increased market share, meant in the final analysis that they were making more money. More money allowed more investment in Quality and the cycle continues, thus increasing quality = increased profits. What’s really important to grasp here is that increased profits happened even after making short-term investments in quality; investments which seemed to fly in the face of reporting increased short-term profits.

It’s so simple it would appear to be a no-brainer, however when we look at the American business mentality that’s still around today, we find something that defies logic. In American (and many other countries) the primary focus of management is on costs, not quality. As I write in my book, Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw, these are the companies that try to “shrink their way to greatness.” These are the companies that, in the interest of cost savings, are constantly and routinely having lay-offs−trying to shrink into greatness. In the end, these are the companies that (as Seth Godin describes) are on a “relentless race to the bottom.” So in the end companies with this mentality get exactly what they create. And the funny and sad part is they didn’t get it in the 1980s, the 90s, the 2000s and they don’t get it now. Why doesn’t the rest of American business learn from Deming and the auto industry?

It’s because this financial (cost) obsession is truly a pandemic from which most modern organizations suffer. In his August 2011 article “Harpagon’s Miseries,” Giancarlo Livraghi calls this obsession, “Harpagon’s Syndrome.’  The syndrome is derived from the main character, Harpagon in the play L’Avare (English; The Miser), a 1668 five-act satirical comedy by French playwright Molière.

In the play, Harpagon is a wealthy, money-mad old widower. He loves money more than reputation, honor, or virtue, and spends his time watching and guarding over it. It’s what destroys his relationships with the world. Fearful of being robbed and killed for his wealth, he buries his money in his garden. As for the real treasures−his children−he marginalizes and dominates them. He deprives them of independence by denying them money. The best way to describe Harpagon’s condition is that he’s in such a constant state of fretting about his money that he becomes a tyrant. He commands absolute obedience of those around him and fences in his world to protect himself.

Organizations also suffer from Harpagon Syndrome and do the same fretting about the financial condition of their business. As we know, modern business is completely motivated by the short-term monetary measures that the market requires of them, so they fret about short-term profits and will do whatever it takes to maximize them−which usually equates to being in constant cost-cutting mode. And, of course, we know most companies only know how to cut costs by laying-off people. Organizations infected with this condition become unbending in their belief that what they’re doing, and the processes they have in place will guarantee their success. As those processes fail to provide the necessary results, Harpagon’s Syndrome worsens. It’s this syndrome that determines whether an organization is being led, or being ruled.

You might say you can’t blame them, the market requires the constant profit growth, but as the auto industry has shown, there’s another path to achieve this that’s not that well-trodden. If companies would only focus first (job one) on the quality of their products and services they would come out further ahead in the long run. And I have to add here that “quality of the product” doesn’t just pertain to quality workmanship of the people producing the product−it also means “quality of product design.” Quality starts with how the product is designed and this is where the time and money investments need to be made if an organization truly wants revenue and profit growth. Without that, all the “lean manufacturing” and “six-sigma” initiatives won’t help a company achieve what the Japanese have.

In my book Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw, I lampoon the “metrics mentality’ of modern business. Modern business measures everything to the n^th degree, however meaningless it might be to the long-run health of the organization. Of course, the majority of metrics on the list are all related to “costs.” What’s interesting however is despite the laser focus on costs; the costs many businesses typically don’t pay attention to are the “costs of quality.” This is not the cost to produce a better product or service, it’s the cost incurred when not building a quality product (rework, repair, customer returns, lost business, reputation, pride, etc.).

When quality is high there is a corresponding reduction in the cost of quality. Thus this is ultimately the only metric that makes a difference and the most important cost to measure. Businesses need to focus their attention on designing quality products instead of chasing cost as if it were a commodity. Cost is a “result” of how business is conducted not an entity onto itself. The Deming Philosophy is just as pertinent in today’s business environment as it was in the 1980s.

As a kid (and even into adulthood, I’ll admit) I loved The Three Stooges. Part of the allure of the Stooges is their behavior; the slapping, hitting, and poking which are quite satisfying to watch because everyone fanaticizes doing this to a co-worker at one time or the other. What may not be obvious at first is that the Stooges behavior and antics quite nicely parallel the modern day workplace. Little did I know, but in watching the Stooges as a kid, I was getting a glimpse into what work life would be like for me as an adult.

Many of the Stooges predicaments, escapades and behavior mirror the practices and behavior of modern business management. If we view the Stooges as a business organization we can see why. Moe is the CEO and Curly and Larry are his loyal sycophants. Their constant in-fighting is a good metaphor for the interpersonal games, played jockeying for position in the pecking order, that preoccupy modern management teams. As in most management teams, Moe is firmly ensconced in his dubious leadership position and Larry and Curly, with high hopes of reaching that level someday, are left with being treated with condescension and verbal and physical abuse.

Moe, Larry, and Curley can teach us a lot of valuable lessons about how modern management works. In fact, it could serve as a perfect metaphor for the bumbling of many a management team. What kind of lessons? Well, let’s take a close look at a typical episode of The Three Stooges and we’ll quickly find out why…

In one of my favorite episodes, “A Plumbing We Will Go,” the 3 heroes play dubious plumbers and they have been called out to a large mansion to fix a leaky pipe in the basement. However, in the story the Stooges manage to destroy the entire plumbing system in the home in grand fashion. Curly attempts to repair a leak in the upstairs bathroom and ends up constructing a maze of pipes that traps him. Larry digs up the front lawn in search of the water shutoff valve, never finding it. In addition, Moe and Curly end up connecting a water pipe with another nearby pipe housing electrical wires, leading to water exiting every electrical appliance in the mansion.

Our first glimpse into how management works comes right at the beginning of the story when they first arrive at the house. Let’s listen in…

MOE: “Where’s the leak?”

BUTLER: “In the basement.”

LARRY: “Where’s the basement?”

CURLY: “Upstairs!”

MOE: “Up to the basement!”

LARRY and CURLY: “To the basement!”

Once in the basement they find the leaking pipe…

LARRY: “How can ya fix it while it’s leakin’?”

MOE: “I wonder where you shut the water off.”

CURLY: “I got an idea!”

MOE: “What is it?”

CURLY: “Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water! That’s it.”

MOE: “That’s what?”

CURLY: “Water always runs downhill.”

MOE: “On your way.”

CURLY: “Where?”

MOE: “Up the hill and shut off the water.”

While silly, this exchange does humorously mirror the lack of concrete and focused direction of many management teams and how they don’t have a clue how to deal with the many threats that their business will face. Many businesses have “leaks” in their business plan and daily operations that are never really “plugged up.” Like the Stooges, most management teams really don’t know where they want to go with the business, and with no clear idea of what direction to take, they will often times make incorrect assumptions about their business environment, how to run their company, or even their true core competencies.

Speaking of core competencies…

MOE: “What do you know about plumbin’?”

LARRY: “Nuttin’!”

MOE: “That’s fine, gimme a hand.”

CURLY: “A simple job for simple people!”

This dialog speaks to the lack of true qualifications (competencies) of many management teams. Most top level management teams, and their sycophantic followers, are comprised of people who have risen to the top only based on their sociopathic “talents” and not on proven business skills, and certainly not on proven leadership qualities. Just like with the Stooges leadership becomes nothing more than bullying.

Let’s go back to our heroes… While Curly leaves the basement and goes to an upstairs bathroom, back in the basement Moe and Larry are trying to stop the water leak.

MOE: “Get me a wrench for the pipe.”

Larry hands Moe the wrench and Moe starts tightening the leaky pipe.

MOE: “Give it a tap and get things started.”

Larry taps the pipe very lightly with a hammer.

MOE: “What’s the matter, ‘Muscles,’ ya weak? Hit it!”

Larry reaches the hammer back and swings it forward forcefully, but the back of the hammer pokes a hole through a big pipe behind him, causing smoke to come out the hole.

MOE: “Hey, you smokin’?”

LARRY: “No, but the pipe is!”

This is the perfect metaphor for the sad problem solving capabilities of many management teams, who many times create more problems than they solve, or create new problems as they attempt to solve an unrelated one. And just like with the Stooges, don’t forget; for management every problem is a nail and the solution always requires a hammer.

The scene continues with Moe looking up and jumping in shock when he sees the smoke coming out of the pipe.

MOE: “Why, ya lamebrain! You wanna get us suffocated? Put some tape on it!”

LARRY: “We forgot the tape!”

MOE: “Well, we had to forget somethin’, or we wouldn’t be plumbers! Go on! Find somethin’ to wrap around it!”

Moe and Larry end up wrapping a woman’s girdle around the pipe to stop the smoke from leaking out, providing a perfect metaphor for how many management teams’ Band-Aid, short-term solution, mentality takes over when they face an unexpected problem. Few problems ever receive the time it takes to fix the problem right and once and for all.

MOE: “I wonder why that egghead don’t shut that water off!”

LARRY: “Hey, I saw a guy shut the water off once in the front yard.”

MOE: “When I want your advice, I’ll ask for it! Hey, go out in the front yard and shut the water off!”

This gives us a glimpse into the tendency of management to not accept valid, constructive suggestions from anyone and how, many times, they will in the end adopt the suggestions of others as their own.

Let’s look in on Curly who’s in the bathroom. After interrupting someone taking a shower, he attempts to shut of the water faucet and it breaks off. The water starts flowing out the faucet. Curly’s solution is to screw a pipe to the shower faucet, not noticing yet that the water is coming through the pipe. He discovers this and his solution is to screw a second pipe to the first one. As expected, water comes through this one as well. Needless to say he keeps this up until he’s completely surrounded by pipes, yet still has the water coming out the end. Surrounded by a huge maze of pipes connected to the shower faucet, he notices that there’s no way for him to get out.

Curly’s actions provide us the perfect metaphor again for the Band-Aid mentality to solving problems. To this we add the dimension that, many times, management acts to only kick the can (the problem) down the road, with the laughable intent to solve it at some time in the future. This is why most organizations are rife with recurring problems that never really get solved. Curly also provides us a metaphor for how often the actions of management can trap them into failed strategies. Here the strategy of connecting more pipes reflects the tendency to want to put good money after bad in failed ventures. Attaching pipe, after pipe, hoping the leak will stop represents the trap many organizations have in which they keep doing the same think over again somehow expecting a different result−the true definition of insanity.

As the scene continues, Curly tries to free himself by lifting the maze of pipes up, but fails. He looks down and notices a hand-drill next to him and he begins drilling holes in the floor to let out the water. Unfortunately the water is raining down on Moe in the basement. As expected, Curly comes crashing down through the bathroom floor into the basement and breaks a pipe.

MOE: “Why, you lamebrain, you! Look whatcha did to the pipe! Go on, get another piece of pipe!”

Curly walks over to an electrical junction box and pulls a pipe out from the box.

CURLY: “Hmm! Hey, no wonder the water don’t woik! The pipe is plugged up with wires!”

MOE: “A fine place for wires! Well, drag ’em outta there and get that pipe in here.”

Curly starts pulling the wires from the pipe and ends up with a big pile of wire next to his feet. Finally at the end of the wire, Moe and Curly connect the electrical pipe to the water pipe and the leak stops. However in the kitchen, the chef turns on the light switch and water starts flowing into the bulb. It fills completely with water and then explodes.

This provides another example of how many times management will make knee-jerk actions to attempt to solve problems without really thinking through of the options available and the ramifications of those options. Management’s decisions and actions most always have a profound effect on the rest of an organization.

In another scene Larry is outside the mansion digging a hole in the ground. He’s several feet underground now. The butler runs over to him.

BUTLER: “Stop it! Stop it! You’re ruining the lawn!”

LARRY: “Don’t tell me how to run my business! Beat it!”

BUTLER: “Put that sod back where it belongs!”

Larry throws a big sod piece with the shovel and hits the butler in the face.

This provides a glimpse into management’s inability to take criticism about how they’re running the business. They always know best and make sure anyone who questions them gets the proverbial piece of sod thrown in their face.

In this story, as with all Stooges stories, any and all problems the boys encounter are blamed on Larry and Curly. As CEO, Moe always held them responsible for all screw-ups or bad decisions−even when the decisions were his. This is not unlike real business management where this practice is called “plausible deniability.”

Moe’s comment below says it all about how management perceives their worth to the organization.

MOE: “If it wasn’t for me, where would we be?”

So what are the true management lessons the Three Stooges teach us?

• Sociopathic Leadership – Moe is clearly the leader and most definitely a sociopathic bully. Moe is overbearing, dictatorial, condescending, and critical of everything that Curly and Larry do, playing the game of “divide and conquer” with them so as to maintain his control. Of course, Moe takes abuse one step further and makes it physical, but remember physical abuse is not completely absent in the modern workplace.
• Sycophants – Curly and Larry are Moe’s trusted, but inept, sycophants. They will continue to take Moe’s abuse as he assigns them tasks that they are incapable of performing.
• Lack of Teamwork – Each Stooge has his own role but they are not all working as a team and their actions typically only make whatever situation they’re in worse.
• Lack of Planning – Their plans are created on the fly in reaction to events versus a clear thought out strategic plan. Like the Stooges, most management teams spend their time reacting to problems rather than planning to avoid them.
• Problem Solving – Every time they are faced with a problem they will put a Band-Aid solution in place without looking for a long term solution. In business this manifests itself in the mentality that dictates that short-term profits are preferred over making investments that benefit the long-term.
• Blamestorming – With every misstep the Stooges make Moe never takes responsibility and will always blame either Curly or Larry while doling out the appropriate verbal denigration, slap, poke or punch as punishment. This perfectly reflects how “plausible deniability” works in modern management.

So the next time you’re watching, what might appear to be, a mindless sitcom take note of how the characters’ idiotic behaviors might just mirror what you’re experiencing at work or have witnessed in your company’s management team. You’d be surprised at how art always gives us a glimpse into reality. Plus recognizing the idiocy in your workplace makes it much easier to understand, cope with, and endure your fate−you’ll actually begin to see the humor in the everyday happenings around you and this will make you happier in your career.

The 1865 novel Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland was written by English author Charles Dodgson under the pseudonym Lewis Carroll. Most people have probably read the book or seen the 1951 Disney movie. The book and movie have spawned the buzzphrase; “down the rabbit hole” which has become a common metaphor in pop-culture and also the business world. Carroll’s book has also been analyzed as a metaphor for the transition from adolescence to adulthood, i.e., the inevitable loss of childhood innocence. I also believe that Carroll’s book serves as a perfect metaphor for some of the behaviors we find in modern business management.

Let me explain.

In Chapter 8 of the story, Alice reaches the Garden, which has been her goal from Chapter 1 of the story. Alice believes that reaching the Garden will end the frustration she’s built up so far, in her travels through Wonderland, having to deal with personalities like The Rabbit, the Cheshire Cat and the Mad Hatter. However once she’s there, the Garden proves to be as frustrating as the rest of Wonderland. Alice’s experiences in her quest for the Garden provide the perfect metaphor for the struggles everyone will experience on their career path to the top. For the average worker in the modern workplace the rise to the top can be nothing short of frustrating in having to deal with difficult and egocentric people.

Carroll’s use of the card suit “hearts” also has metaphoric meaning. This represents the idea that the Garden is the heart of Wonderland; the seat of power for the King and Queen of Hearts. The Garden represents the ultimate career prize; the top level of management and Alice’s frustration once she reaches the Garden represents how frustrated we become when once we reach that level and realize things are not better there, but worse.

Once in the Garden, Alice quickly discovers that the Garden provides no satisfaction, in fact it borders on a nightmare experience because the rules and practices of the characters in the Garden are just as idiotic and maddening as the rest of Wonderland.

Once in the Garden the Queen invites Alice to a game of croquet. Alice soon learns that croquet in Wonderland is quite difficult. The balls are live hedgehogs, the mallets are live flamingoes, and the hoops are the card-people, bent over so that their bodies make arches. No one is waiting their turn and the game is shear chaos.

The way Carroll describes the Queen’s croquet game provides a glimpse into the workings at the upper management level. The players in the game are all loyal sycophants to the Queen (they have to be or they’ll get their head cut off) and Alice is a newcomer to the game, just as once you reach the executive suite you are the newcomer to a game that’s fundamentally different than any other you’ll play in your career. The portrayal of the chaos of all the players playing at once represents the reality of the world of upper management where personal agendas are paramount and in play all at the same time.

Just like in management, the quarrelling and one-upmanship amongst all the players puts the Queen in a furious mood, and she went stomping about, and shouting ‘Off with his head!’ or ‘Off with her head!’ Just as in the world of the executive suite, management has only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small; metaphorically ‘Off with their head!’

Needless to say, Alice worries that the Queen’s fury will be turned against her, just as any newcomer to the executive suite will feel when seeing the reaction that the sociopaths have to any challenging situation. Despite not as yet having any dispute with the Queen; she knew that it might happen at any time. She thought, ‘what will become of me? They’re dreadfully fond of beheading people here; the great wonder is, that there’s any one left alive!’ Metaphorically speaking this represents the fact that at any time a person can fall from grace in the eyes of sociopathic management.

In the story Alice was looking about for some way of escaping the Garden, and wondering whether she could get away without being seen when she noticed the Cheshire Cat’s appearing in the air. ‘Now I shall have somebody to talk to,’ she thought. ‘How are you getting on?’ said the Cat and Alice began an account of the croquet game because she was glad she had someone she could commiserate with. ‘I don’t think they play at all fairly,’ Alice said, ‘and they all quarrel so dreadfully one can’t hear oneself speak. And they don’t seem to have any rules in particular; at least, if there are, nobody attends to them. You’ve no idea how confusing it is.’

The Queen’s Court of Cards, like people of power in real life, represents the ranks of the sycophants that surround the average sociopathic leader. In this rarified world the players rely on rank for their status and gaining rank is most often obtained by reducing the rank of others through the myriad interpersonal games that I detail in my book, Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw. Carroll masterfully turns rank into a game, mocking it, depicting these ridiculous people as frightening and dangerous. Despite Alice beginning the game thinking she had nothing to fear, as she spends more time with the Queen of Hearts, she becomes increasingly anxious.

The way the croquet game was played, and Alice trying to understand their rules (or lack thereof), is central to the business metaphor. Alice is learning to get along in an arena of powerful people just like anyone entering the upper ranks of business. Alice’s problem is realizing that no one is paying any attention to the rules. This serves as the perfect metaphor for the fact that learning to “play the game” means more than learning the rules. To understand this better check out my book, Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw which provides in-depth detail of the myriad “games” that play out daily in the average workplace.

Later the Cheshire Cat asks Alice: ‘How do you like the Queen?’

Alice responds: ‘Not at all, she’s so extremely likely to win that it’s hardly worth finishing the game.’

Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, despite being just a children’s fantasy tale, provides much insight into the reality of the business world. To rise to the top levels of business you’ll meet many people along the way acting out their own agenda and you’ll endure much frustration. However, once you’ve obtained the prize life doesn’t get any easier. In fact it gets more complex and difficult. Alice’s final observation about the Queen represents the feeling you’ll have when you’ve finally reached the top of management and you must deal with the sociopathic behavior of those around you, and you ask yourself whether the prize was at all worth the trip.

My last post talked about the “Action Item Syndrome” that can cripple an organization and divert all its attention to chasing meaningless issues or problems to the detriment of the health of the overall business. In this type environment every little issue, or problem, gets blown out of proportion and is elevated (via action item) to crises status within the organization. Ever wonder how these type behaviors take root and poison the very culture of the organization?

The belief that any problem or issue, no matter the size, is much bigger and more critical than it really is in reality is called the “Alice-in-Wonderland Syndrome.” It’s named after the lead character in the novel written by Lewis Carroll and is based on the experience of Alice when she fell down the rabbit hole. In Wonderland everything is distorted in size.

The clinical Alice-in-Wonderland Syndrome is a disorienting neurological condition that affects human perception. Patients suffering this syndrome either experience microspia or macrospia. Microspia is the abnormal condition where the person sees things smaller than they really are. Macrospia, on the other hand, is a condition where the individual sees everything larger than they actually are and is the condition that is in effect when an organization suffers the Alice-in-Wonderland Syndrome. While the actual malady pertains to how people perceive objects around them, in the case of organizations it refers to how they perceive situations, i.e., their perception of events around them.

In an organization with this crippling condition, every problem, no matter how inconsequential, becomes larger than life and is blown out of proportion to its real threat to the organization. Little issues that, in a normal organization, would be handled by front-line supervision, need to percolate up through the organization to the upper most levels of management. It’s not that these front-line supervisors can’t solve problems it’s that they’re not allowed to solve problems without management help.

Organizations with this malady suffer a universal sense of paranoia and the organization becomes a culture of fear, and fear is incapacitating. People do ultimately become unable to solve problems without the intervention of the upper management. Every little issue is brought immediately to the forefront and the organization suffers the “student body left” knee-jerk reaction routinely. Action items abound and the organization is mired down in fire-fighting to the detriment of the overarching goals of the organization. When management is stricken with the Alice in Wonderland Syndrome their perverted view of the world eventually seeps into the very culture of the organization.

The Alice in Wonderland Syndrome is closely related to the Chicken Little Syndrome that I cover in my book, Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw. In this syndrome management is crippled with the fear of anything that will upset their house of cards, thus they become afraid of any surprise that may derail the business or reveal how ill prepared they are for handling any problem or conflict that threatens their business. These are the organizations with a weak vision of what they want to be and an even weaker strategy for how to get there.

So how does The Alice in Wonderland Syndrome get started in an organization? Remember the old truism, “the neck of every bottle is at the top.” In modern business no truer statement can be made. This syndrome always starts with the upper most tier of the organization, infecting individuals in how they perceive themselves in relation to everyone and everything around them. In other words, they have an altered view of their own self-image seeing themselves as omnipotent figures and indestructible. However, their sub-conscience knows the truth and thus they are gripped with the fear of anything that may upset their apple cart and tarnish their facade. This explains nicely the narcissistic behavior of many sociopaths in management positions. They begin to see themselves as bigger than life and deserving to the position they hold. And they will try to hold that position at any cost.

Remember in the book Alice is changed in size when she eats of the mushroom? But in business, the mushroom is replaced by ego and hubris and the thing that changes size are the leaders’ self-perception, and more importantly, their perception of all that is happening around them. When added to the fact that most organizations are just one crisis away from non-existence, the stakes become higher every time there’s a problem. Thus every problem is blown out of proportion to its threat. When this crippling behavior infects an organization it filters down the organization until all are infected.

The irony is that the Alice in Wonderland Syndrome becomes another contributor to the ultimate demise of a poorly run organization, all under the guise of trying to save the organization. It’s like a cancer ultimately killing the host.

My last post talked about meetings and the cowboys who make them one of the most dreaded events in business. Attending a meeting that you know will accomplish nothing makes the experience all the more demotivating, however the most dreadful aspect of attending a meeting is the threat that you may be singled out to perform some useless task only because someone else deems it a priority. When this happens you’ve fallen victim to the infamous “Action Item Syndrome.”

From my experience “action items” are another paralyzing problem for business. The propensity to have to assign action items as a result of every meeting or conversation, no matter how meaningless the subject matter, is a typical ploy of micromanaging management that has no real strategy for how to build the business. This is the “ready-fire-aim” way to exercise command and control superiority over everyone because making the student body veer left or right at their whim is one of their favorite games and makes them feel powerful.

When faced with an action item, you must ask yourself this: Does this action do anything to build the business? If not, then it’s either firefighting, or worse it’s just a plain old ineffective use of time that can be better spent on something that builds the business and increases customer satisfaction. Obviously, if you really have a fire, firefighting is OK, but most often action items are doled out to address issues that are fabricated by people who thrive on the disruption they inflict. This is the “Chicken Little Syndrome’ in which the sky is always falling. It can be found in most sociopathic management teams, because they’re not happy unless the organization is mired down in chasing fabricated issues or problems. They thrive on the high drama that one crisis after another provides.

In my book, Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw, I address this problem; a result of the universal “fear of surprises” that grips most management teams. Most managers don’t handle surprises very well, so their natural inclination is to constantly be on the offensive to try and fix problems before they happen. This explains why there’s such a fixation on being “proactive.” However, the fact is this mentality actually “creates” problems to solve, i.e., it fuels the action item syndrome. Things that really aren’t problems get blown out of proportion and addressing them becomes the sole purpose of the workforce to the exclusion of more important (business building) endeavors.

Time is the most valuable asset for any organization, yet most waste it with actions that don’t do anything to build the business or enhance customer satisfaction. This is exacerbated by the fact that most action items are split-second in creation thus having little methodical thinking behind their creation. They are knee-jerk reactions to some stimulus that more often than not is meaningless in the grand scheme of the business. Because of this, most action items that are not clearly defined, thus can only lead to a mediocre job of executing on them. This further makes the time wasted on them more deplorable.

Another aspect of this syndrome is that action items beget more action items. No matter how thorough you complete an action item it will lead to follow-on actions. Also, the more action items you successfully survive the more you’ll be seen as the go to person for these useless goat ropes.

However, don’t miss the action item due date, because if you do, you obviously don’t have a “sense of urgency.” Action items are another way that management can hold people accountable, albeit in a perverted sense of the term. Remember “accountability” is just another word for blamestorming. In this context, the successful completion of an action item is how management measures whether people are performing their jobs, i.e., are held accountable. Forget real job duties, as long as an action item has been completed on time, that’s all that matters.

The executive, or manager, who’s fixated on dishing out action items, truly believes that this management style is contributing to making the organization more efficient. However, efficiency shouldn’t be the prime directive. Effectiveness, e.g. customer satisfaction, is the key to organizational success and action items are the antithesis of effectiveness.

If assigned an action item you should first ask yourself; is this action worthy of my time and does it contribute to the bottom line? If not then the action is not effective, despite how efficient you may be in completing the action on time. Most management teams mistake their ready-fire-aim approach as being efficient, when in fact they should be trying to be effective. Unfortunately, none truly grasp the difference between efficiency and effectiveness or realize that there’s an opportunity cost to tying up their staff chasing useless action items.

Comic author Dave Barry observed, “If you had to identify in one word the reason why the human race has not achieved, and never will achieve, its full potential, that word would be ‘meetings.’

Meetings truly can be the most worthless undertaking in business not because they aren’t well-intentioned, but because of the people and personalities who attend the meeting.

In her May 16, 2012 Wall Street Journal article “Meet the Meeting Killers,” Sue Shellenbarger describes spot-on the different personalities that are found in your average business meeting.

“The Jokester – assault with a deadly punch line

The Dominator – greatly overestimates value of his/her personal views

The Naysayer – premeditated negativity

The Rambler – inflicts death by boredom

The Quiet Plotter – practices passive-aggressive insubordination”

While any of the above personalities can derail a well-intentioned meeting, in my book, Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw, I detail the horrid meeting phenomenon where the organizational Cowboys (Shellenbarger’s Dominators) take control of meetings and make the atmosphere little better than a rodeo.

I’m sure some of you may have been to a genuine rodeo. It’s a sport that arose out of the working practices of cattle herding in the United States’ West and is based on the skills required of the cowboys to effectively control the herd. Today it’s a sporting event that tests the skill and speed of the cowboy. The rodeos of today let the most skilled of cowboys show off their roping, riding, and other talents. Being a rodeo cowboy is an exciting occupation, where the strongest are the ones who take home the victory.

In a real rodeo the spotlight is on the cowboy who rides the bull or the bronco to the screams of his adoring crowd. Just like a real cowboy, organizational cowboys will exhibit their (people) herding and roping skills in the myriad meetings, which plague the modern workplace landscape. They’re surrounded by a multitude of sycophants who are there to support their theatrical performance.

But instead of real riding and roping, they use mind games to do some metaphorical riding and roping to manipulate a meeting agenda and force their will on the unsuspecting cattle.

Most, if not all, rodeo events are performed by a single cowboy, much like most meetings are dominated by a single person. However, there is one event−team roping−that is noteworthy. This is when two cowboys team up to rope and subdue the helpless steer. Meetings also have the equivalent of this team-roping event. Should you be the unlucky target of sociopathic cowboys in a meeting, you’ll feel much like the poor steer, as the cowboy and one of his sycophantic henchmen double team their attack on you.

When a sociopathic cowboy is allowed to dominate a meeting, he dominates through the games I describe in my book; “Stump the Dummy” and the “Divide and Conquer” being his favorites. But he’s not averse to using the “double bind” or “gaslighting” to quell any opposition. As such, a meeting becomes a typical place in which to find you’ve, all of a sudden, been thrown under the bus. His aggressive style includes diatribes, criticizing other’s opinions (even when they’re based in fact) and the most common, interrupting and talking over others.

Cowboys, like all sociopaths, love meetings; their equivalent of the rodeo. While meetings are held for any number of valid serious reasons, e.g., project status meetings, or meetings in which a decision must be made on some issue facing the organization, cowboys especially enjoy the regularly scheduled meetings that have no purpose other than to provide them a bully pulpit. The most common of these meetings is the infamous and dreaded staff meeting.

Today’s management culture is infatuated with the regularly scheduled staff meeting. Staff meetings are usually held under the guise of building teamwork, but in reality all they offer is the perfect opportunity for management cowboys to practice their command and control techniques over their sycophants.

While all of Shellenbarger’s meeting personalities are dangerous, the dominator (the cowboy) is the personality that makes meeting so dreaded and a waste of time.

Do meetings at your company generally feel like a waste of time? Are they dominated by workplace bullies and cowboys using it as a forum to rant, rave and manipulate? Are people intimidated into silence? Do meetings at your company have vague objectives and no pre-published agendas? If you answered yes, then you’re in an organization with dysfunctional management. In an environment like that, when there are no clear objectives, and ineffective management, it can be tough to determine what’s important and what isn’t.

In his book Claw your Way to the Top, Dave Barry tells us that the modern corporate meeting can be compared to a funeral, in the sense that you have “a gathering of people who are wearing uncomfortable clothing and would rather be somewhere else. The major differences are that most funerals have a definite purpose and reach a definite conclusion, whereas meetings generally drone on until the legs of the highest-ranking person present fall asleep. Also, nothing is ever really buried in a meeting. An idea may look dead, but it will always reappear at another meeting later on.”

Speaking of things that are dead and should be buried, the worst outcome of any meeting is to be assigned an “action item.” In my next post we’ll tackle this most dreaded task that you’ll face in your career.

In my last post I talked about organizations that practice witch hunting, and if you find yourself in one, my advice was to find another job, hopefully in an organization that doesn’t need to sacrifice individuals to stay in business. Living in an organization such as this can be stressful but finding another (good) job can be a stressful process in, and of, itself. Changing jobs can be a case of jumping from the frying-pan into the fire. Despite that, let’s see why you might want to just make that jump.

Remember the old TV game show Let‘s Make a Deal, with host Monty Hall? Suppose you’re on the show, and you’re given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a new car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1 [but the door is not opened], and the host, who knows what’s behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, “Do you want to switch your choice and pick door No. 2?” Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?

This then is what’s called the “The Monty Hall Dilemma.” The question: should the contestant switch doors is much like job searching?

Suppose you have a job in a dysfunctional organization where your future is questionable, i.e., you’re looking at door #1. You want to change jobs but you know there are many jobs out there that are the equivalent to the goat behind the door. What to do?

Since 1986 Marilyn Vos Savant, an American magazine columnist, author, lecturer, and playwright has written “Ask Marilyn”, a Sunday column in Parade magazine in which she solves puzzles and answers questions from readers on a variety of subjects. She addressed the Monty Hall Dilemma in one of her columns.

Vos Savant’s response to the question: “should the contestant switch to door #2?” was that the contestant should always switch to the other door. If the car is initially equally likely to be behind each door, a player who picks door #1 and doesn’t switch has a 1 in 3 chance of winning the car while a player who picks door #1 and does switch has a 2 in 3 chance. The host has removed an incorrect option from the un-chosen doors, so contestants who switch double their chances of winning the car. In this example, just substitute “good job” for car.

But the Monty Hall Dilemma as it applies to our job search scenario is a bit different than the contestant looking for the new car. The show contestant doesn’t know what’s behind door #1, but in our game you do know what’s behind the door: your current lousy job. Vos Savant’s recommendation still stands−you should pick another door, take the new job, and move on. I believe that to be sound advice (unless the offer from the new company sucks). If you find yourself caught in a bad work environment, or feel you have no future, change is necessary if you want to survive and better your career, i.e., you can’t find the “good” job unless you leave the “bad” one. Plus, if you don’t take the other door you’ll be kicking yourself forever regretting what “could have been.” From my own experience, the only way I discovered a good job was by leaving a bad one.

That said, we are all familiar with the expression―buyer beware. Sometimes our need to leave an evil job gets railroaded by this feeling. We talk ourselves into sticking it out at the old company because we have good workmates, stock options, etc. and add to that we have little quantifiable information about the new organization, i.e., we’re afraid it may be just as dysfunctional as the one we’re in.

We all have been duped by the “buyer beware syndrome” at some time. While at some level it can’t be ignored, but staying in a bad job just because you know all jobs are essentially the same is not a good career strategy. The first thing you must understand is that all organizations have their own level of dysfunctionality. So don’t let buyer beware make your career decisions for you. To survive in the modern workplace the last thing you should do is succumb to fear.

The key to changing jobs successfully is having a deep knowledge of the “workings of work,” i.e., how the workplace really works. That way you can ask the right questions when being interviewed. To gain that perspective I recommend that you read my book, Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw, for it will provide you the necessary insight into how the typical workplace really works. Remember, the challenge in job searching is finding one in which you can cope with whatever idiocy you’ll undoubtedly find and my book can help with that.

Don’t feel alone as companies are also faced with the Monty Hall Dilemma when hiring new employees. The worshipped best-of-the-best prospective employee is behind one of the doors in the game. Never satisfied with their first pick (door #1) they keep searching (picking what’s behind another door) thinking that’s where the best-of-the-best prize employee lies.

The difference is they just may well be hiring the best of the best but seldom really recognize it. The fact is when an organization hires an employee they never really look behind the door, i.e., understand the employees’ skills and unleash the employee’s potential. They hire him, or her, and then cast them out into the organization’s dysfunctional culture, and when the employee doesn’t measure up to the artificial standards they have envisioned, they fault the employee as a bad hire. They write him up with a bad performance review, lay him off and then start the search for the best-of-the-best all over again, i.e. they just pick another door.

Ironically, that’s probably the exact scenario in which you found yourself that made you want to look for a new job in the first place?

Last week my post dealt with the practice of plausible deniability (euphemistically called accountability) and the Scapegoat Mechanism−the management practice of singling out an individual, or group as the source of a problem and then the subsequent punishment of that person, or group. This week I want to cover the process leading up to the Scapegoat Mechanism. By this I mean the process by which the scapegoat is identified and the punishment justified. This process in most organizations is called “witch hunting.” To better understand this think of it this way; scapegoating is the identification (naming) of the target person, or group, and witch hunting is the process of searching for, or creating if necessary the supporting evidence. Sometimes the scapegoat is identified first and other times the result of the witch hunt is the identification of the scapegoat.

Freedictionary.com defines a witch hunt as; an investigation carried out ostensibly to uncover subversive activities but actually used to harass and undermine those with differing views, or; a rigorous campaign to round up or expose dissenters on the pretext of safeguarding the welfare of the public. The more literal definition of a witch hunt is; a search for evidence of witchcraft or witches. This last definition better reflects how witch hunting applies to the workplace with the key words being “search for evidence.”

Note in the second definition the phrase: “safeguarding the welfare of the public.” Substitute “management,” for “public,” and you have the ultimate goal of witch hunting in the workplace. Recall from last week, where the goal of plausible deniability, or the Scapegoat Mechanism, was the safeguarding, or protecting, of the welfare of management. Witch hunting has the same ultimate goal−deflecting blame from management to some unsuspecting scapegoat so that management remains unscathed regardless of their true culpability.

Just like in the 15th through 18th centuries, when true witch hunts were carried out, accusations are made freely many times without merit and the accused is guilty as charged without any substantive evidence, or trial. The performance review process is, in a way, a witch hunt in that it’s used many times to build a case against an individual using vague, subjective criteria and innuendo so that management will have a reason for eliminate that person should they need a scapegoat.

Most organizations delude themselves by saying that they always focus on “process not people” when “investigating” the root causes of a problem or crises. However, it is truly a “witch hunt” when a person, or group, is the focus of the hunt. You can tell if an organization’s mindset is one of witch hunting when there’s little substantive change in how business is conducted as a result of this rigged problem solving process.

Is your organization fixated on witch hunting? Below are the obvious, and not so obvious, traits of an organization where witch hunting is prevalent:

• People cc the multitude on all emails as a CYA tactic as there’s generally a lack of trust, or respect, between management and employees
• People have Blackberry’s so they can monitor email at all hours for fear of being blind-sided and people initiate and respond to emails at all hours to save their skin
• There’s high turnover especially in management
• Managers are expected to know micro-details of every project on short notice
• Management “micromanages’
• Management preaching that the organization needs to be more “accountable” is heard often
• The organization is fixated on having a “sense of urgency” in everything it does and there are frequent “panics” whenever a problem arises. This “fire-fighting” mentality precludes people from doing a thorough job
• The organization has a history of completing critical tasks always at the 11^th hour
• The organization has protected fiefdoms and employees in different departments are considered competitors
• The organization treats certain people, or groups, as “second class citizens”

Now that you can identify an organization with the propensity to witch hunt let’s understand better the witch hunt mentality?

At the heart of the witch hunt mentality is what’s called the “frustration-aggression hypothesis.” It is a theory proposed by John Dollard, et al. in 1939 and can explain the propensity of management teams to practice witch hunting. The theory says that aggression (finding a person, or group, to blame) is the result of the blocking, or frustrating, of a person’s (i.e., management’s) efforts to attain a goal. Thus the frustration causes aggression, especially when the true source of the frustration cannot be challenged or changed. As a result, the aggression gets displaced usually onto an innocent target.

In the business context goals could mean many things but we could generalize it as “anything dealing with the success of management.” For example; management’s goal of higher revenue and profits, when not met, will frustrate them to the point of finding a person, or group, to blame. Instead of the ‘buck stops here” ethic, the person or group blamed in this example may be the sales department for not bringing in enough orders.

Another example might be when the company’s products are experiencing high failure rates in the hands of the customer, and the production folks are accused of shoddy workmanship and blamed for the failures. In both these cases the real reason may be the product design is shoddy hence why it fails and no one wants to buy it. Of course to solve this requires much soul searching and hard work and admitting to this isn’t as much fun as railroading someone, or group, into being the proxy to take the heat.

It’s hard to survive in an organization where witch hunting is a common practice, as sooner or later you may find yourself the target of the hunt. At the very least living in an organization like this is a stressful situation. My advice is to find another job, hopefully in an organization that addresses reality and management shares accountability and doesn’t need to sacrifice individuals to stay in business.