PUTTIN' COLOGNE ON THE RICKSHAW

In my book Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw one of the chapters is devoted to the management practice of plausible deniability. The term refers to the denial of blame by management and the assignment of responsibility (i.e., the blame) to the lower ranks of the organization. You’ll never hear this term in the halls of business. What you will probably hear is the “accountability” mantra. Management teams that practice plausible deniability will preach the need for accountability, and of course it typically doesn’t apply to them. I’ll explain why. In most organizations accountability is a one street. It is applied from top to bottom, from management down to people lower on the organizational ladder. In business plausible deniability and accountability are two sides to the same coin.

Plausible deniability has at its heart what’s called the “Scapegoat Mechanism.” This term was coined by René Girard in his 1986 book; The Scapegoat. As explained by Girard, the “Scapegoat Mechanism” arises when individuals (management), need to find a way to absolve themselves of guilt or blame when something goes awry. Someone or some group is identified as the source of the crisis. This person, or group, is then the scapegoat, i.e., held accountable. This scapegoat then absorbs all the blame from these individuals.

Once the identified victim(s) is eliminated, management is appeased, believing in their collective myth that it was the scapegoat that was the source of their problems.

The point where one person, or group, is singled out as the cause of a problem, or trouble, and is chastised or even expelled (fired or laid-off) is the “Scapegoat Mechanism” in action.

You can also tell when the “Scapegoat Mechanism” is in action when no other process, procedure, or business practice, etc. changes are made in the organization to prevent the problem from happening again−only the elimination of the scapegoat.

Social order is restored as management is content that they have solved the cause of the problem by removing the scapegoated individual. The Scapegoat Mechanism serves as a psychological relief valve for management and helps support their delusion that they are beyond reproach, in control and have held people accountable.

You’ve undoubtedly seen this mechanism in action in the news. When companies are failing, someone in the organization will be targeted as the sacrificial lamb. CEOs are not exempt from the scapegoat mechanism−having been targeted by the board of directors as the reason for the failing. The company will issue a press-release detailing the action taken to eliminate the source of their problems and then paint a rosy picture of how things will be different from then on.

Unfortunately the cycle begins again the next time there’s a problem.

Of course, scapegoating is just not relegated to a management practice. Everyone in the organization practices some form of scapegoating. Have you ever heard people talk of being “thrown under the bus?” This interpersonal game is a close cousin to scapegoating. The game of “Thrown under the Bus” is the everyday practice of scapegoating. In my book, Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw, I devote a chapter to the practice of throwing people under the bus.

What’s different about throwing someone under the bus and scapegoating is the intensity of the malice. When thrown under the bus, one usually is not expunged from the organization as most often happens when the scapegoat mechanism is in play. The effects are much more subtle. The intent of throwing someone under the bus is their embarrassment, or diminished status in the organization, not necessarily their expulsion.

There’s an old saying; if you want the biggest house in the neighborhood you can achieve it two ways; you can roll up your sleeves and build it, or you can tear everyone else’s house down. This is the mechanism in play when one is thrown under the bus.

Throwing someone under the bus is the favored tactical game in the workplace for people to torpedo perceived competitors, i.e. people vying for the same promotion, pay, prestige, etc. The purpose of throwing someone under the bus is to tarnish them so that they become the first name that comes to mind when management needs a scapegoat.

Walk the halls of management and you’ll hear many buzz-words on any given day. Here’s a sampling of the more common ones:

• Strategy
• Think outside the box
• Proactive
• Synergies
• Core competency
• Paradigm
• Down-sizing, right-sizing
• Upgrade the organization
• Best of the best
• On the Runway
• Win-win
• Low-hanging fruit
• Learning curve
• Value-add
• Accountability
• Multitasking
• Bandwidth

I’m sure you can add to this list. I’ve always found the proliferation of these buzzwords interesting and humorous. Why is business so addicted to their use? In his 2011 book, Good Strategy/Bad Strategy, Richard Rumelt has an interesting definition that I believe perfectly describes the purpose of these business buzzwords. He describes them as, “ritual recitations [that] tap into a deep human capacity to believe that intensely focused desire is magically rewarded.”

Probably the most overused buzzword is “strategy.” Seems if you put “strategic” in front of any task it makes it sound way more important and glamorous than it undoubtedly is. Here’s some examples; strategic initiative; strategic acquisition; strategic hiring, etc. By claiming their actions are strategic, any task somehow becomes more important and thus the people doing them more important. That’s the mindset behind the use of all the above buzzwords.

In addition to the list above, my all-time favorite is the word, “crisp.” This peach (pun intended) is most often heard in the context of communicating, but has also been applied to decision making.

The freedictionary.com defines crisp as: marked by clarity, and conciseness. I’m sure this is what management has in mind when they spout off the need to be crisp. However these attributes would be great if only they actually described business communication. Clarity, conciseness are probably the most missed attributes of communication in the modern organization. Ironically, management is the last to communicate clearly and concisely. For employees to communicate that way it must start with management for management sets the “tone” of the organization.

So let’s look at how being “crisp” really works in organizational communication.

Other than being the obvious adjective for a vegetable, we must look at its synonyms to describe what being “crisp” really means in organizational communication. The freedictionary.com lists a synonym as “curt” which is defined as; effectively cut short; a fast retort. Another synonym is “terse;” a response so curt as to be almost rude. These describe more accurately how communication really happens in the business context.

I do agree that some people need to get to the point more quickly when they talk, however; does management really want its employees being curt with each other, or being rude to each other, or when talking to customers? This may be a case of you get what you ask for.

There’s enough of this rude behavior going on in the world, it shouldn’t find its way into the workplace where cooperation and clear communication is paramount to success. In my book, Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw I devote a chapter to the epidemic of rudeness in the world and how that spills over into the modern workplace.

Or do we really want “crisp” decisions? Not if you want to stay in business. Business needs deliberate, methodical, thorough, knowledgeable, complete, and wholly-investigated background kinds of decisions.

The management proliferation of the need to be “crisp” is just more proof that the typical workplace is becoming more uncivil every day. This need to be “crisp” is also nurtured by the management mantra that everyone needs to have a “sense of urgency” about everything they do. Modern business is always in a rush, no matter how trivial, or complex the situation, decision, or problem. The need to be “crisp” is just more evidence of this urgency epidemic.

Employees talking clearly and concisely with each other should, of course, be encouraged, but the important thing for that to work is that effective communication must also be factual, accurate and untainted by personal agenda. My book details how personal agendas and the associated games that are played will trump all the buzzwords and are really what make organizational communication so dysfunctional.

Someone afflicted with “The Hubris Syndrome,” a term first coined by David Owen in his book of the same name, exhibits an exaggerated pride, overwhelming self-confidence and contempt for others. Someone suffering from The Hubris Syndrome rarely admits failure. The Hubris Syndrome becomes the signature trait of the sociopath that has risen to the top of your typical dysfunctional organization.

The Hubris Syndrome creates an attitude that does not allow these narcissists to learn from any mistakes they make, in fact they begin to believe that they can’t make a mistake. Rarely does a sociopath admit mistakes and usually they hide behind plausible deniability whenever the stuff does hit the fan. Thus they begin to develop the loathing they have for all who are below them in the organization because they see them as the source of all problems. These sociopaths are adored by their loyal sycophants and develop a mindset of invincibility. Thus, everyone in the organization begins to view them as invincible and as such the sociopath can rise to the top without ever really accomplishing anything of value.

In his 2011 book; A First Rate Madness: Uncovering the Links between Leadership and Mental Illness, Nassir Ghaemi talks about the Civil War general McClellan who exemplifies The Hubris Syndrome and the condition I describe above. Ghaemi sums up McClellan’s rise to the top; “He had not failed enough to realize that he was not as great as everyone [and he] said he was.”

McClellan’s story is an interesting one. George McClellan (1826 – 1885) was a major general during the American Civil War and served as the General-in-Chief of the Union Army. He rose to the top without ever really accomplishing anything substantial and thus never really failed at anything. However, after many defeats at the hands of the Confederate Army, McClellan’s leadership skills during battle came into question by President Lincoln, who eventually removed him from command. In 1864 he faced Lincoln as the Democratic Party candidate for President. Of course he lost. He then fell into obscurity.

Why is McClellan’s story important? If you’re suffering at the hands of a sociopath in a dysfunctional workplace, have faith that the time will come when they will ultimately become as McClellan. As history has taught us, they all go down in flames eventually. In business, The Hubris Syndrome has been the undoing of many a sociopath who was once thought to be invincible. As Ghaemi reminds us; “Had he not become king, no one would have doubted his fitness to rule.”

Have you ever been in a one-on-one discussion with your boss and he tells you “I’m listening” while he’s simultaneously typing a text message or reading an e-mail? Do you have that feeling that you’re not being taken seriously, that he’s not really paying you the attention you deserve, and he’s only giving you lip service? If so then you’ve fallen victim to the second (only to proactiveness) most prized ability in modern business: “the ability to multitask.” You see the boss is trying to multitask even to the detriment of his relationship with his subordinate.

Multitasking is defined as having the appearance of being able to handle more than one task at the same time−appearance being the operative word. The term originated in the computer industry and it refers to the ability of a computer to “apparently” process several tasks simultaneously.

The fact is many studies have been performed that debunk multitasking. In fact it’s been proven that when supposedly multitasking, most often more time is wasted than gained and supposed multitaskers are predisposed to error. The constant switching of focus between tasks causes more errors due to insufficient attention being provided any single task.

This is because our brains cannot fully focus on more than one thing at a time. What actually happens in multitasking is that you are rapidly changing your focus between tasks rather than simultaneous processing them, thus you’re really only doing a single task at a time, and doing it poorly at that. It also has been proven that it will take far longer—often double the time or more—to get the tasks done than if they were done sequentially.

I’m sure we’ve all seen this in job descriptions: you need to be a good multitasker to qualify for a job. During the interview for the job someone will ask you if you can multitask, and of course you regimentally answer “yes.” It’s the same answer when asked if you are “proactive.” What companies really should be asking is if you can handle multiple priorities and projects without freaking out.

Multitasking has become popular because of the pressure of the constant “sense of urgency’ that permeates modern business thinking. Everything is top priority and most managers will have numerous “irons in the fire” at any given time that must be accomplished, or solved, immediately or they’re labeled a bad manager.

What business really needs is people good at “prioritizing.” Just what does “prioritizing” mean? In their book Rework, Jason Fried & David Hansson tell us we should always focus on the “epicenter” of what’s happening right now. You should be focusing on what’s going to move the organization forward and not get mired down in fire-fighting. To be good at “prioritizing” you need to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff; be able to differentiate between what you “could do,” “want to do,” and most importantly, “have to do.”

Here’s an example. For all the bosses out there; when you’re having a discussion with one of your employees listen to him or her because that’s what you “have to do.” It may not be the thing you want to do (write a text message), or could do (read an email), but it’s the most important thing that you “can do.”

Business needs to give up the ghost of multitasking and trash it as a buzzword and instead promote the ability to prioritize. By promoting the ability to “prioritize” you’re telling your employees that you value their ability to think, reason and make decisions, i.e. that you trust them, which of course is the first step toward becoming a true servant leader.

In the book A First Rate Madness: Uncovering the Links between Leadership and Mental Illness, (© 2011), Nassir Ghaemi provides another good read along the lines of what makes for good leadership. In my book I talk about empathy being one of the key virtues all servant leaders have in common and it’s what’s lacking in the typical sociopathic manager. Ghaemi’s book validates my theorem. The author details some of the world’s greatest leaders and what they all have in common.

The book starts with an analysis of Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman of the Union Army in the American Civil War and works up to modern times taking a close look at Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Gandhi, John Kennedy, and Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. His premise is that all the greatest leaders had one thing in common; they all had some history of mental illness, specifically depression. And depression brings out one of the single most important traits to being a successful leader; empathy.

Ghaemi’s premise that’s relevant here is; “Depression reveals the truth of empathy, and empathy, in turn, engenders unexpected powers of leadership.”

This puts a new light on depression. Depression and empathy go hand-in-hand. Since most depressed people show a tendency toward cynicism, I’ll take the liberty to say the terms become almost interchangeable. In a way they are one and the same because being cynical−having the ability to look around you and see the absurdity and incivility in everyday life and in business−and seeing things as they really are could certainly lead to depression.

Cynical people are able to cut through the perceptions or wishful thinking about how they would like the world to be and see things as they really are. They are not caught up in the ‘positive illusion syndrome’ that most people have towards themselves and their environment. Positive illusion is the unrealistic attitude that causes people to inflate the assessment of their own abilities, possess unrealistic optimism about the future and suffer an illusion of control over the environment and those around them. Depressed and cynical people aren’t fooled by the positive illusion syndrome.

In a nutshell, Ghaemi postulates that this ability of seeing through bullshit perceptions often leads to depression, which in turn leads to a heightened sense of empathy which in turn can lead to great leadership.

So if you believe that you have that “amazing grasp for the obvious” that seems to be missing in all those around you and you can see reality for what it really is remember; you just may be on the path to being a great leader. However, the problem in modern business is that anyone who exhibits even the slightest trace of cynicism is chastised and ridiculed out of the organization. Maybe the modern work environment could actually be a more “realistic” place if more cynical people where praised and given a chance to rise into leadership positions.

Have you ever been in the meeting with your boss to discuss your yearly performance review and you find yourself thinking about how this situation sucks and this person has no clue about what you accomplished during the past year, or more importantly how much crap you had to put up with to just get the minimal part of your job accomplished? And you think to yourself: “some of that crap I had to put up with came from this same person who’s now sitting here pontificating about how I didn’t meet expectations.”

While you listen to him, or her, tell you all your faults and shortcomings, so as justify the mediocre (at best) raise that you’ll be getting, you’re day-dreaming about what a good employee you fashion yourself to be, how he doesn’t understand the job, and how this guy has no clue about what you accomplished during the past year.

You find yourself attempting to defend yourself but you distinctly get the impression that your words are in vain, he’s not listening anyway, and you’re wasting your time.

This is why the above description of the performance review process can be called the “Dialogue of the Deaf;” a discussion in which each party is unresponsive to what the other says. The reviewer’s certainly not “really” listening to you and you’re not listening to the reviewer’s rhetoric.

In my book Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw,” I focus an entire chapter to the absurdity of the modern performance review process−the dialog of the deaf.

The euphemism “dialog of the deaf” is an accurate one for the performance review because of the phenomenon of “illusory superiority;”−a cognitive bias that causes people to overestimate their positive qualities and abilities (the Halo Effect) and to underestimate their negative qualities. This is evident in a variety of areas, including intelligence, performance on tasks and the possession of desirable characteristics or personality traits. It’s one of many illusions we all have relating to our own capabilities.

However, the typical boss (the reviewer) has a tendency for the flip side, or what’s called the “negativity bias,” i.e., bosses will pay more attention, and give more weight, to negative attributes when assessing others.

This means that if the employee’s tendency is to rate himself in a positive way and the reviewer’s tendency is to rate the employee in a negative way; we have the makings of a standoff of opinions, a dialog of the deaf if you will, and thus unhappiness, demotivation or possibly even confrontation over the performance review.

This is why the performance review process is the most hated and counterproductive ritual in modern business and needs to be eliminated.

“Employee engagement” is the latest business management buzz-phrase. An “engaged employee” is one who is fully involved in, and enthusiastic about their work, and thus will act in a way that furthers their organization’s interests.

According to Scarlett Surveys (an organization dedicated to fostering the concept of employee engagement and in helping companies use this concept to better their organizations):  “Employee Engagement is a measurable degree of an employee’s positive or negative emotional attachment to their job, colleagues and organization that profoundly influences their willingness to learn and perform at work”.

There are “drivers” that are crucial to employee engagement:

• Employee perceptions of job importance
• Employee clarity of job expectations
• Career advancement/improvement opportunities
• Regular feedback and dialogue with superiors
• Quality of working relationships with peers, superiors, and subordinates
• Perceptions of the ethos and values of the organization
• Effective Internal Employee Communications
• Reward for engagement

An “engaged employee” is every manager’s goal despite the fact that most often their actions (how they treat the employees) are counter to its achievement. Yet all the while managers will complain that their employees aren’t engaged. The irony is that all the factors (above) that contribute to an engaged employee are, in reality, in the hands of management to mold. Employees won’t become engaged through osmosis−its management’s responsibility.

Unfortunately in most organizations the dialog above between the Pointy Haired Boss and the Dilbert crew is all too accurate of the attitude of management.

In my book Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw my major trust is that servant leadership is the answer to the ills of modern business. What’s interesting about the concept of employee engagement is that all the ‘drivers’ above are nothing more than the concepts of servant leadership which are in reality just common-sense principles.

Business doesn’t need another buzzword concept to help managers to be more effective and for employees to be more engaged. All that’s needed is a “back to the basics” mentality, or like I said in a previous post: “think inside the box.” Thinking inside the box is all about looking inward and changing the way you do business on a day-to-day basis and that includes how you treat your employees. And how you treat employees on a day-to-day basis is what servant leadership is all about.

In my book Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw, I quote Seth Godin, entrepreneur, author and public speaker, when he pointed out that instead of following the herd mentality, always doing whatever everybody else is doing, organizations (companies) should set out to do something “remarkable;” something no one else has done before. That’s how they can set themselves apart from the herd. In the vernacular of the latest business buzzwords, this need to follow of the herd is called “benchmarking.”

In his book Small Is the New Big: And 183 Other Riffs, Rants, and Remarkable Business Ideas Seth Godin takes on the trap of benchmarking. The example he uses to drive his point home is the automakers. Most cars all look alike to some degree. Some stand out as different from the pack. As he explains, “…benchmarking against the universe actually encourages us to be mediocre, to be average; to just do what everyone else is doing. The folks who invented the Mini (or the Hummer for that matter) didn’t benchmark their way to the cutting edge. Comparison to other cars would never have brought about these fashionable exceptions.”

In his July 9, 2012 blog post titled, “The False Choice of Mediocrity,” Seth Godin drives this point home from yet another angle. He tells us; “Too often, we’re presented with choices that don’t please us. We can pick one lousy alternative or the other. And too often, we pick one.”

He tells us, “I was struck by Apple’s choice to put a glass screen on the original iPhone. Just six weeks before it was announced, Steve Jobs decided he wanted a scratchproof glass screen. The thing is this wasn’t an option. It wasn’t possible, reliable, feasible or appropriately priced. It couldn’t be done with certainty, and almost any other organization would have taken it off the list of appropriate choices.

“It was unreasonable.

“And that’s the key. Remarkable work is always not on the list, because if it was, it would be commonplace, not remarkable.”

Too often businesses get trapped in “The False Choice of Mediocrity,” and most, without a doubt, will choose the lesser of two evils. I agree with Seth, companies must break that habit and search for that one thing that will make their company, or product, “remarkable” and that starts with the everyday decisions that are faced. Instead of just picking from the alternatives, find a new path.

Seth Godin’s book, Small Is the New Big: And 183 Other Riffs, Rants, and Remarkable Business Ideas, served as an inspiration to me when I was writing my book Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw.  I recommend those like-minded readers of my blog to check out Small is the New Big, and other Seth Godin books. Also I highly recommend you subscribe to his daily blog posts at: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths blog/

This week’s blog entry is a bit different from all previous posts. The following is the outline of my book: Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw. In case you haven’t checked it out, I offer this peek into the scope of my book. If you like my blog posts you’ll surely like the book.

Chapter 1 The Marching Morons…our rude society and its effect on the workplace

Chapter 2 Kayfabe…the fact that perception is more important than reality

Chapter 3 Jumpin’ on the Bandwagon…metrics & management fads

Chapter 4 Lord of the Flies…an analysis of workplace culture

Chapter 5 Animal Farm…an analysis of office politics

Chapter 6 Flatland…organizational charts & vertical structure

Chapter 7 Farce Majeure…organizational hierarchy & power structure

Chapter 8 Man Bites Dog…sociopaths in the workplace

Chapter 9 Fee, Fi, Foe, Fum…bullying in the workplace

Chapter 10 Eddie Haskell…organizational sycophants

Chapter 11 Oath of Fealty…the fiefdom syndrome

Chapter 12 Nattering Nabobs of Negativity…the game of “divide and conquer”

Chapter 13 Together Everyone Annoys Me…teamwork, or the lack thereof

Chapter 14 Waiting for Rigor Mortis…workplace communication, or lack thereof

Chapter 15 The Red Queen Principle…backstabbing and employee conflict

Chapter 16 Throw me an Anvil…management sabotage of worker’s careers

Chapter 17 Chicken Little…crisis creation and pyromania

Chapter 18 Howdy Doody…the game of “stump the dummy”

Chapter 19 Insanity…organizational amnesia

Chapter 20 Zemblanity…management fear of surprise

Chapter 21 All Hat, No Cattle…rodeo meeting atmosphere

Chapter 22 What, Me Worry?…plausible deniability & blamestorming

Chapter 23 Drinkin Your Own Kool Aid…workplace visions and values

Chapter 24 Lake Wobegon…the performance review process

Epilog…how to survive and flourish in the modern workplace

In my next blog post I’ll be back to lampooning another aspect of the modern workplace−I promise.

First I must acknowledge Seth Godin for the title of this post and profound words of wisdom. He coined the phrase in his book: Small is the New Big: and 183 Other Riffs, Rants, and Remarkable Business Ideas. I find the term an accurate description of how many organizations are managed.

You can easily identify an organization caught up in the relentless race to the bottom. They are the organizations that struggle to make their financial goals, and instead of finding innovative ways to cut costs (and build their business) they make their numbers by being in perpetual cost cutting mode. They become obsessed with cost cutting. They are the organizations that engage regularly in what’s called the Reduction in Force (RIF), or to the poor people targeted, the dreaded layoff. These organizations are truly convinced they can shrink their way to greatness.

In my book, Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw I lampoon the modern performance review process; a yearly ritual that most organizations use to supposedly rate their employees performance for the purpose of rewarding them with higher pay. However, as I explain, this process really only serves the requirement for managers to always have a ranked list of employees so that the bottom 10% can be quickly identified come the inevitable lay-off time.

If you ask one of these organizations why they have these regular RIFS, they just might lie and tell you they’re just practicing the Jack Welch philosophy of always identifying and thinning out the bottom 10% of performers. Organizations who subscribe to this philosophy call it upgrading the organization, or searching for the best-of-the-best.

However, the fact is the truth hurts and for many organizations saying this just masks the real intent: cost cutting for survival. These organizations have no clue how to save money by changing [1] the way they do business proactively [2], they only know how to maintain the status quo and cling to survival by having regular RIFs. This practice also serves the goal of maintaining a constant environment of fear amongst their employees, which the typical command and control management needs to maintain its grasp on power.

What everyone should understand and remember is that in these organizations every employee ultimately ends up in the bottom 10%, sooner or later, and becomes a target of the next RIF. If you find yourself in one of these organizations, take heed. These are the organizations that are truly in what Seth Godin calls “the relentless race to the bottom.”

[1] See my earlier post titled: “Think Inside the Box”

[2] See my earlier post titled: “Proactive or Soothsayer?”