PUTTIN' COLOGNE ON THE RICKSHAW

There’s been a lot written about leaders needing to exhibit empathy if they really want to be successful. It’s a necessary element of servant leadership. The dictionary definition of empathy is: understanding another’s situation or feelings without losing track of our own emotional and mental state, or; the capability to share and understand another’s emotions and feelings, characterized as the ability to “put oneself into another’s shoes.”

Like the above definitions, every article I’ve read describes empathy from the clinical aspect. I understand them but I’m still left with two questions. First, what exactly is empathy and second, how does it manifest itself in everyday life, i.e., in people’s behaviors?

In his 2011 article, “Are You Empathic? 3 Types of Empathy and What They Mean – When is Empathy a Good Thing, and when is it a Bad Thing?” Ronald E. Riggio, Ph.D. tells us there are really three types of empathy.

“The first is a purely cognitive form of empathy that can be described as ‘Perspective-Taking.’ This is being able to see things from another’s point of view–putting yourself in someone else’s shoes. It is important to better understand where someone is coming from, but it’s not what we typically think of as empathy.

“The second type of empathy is ‘Personal Distress.’ Personal distress is literally feeling another’s emotions. When you are watching a scary movie, and you start to empathize with the hero and feel afraid, that is personal distress in action. You are actually feeling the other’s emotion through a process called ‘emotional contagion.’ The actor, or another person, is actually ‘infecting’ you with their emotion. We all experience personal distress, but too much of it may not be a good thing. Some people are so prone to feeling other’s emotional states that they are battered about by the feelings and emotions of others.

“The third type of empathy is ‘Empathic Concern.’ This type is what we most often think about when we hear the term ‘empathy.’ It is the ability to recognize another’s emotional state, to feel in tune with that emotional state, and if it is a negative/distressful emotion, feel and show appropriate concern.”

Riggio also makes a salient point: “These 3 types of empathy represent different aspects of our personalities.” This is important because personality is the visible aspect of our character as seen by others. Through our personality people can “see” whether we possess empathy, or not.

That said the problem I have with even these definitions is that they still don’t really provide any insight into how we “see” empathy at work. That is, what are the “behaviors” that are associated with any of these three types of empathy? In other words how does empathy manifest itself into how people interact with others? Let me state that another way–what behaviors would be a dead giveaway that someone (the boss) really has NO empathy?

I think this is important as we all know sociopaths are good at faking many leadership traits. So it’s up to you to learn to see through their superficial behaviors to see the true person beneath the surface. That’s what we’re going to tackle here. What should you look for in a person’s behavior, toward you and those around you, that would confirm they have true empathy?

As I prove in my book Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw most managers display some, if not all, sociopathic tendencies. In fact you could easily make the case that it’s a prerequisite to moving up the corporate ladder. One of the prime traits of a sociopath is that they are narcissists and narcissists are clinically proven to lack empathy. For many they do a good job at feigning empathy but on the inside they rarely really care for anyone other than themselves. Faux empathy stems from a number of things including the need to fit in, socially–to appear like a feeling, caring person. For the sociopath empathy is an “acquired” social skill–they “acquire” it because they understand its importance in keeping the huddled masses doing their bidding. In other words it’s superficial as it’s just a means to getting what they want from people.

In the end empathy is really nothing more than a communication skill. Empathy can allow great leaders to sense the emotions of a person or an audience and tailor their communication to nurture mutual understanding, teamwork, inspiration, or whatever agenda they are pushing. Someone with a lack of empathy exhibits poor communication skills because they fail to understand the perspective of the audience.

Do you consider your boss to be empathic? If you answered yes, how are you sure? Since empathy can be readily faked, here are some easy to identify behavioral traits (poor communication skills) to look for in people who “lack” empathy:

• They will chastise you if you make even the simplest of mistakes. Any further mistakes by you are judged to be more serious than earlier ones (whether they truly are or not) just by virtue of their chronological position. You are labeled a repeat offender. Nothing you say, or do, will change his/her opinion of you.
• They will exhibit anger. In all people, sociopaths and normal, anger is associated with a suspension of empathy. Irritated people cannot empathize. Actually, “counter-empathy” develops when in a state of anger.
• They play any of the typical games that can be found in the workplace; “divide and conquer,” “stump-the-dummy,” and “thrown under the bus,” to name a few.  On the surface they appear to be agreeable and supportive, but behind the scenes they will backstab, undercut, and sabotage even those they depend on for their success.
• When you bring up a serious issue they “shoot the messenger.” They cannot take constructive criticism about themselves, their organization, or their leadership skills. This is important as it’s a mirror into how they will react when you bring a personal problem to their attention.
• They minimalize every word that comes out of my mouth? They answer everything you say with “but,” or “however.”
• They “appear” to be listening, thoughtful and concerned yet will start talking before you have finished? They have spent the whole time you were talking thinking about their response–not listening to what you have to say. They have dominating personalities that control conversations.
• They will ask your opinion of what should be done–then do what they wanted in the first place–they never end up following your suggestions.
• They constantly state that you can trust their words when their actions have consistently shown that not to be true. This is especially true of their ability to follow their own cherished values, e.g., work-life balance.
• They make promises to you about things they will do for you when they have no intention of ever following through. They will then blame you for not doing your job or being successful, despite the fact they contributed to your inability to succeed.
• They smile and agree with you to your face, but then disagree or even sabotage things behind your back. Will sometimes give positive praise and feedback to you directly, but then take actions to undercut you to coworkers and management.
• They make statements like: “I was supportive of you, but this ‘other person’ wasn’t so there is nothing I can do.” This is usually heard during performance review time and is the pat answer when they are explaining why you have gotten such a miniscule raise.
• They use sarcasm or humor so they can hide behind an “I was just kidding” attitude, when really they meant every word they said.
• They exhibit an “us versus them” mentality–they are divisive.
• They will give you time off to attend a funeral of a relative, or friend, and then be mad at you for not being at work when they needed you to fire-fight one of their made up crises.

So ask yourself that question again: “is my boss empathic?” Based on how many “yes” answers scored on the questions above you be the judge–don’t take their word for it.

On June 1^st 2009 Flight 447 was a scheduled commercial flight from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil to Paris, France. The Airbus A330-203 airliner crashed into the Atlantic Ocean, killing all 216 passengers and 12 aircrew. The accident was the deadliest in the history of the airline Air France. It was also the Airbus A330’s second and deadliest fatal accident, and its first while in commercial passenger service.

The initial investigation into what happened was hampered because authorities were unable to locate the wreckage. Not until 2011, nearly two years after the accident, were the aircraft’s black boxes finally recovered from the ocean floor.

The French government investigated the crash and the final report, released on July 5^th 2012, stated that the aircraft crashed after temporary inconsistencies between the airspeed measurements—likely due to the aircraft’s pitot tubes being obstructed by ice crystals—which caused the autopilot to disconnect, after which the crew reacted incorrectly and ultimately led the aircraft to an aerodynamic stall from which they did not recover. The report stated that the evidence showed that “the crew floundered in a state of complete confusion and incomprehension.

As the tragedy began, the captain of Flight 447 had retired to take a nap, leaving the plane in the hands of an inexperienced junior co-pilot who was being supervised by another co-pilot. Unfortunately for all this was exactly when disaster decided to strike.

For 3½ minutes after the autopilot disconnected the co-pilots were left with controlling the plane manually as the airliner descended in a stalled glide toward the water. From the flight recorder it was discovered that the co-pilots seemed uncertain as to what exactly was happening, several times discussing whether they were actually going up or down. I’m sure the passengers were also confused–not knowing what was going on–there was no communication between the cockpit and the passengers.

It was discovered that neither co-pilots apparently had previous experience flying without instruments, and they seemed to have reacted incorrectly to the situation. Ironically all the instruments probably would have told them what the true situation was had they had the calm to actually look at them.

One of the co-pilots was recorded telling the captain, “We’ve totally lost control of the plane,” after he rushed back into the cockpit.

The French Accident Investigation Bureau’s (BEA) final report said; “In the minute that followed the autopilot disconnection, the failure of the attempts to understand the situation and the de-structuring of crew cooperation fed on each other until the total loss of cognitive control of the situation.”

While the jury is still out in regard to the cause(s) of the latest crash incident–Asiana Flight 214 that crashed in San Francisco–there appear to be some similarities. In the article “Asiana Crash: More Likely than Pilot Error? Cockpit Miscommunication,” Mark Gerchick explains a situation that may be more common than we fear.

He tells us, “Sometimes cockpit dysfunction comes from too much deference to the captain–for instance, when a subordinate junior pilot hesitates to forcefully question the actions of his superior that he believes to be wrong. Cultural mores in deference-based societies, including in Asia, can amplify that hesitancy, experts say. In other cases, it’s just a lack of cockpit communication until it’s too late.

“The bigger air safety question the Asiana crash may well re-ignite is one that’s been lurking for years in the background of some of the most troubling aviation incidents: how crew members on the flight deck interact and communicate with one another and with their super-sophisticated machines. In other words, not just how individual pilots fly, but how cockpits work as complex, dynamic teams and systems.

“In other words, operating a big commercial jet, especially on takeoff and landing, isn’t a solo flying experience. Pilots will tell you that it’s more about managing a complex system of inputs from both human and non-human sources. The industry jargon for this dynamic is “cockpit resource management,” and it covers a lot of ground: how pilots interact with one another and with the airplane; how they communicate and make piloting decisions, prioritize problems, and delegate tasks; and how flying problems get solved–or not.”

Unfortunately there are many similarities to these sad stories that can be found in the business environment, albeit without the catastrophic results. Is your organization descending “in a stalled glide toward the water?” Does your management team “think you’re going up when actually you’re going down?” In your organization does there seem to be “a failure to understand the situation and the de-structuring of cooperation feeding on each other until the total loss of cognitive control of the situation?” Does your organization suffer cockpit error?

The dictionary definition of dysfunction is; impaired or abnormal functioning, or; abnormal or unhealthy interpersonal behavior or interaction within a group–the operative word being “interaction.” This seems to describe the cockpit situation on Flight 447 and Flight 214 pretty accurately. It also describes many management teams in today’s modern organizations.

Unfortunately many organizations have management teams that suffer dysfunctional interaction and are on what Seth Godin would call “the relentless race to the bottom.” And like Flight 447, many people suffer because of the lack of management leadership to steer their organizations toward their goals. Like Flight 447, management sometimes has only experience operating in autopilot–when things are running smoothly. Many times, business is operating through no specific “remarkable” action on the part of management, i.e. they are on a straight and steady course and unprepared in the event of a disaster.

In my book Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw I drive home the fact that “all” workplace dysfunction starts at the very top of an organization and filters on down to the bottom–i.e., the neck of every bottle is at the top. Just like Flight 447 many top executives are virtually off taking a nap and have left the plane on autopilot.

And worse yet, control of the organization is left in the hands of incompetent sycophantic underlings who may be called upon to “fly the plane” in the absence of the top exec. For these poor sycophants, should a problem strike on their watch, they don’t really know to handle it and can do more harm than good.

The real problem is that rarely are problems in business so catastrophic as to jeopardize the whole organization, but what really is happening is that those dysfunctional sycophants are controlling the day-to-day operation of the organization and making questionable decisions on smaller problems that may, in total, mean trouble for the business’s survival.

Why? Because the typical sociopathic boss doesn’t want to hear that things are going badly and will usually “kill the messenger.” Thus the sycophants learn quickly to shield the boss from as much negative information as they can get away with–until the stuff hits the fan and it’s too late. Then they’re telling the boss “we’ve totally lost control of the plane.”

Does this describe what’s going on at your workplace? Or are you like the poor passengers of Flight 447–not knowing what’s going on because your management team doesn’t communicate? Remember you can get off the plane you’re riding on–unlike the unlucky passengers of Flight 447–don’t stay in a dysfunctional organization until it’s too late.

In last week’s post I talked about two major types of accountability–vertical and horizontal and proposing how more horizontal accountability is what I believe is needed in modern business. The fact is these two types of accountability can be broken down even further, i.e., there’s a finer granularity to accountability than you might not be aware of. Because of this many organizations may have a hard time achieving true accountability, or worse only achieve it symbolically.

In his 2005 article “Pathologies of Accountability: the Challenge of Multiple Accountabilities Disorder,” Jonathan GS Koppell, professor of Management at Yale University tells us that there is a five-part typology to accountability. They are: Transparency, Liability, Controllability, Responsibility, and Responsiveness. He defines them as:

1. Transparency is the literal value of accountability; the idea that an accountable organization must explain or account for its actions.
2. Liability attaches culpability to transparency. In this view, individuals and organizations should be held liable for their actions, punished for malfeasance, and rewarded for success.
3. Controllability which is the dominant conception of accountability, i.e., if X can induce the behavior of Y, it is said that X controls Y–and that Y is accountable to X. Although few relationships between boss and employee are so straightforward, this conception is the starting point for many analyses of organizational accountability.
4. Responsibility means that people and organizations are constrained by laws, rules, and norms.
5. Responsiveness is an organization’s attention to direct expressions of the needs and desires of an organization’s constituents or customers. This element of accountability is emphasized in the “customer-oriented approach.”

Koppell I’m sure would agree that “controllability” is the concept most of us have of accountability and what’s most on the minds of upper management when they preach the need for more accountability. This is closely related to what I called “vertical” accountability–the management to employee relationship. But it’s only the starting point in a thorough analysis of organizational accountability. Koppel tells us “Distinguishing among the five dimensions of accountability is necessary to evaluate the accountability of any organization or individual. Determining whether an organization is accountable depends a great deal on which dimension of accountability one has in mind.”

Koppel’s “Multiple Accountabilities Disorder,” a term he coins in his article, stems from this lack of conceptual clarity between the five dimensions of accountability. Koppel explains, “The many meanings of accountability suggested by the varied use of the word are not consistent with each other: organizations cannot be accountable in all of the senses implied by this single word.”

Koppel’s contention is that “an organization suffering from Multiple Accountabilities Disorder oscillates between behaviors that are consistent with conflicting notions of accountability [and] that the lack of specificity regarding the meaning of accountability–or failure to articulate a choice–can undermine an organization’s performance. First, the organization may attempt to be accountable in the wrong sense (such as a judge taking orders).[1] Second, and perhaps worse, an organization may try to be accountable in every sense. Organizations trying to meet conflicting expectations are likely to be dysfunctional, pleasing no one while trying to please everyone.”

What happens in practice is that an organization may only be able to focus on one dimension of accountability at a time. Here’s an example; an organization will sometimes emphasize accountability to principals, or values, while at other times try to focus on customer satisfaction.  The main point being that an organization can’t be all accountable to all of Koppel’s five dimensions of accountability all the time.

In their 2008 article “The Challenge of Multiple Accountability,” Thomas Schillemans and Mark Bovens explain that because of this disorder achieving organizational accountability can even more difficult than Koppel asserts. Schillemans and Bovens tell us; “A general assumption is often that more accountability is better; as accountability, as such, is a good thing. However, too much accountability may be an impediment that hinders [organizations] from making decisions. Too much accountability then prevents organizations from reaching their goals. [Multiple accountability disorder] leads to a situation where accountors are faced with a multiplicity of demands from accountees. If the weight of these conflicting demands is too strong, we end up with [impaired decision making] and if too weak we end up with a loss of control.” In other words, either too much, or too little, accountability leads to a dysfunctional organization. So it would appear that accountability, like many other management practices, is a matter of degree and each organization must find its own equilibrium.

Ironically it seems that something one would think would be a good thing–the search for accountability–only provides yet another reason organizations can become dysfunctional.

Interestingly Schillemans and Bovens contend that there’s a third option possible: “the adding of accountability has no positive or negative effects [on the organization] at all. In that case it is likely the arrangements have a purely symbolic role–they are rituals. They call this “symbolic accountability.” This happens more than we think evidenced by the fact that the term “accountability” has crept into the latest buzz-word jargon heard ad-nauseam in the modern workplace. It’s also what’s in place in an organization where accountability really only means finding someone to blame.

Schillemans’ and Bovens’ bottom line, “Sometimes it may be important to pay lip-service to some ideal [like accountability] without granting it real influence. The idea may be important, but in practice it has no added value.”

Last week’s post dealt with the difference between what organizational accountability usually means and what it should mean. I also detailed the different types of accountability–vertical and horizontal–and their importance to a healthy organization’s culture. Organizational accountability is most critical in the ranks of middle management and front line supervision. Don’t misunderstand executives at the top and the workers at the bottom of the pyramid should also be held accountable for their job performance, but nowhere is it more critical to the successful functioning of an organization than in the ranks of those caught in between–middle management.

For a manager the key to achieving results is having the necessary authority (that includes resources) to perform the job, in accordance with the job description, to achieve the goals set by the organization.

Are you a manager? Are you held accountable for your performance and that of your direct reports? Do you believe that you have the authority necessary to accomplish your job function? If you said yes, think again, and ask yourself this question: is my authority limited to making decisions; but having to get approval from above before implementing those decisions? In other words do you have to “check” first with your boss about everything?

Here’s an example. When you need to hire someone to perform a job do you need upper management approval? Is there an exhausting justification process you must go through, i.e., “the bring me another rock routine?”  Does your boss have to be part of the interview process? Does the final hiring decision depend on your boss’s decision about the candidate? Do you have a say in the salary that will be offered–or is it set by your boss?

If you answered yes to these then you DON’T really have authority.

There’s a lot of talk these days about “empowerment” and “empowering” employees. Organizations hide behind these words. However, in practice being empowered is NOT always the same as having authority to do your job. The definition of authority is; the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. Empowerment is defined as; to give power or authority; authorize; to enable or permit. Based on these definitions we see that empowerment “is” authority and at the core of the concept of empowerment is the idea of power. So when upper management says you are “empowered,” have they really given you the power to do your job or are they empty words?

The possibility of empowerment depends on two things. First, empowerment requires that power, or authority, has been delegated through the organization. If authority is inherent in middle management positions, then empowerment throughout all the organization is possible. If authority isn’t granted to middle management then empowerment is not possible, plain and simple. Thus, in practice authority truly needs to come first before empowerment can be realized.

In the book Empowerment Takes More Than a Minute, the authors, Ken Blanchard, John P. Carlos, and Alan Randolph tell us that “empowerment is simply the effective use of a manager’s authority” In the context of this post this is a perfect description of how empowerment and authority go hand in hand.

But how does this relate to accountability?

In their article “Accountability without Authority: How to Drive Employees Crazy,” Bill Casey & Wendi Peck coin what’s called “The No Authority Gauntlet.”  They tell us, “Here’s how it works: someone has a management job, is held accountable for the successful operation of his organization, and yet does not have commensurate management authorities. In other words, this person is accountable for the work of others, but with no accompanying clout. This then is “The No Authority Gauntlet.”[1]

A gauntlet is defined as; an open challenge (as to combat); a severe trial or ordeal. Or my favorite; a double file of men facing each other and armed with clubs or other weapons with which to strike at an individual who is made to run between them. In the modern world of middle management the individual “running between them” is middle management while the men facing each other are upper management on one side and the middle manager’s staff on the other side. You see without authority middle management is truly caught between a rock and a hard place–running a gauntlet.

If you are in a management position I’m sure you would agree that with that position comes a certain “responsibility.” Responsibility is defined as; the obligation to act or to do a task that one must answer for. Also I’m sure your organization says they hold you accountable. Accountability is defined as; the reckoning, when leaders must answer for their actions and accept the consequences, good or bad. This sadly is the limit to how most middle management positions are described in practice–responsible and accountable. They have responsibility and are held accountable but what’s missing is “authority;” the legitimate power of a leader to direct individuals to take action within the scope of the manager’s position.

Authority is defined as “a power or right, delegated or given.” Thus, when the subject of authority comes up you’ll hear a lot about delegation. Upper management will claim they have “delegated” the authority to the middle management ranks. However, true authority–to be the master of your own destiny–is not something that’s usually delegated.

In Gary Runn’s 2010 article “Delegation vs. Empowerment,” we find: “To delegate means to choose or elect a person to act as a representative for another.  To empower someone means to give power or authority to someone else.  Do you hear the difference?  To delegate something to someone is to only give them enough of a leash to act on your behalf–as you would for yourself.  To empower another means you give them enough power and authority to act on their own behalf.”

Alas why is the granting of the necessary authority such a hard thing to find in most organizations? It’s really quite simple actually–it’s paranoia. You see executives are held accountable for business results, and they aren’t going to let anyone cause them to fail at that. They just can’t take that chance–remember sociopaths do not trust anyone other than themselves. Part of the personality makeup of the typical sociopathic mentality is that of paranoia (and a good helping of micromanagement). The paranoia that permeates the ranks of upper management is the reason trust–the granting of authority–is such a scarce commodity in the modern workplace.

What is your first reaction when you hear someone at work talking about accountability? It’s a term that’s heard quite often in the halls of business.[1] If you’re like me, you’re thinking “are we talking about finding someone to blame for something or are we really talking about “everyone” (especially management) stepping up and taking more responsibility for both the successes and the failures or the organization?” The truth is that because the first option is what’s most prevalent, for most people their gut reaction is probably “here comes another witch-hunt.” Unfortunately in the modern workplace accountability, all too often, ends up as just that–a search for someone to blame and punish when things go wrong. That’s because most often the need for accountability isn’t voiced until the stuff has already hit the fan. But this shouldn’t be what accountability is all about.

In most business contexts the term accountability is bandied about in regard to holding someone responsible for their job performance. We seldom think of accountability in terms of management’s responsibility for the overall success of the organization and for the organizational culture they have created.[2]

In his 2005 article “The Accountability Dilemma,” Robert Behn, a Harvard University Professor, talks about three types of accountability in business. What’s interesting is that Behn proposes that there are other types of accountability other than just performance. In doing so he details one of the first problems that arise when we try to hold people accountable for their actions.

Behn’s three elements of accountability are: finance, fairness and performance. The “finance” element describes the responsibility of the senior management to meet the financial goals and expectations placed on the overall organization. “Fairness” provides a convenient grouping of all the elements of a “healthy organizational culture.” It includes elements like trust, respect and empathy–without which you will not have a healthy culture. Lastly is “performance” which we all think about most often when we talk about holding people accountable.

Behn tells is that “If an agency [business] follows every rule for finance and fairness its performance may suffer. This is the “accountability dilemma:” the tradeoff of accountability for finances and fairness v. accountability for performance.” This means that accountability must flow “up” the organizational chart, not just down.

We very seldom think of accountability as “going up the organization chart.” But I would make the case that for an organization to have true accountability it is part of the employee’s responsibility to the organization to hold the leaders accountable and for the leaders to accept that responsibility. Behn hammers home this point with his identification of “fairness” as another element of accountability–management must also be held accountable for the values, i.e., the culture of the organization.

In his 2009 article, “Shared Accountability,” Bret L. Simmons sums it up best. “In our current paradigm of leadership, we don’t have any problem with the idea that leaders hold followers accountable. Followers expect to be held accountable. Highly effective leaders share their expectations with followers, help enable them to meet or exceed those expectations, and then administer the rewards or consequences that were earned.

“On the other hand, it is a huge paradigm shift to think that it is part of the follower’s legitimate responsibility to hold the leader accountable. Yet for the right relationship to exist between leaders and followers that is exactly what has to happen.”

This is why many people never think they should hold their management accountable–it’s mostly unheard of because we all know what typically happens to whistle-blowers.

Behn goes on to tell as “The best leaders invite their followers to hold them accountable. And the best followers have the courage to hold their leaders accountable even if they are not invited to do so.”

Even if an organization truly practices shared accountability, there’s still another type of accountability that’s important to having a happy and successful organization. The concept of shared accountability can also be called “Vertical Accountability.” As explained above this is where both employee and management are equally accountable for their actions and performance. This means that accountability flows both “down” the organization chart and “up” the organization chart.

But if an organization’s culture is be truly healthy there’s also a need for “Horizontal Accountability.” Horizontal accountability flows “across’ the organizational chart between departments or functional groups. Horizontal accountability is respect, trust, teamwork and collaboration between all departments in an organization such that they are jointly responsible for achieving results or outcomes.

This is the type of accountability that many might not think about. This is the type of accountability that has the biggest impact on the culture of an organization and it’s propensity for developing dysfunctional behaviors. A good example of horizontal accountability in action might be where an organization’s design engineering group is held accountable for the quality of their product designs such that manufacturing can successfully build and deliver that product to awaiting customers.

Horizontal accountability eliminates the need for the members of an organization to develop fiefdoms, play mind-games with their colleagues, have to keep Pearl Harbor files, and generally blamestorm others when things inevitably go wrong. These are all elements of a dysfunctional organization.

But alas, in most organizations the last person to touch something usually gets blamed if it fails while the first to touch it gets praised if it’s a success. For most organizations this, sadly, is what accountability is all about.

As the story goes once a hard working young American student went to the guru in India and asked him how long it would take to reach enlightenment. The guru said “it often takes three or four years, but because you are working so hard at it, it will take ten.”

Does this scenario sound familiar? Are there times in your life when you feel, that no matter your effort or how hard you try, you just don’t seem to be getting anything accomplished or that everything takes much longer than planned? Most of us, if truthful, will answer to the affirmative. The sad fact is we may be creating this situation ourselves and not know it.

In his 2012 article “Trying Too Hard to Achieve Goals,” author Gareth Mitchell presents some interesting revelations about this frustrating reality of our lives that we all experience at one time or the other.

Mitchell first cites a quote from Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People, which reads, “I have yet to find the person, however great or exalted his station, who did not do better work and put forth greater effort under a spirit of approval than he would ever do under a spirit of criticism.”

Mitchell then asks us, “Have you ever noticed the paradox that you seem to accomplish far more and work with far greater mental clarity when you don’t ‘try’ too hard? That is, when you don’t place too much emphasis on the ‘importance’ of what you’re doing or what you’re trying to achieve. That’s because the sense of pressure [urgency] that often accompanies ‘importance’ expends a great deal of negative mental energy–energy that could have otherwise been put to positive use.

“Remove that pressure and instead of being consumed with stress, urgency and insecurity, you’re filled with enthusiasm, interest, curiosity and creativity–resourceful mental states that are only accessible when you’re relaxed and calm.”

That’s the exact same point, he asserts, that Carnegie was making. If we elicit stress and pressure in someone we will naturally see their abilities and productivity dwindle. But if we help them to feel secure and relaxed through approval we can watch their achievements grow. This is true of how we treat ourselves also. This is exactly why the annual performance review process has such negative effects on an organization–it pressures the employee to believe that the agenda management has cooked up for him or her is the most important thing they should concentrate on–this elicits stress and a false sense of urgency that derails the employee from really concentrating on performing better.

We all intuitively know that the problem with placing an inordinate amount of “urgency and importance” to anything is that it evokes another debilitating state called “the fear of failure.” The fear of failure brings a whole set of insecurities and anxiety that becomes all consuming. Thus we’re functioning under duress and when this happens it should be no surprise that our capacity for achievement seems to diminish exponentially. This same negative effect is at play when we chase things they can never catch.

This is what I call the “Wile E. Coyote Syndrome.” Wile E. Coyote and The Road Runner are the duo of cartoon characters from the series of Looney Tunes cartoons. In each cartoon episode Wile E. Coyote uses absurdly complex contraptions and hair-brained plans to try to catch the Road Runner.

Many times we’re just like the poor old coyote–no matter what we do, no matter how ingenious, no matter how “proactive” we are in your job we still feel like Wile E. Coyote because we always seem to pull the short straw in the rat race that is the modern workplace. We’d swear we were getting crushed by the proverbial anvil that’s repeatedly dropped on Wile E’s head. Remember the old adage, “no good deed goes unpunished?”

The bottom line is this–keeping things simple is a much better approach to our work lives–don’t make things overly complex, with arbitrary levels of importance, urgency, or complexity as it will probably backfire as does all the attempts of the coyote.

Essayist and Cartoonist Tim Kreider, the author of We Learn Nothing, ran a cartoon The Pain–When Will It End, in the Baltimore City Newspaper from 1997 to 2009.  In his cartoon, he was once quoted as summing up the mentality of the Wile E. Coyote Syndrome. He said, “You never question your fierce loyalty to the Acme brand name, much less ask yourself whether it’s really worth all this personal injury to try to catch one roadrunner; you’re only unsure whether to go with the rocket skates or the earthquake pills.”

Are you spending your career always rushing from one “urgent” challenge to another and chasing things that have no value, or are unattainable, in the grand scheme of things? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating that we don’t set goals for our career or that we don’t have wants and needs. I’m not saying we should just loaf through life and rest on our laurels. What I am saying is that sometimes we all should rethink the efforts we’re expending on achieving something and decide if maybe we’re trying too hard–we may find that maybe we’re even chasing the wrong things.

Are you unhappy in your present job? Do you get no sense of satisfaction after a hard day’s work? Or are you generally unhappy with your career? Do you find that things that used to give you joy no longer do? If so then you might be suffering from what’s called “The Eeyore Syndrome.”

Eeyore is a character in the Winnie-the-Pooh books by A. A. Milne. He’s the old grey donkey who is a friend of the title character, Winnie-the-Pooh. In the story he is generally a pessimistic, gloomy, depressed, and anhedonic character. Pessimistic, gloomy and depressed people usually wear their unhappiness on their sleeve for all to see like Eeyore. But anhedonic best describes those of us that suffer our unhappiness many times in silence.

In psychology and psychiatry, “anhedonia” is defined as the inability to experience pleasure from activities usually found enjoyable, e.g. exercise, hobbies, work activities or social interactions. Anhedonia also addresses the different aspects of enjoyable behavior, such as motivation or desire to engage in an activity and the level of enjoyment of the activity itself. Anhedonic describes anyone that suffers a general lack of motivation for their work or a lack of any enjoyment coming from their work?

In her 2012 Forbes article “New Survey: Majority of Employees Dissatisfied” Susan Adams tells us that “Manpower Group, just released a new snapshot survey that underlines the dissatisfaction among American workers. At a time of high unemployment, lackluster job growth and major uncertainty in world financial markets, many employees feel stuck in their jobs, unable to consider a career move even if they’re unhappy.”

The survey responses, from 411 workers in the U.S. and Canada, revealed that only 19% of responders said they were fully satisfied with their jobs. Another 16% said they were “somewhat satisfied” The rest, a full 66 percent, said they were “not happy at work.”

What I find most interesting about these statistics is that if you add the fully “unhappy” (66%) with the “somewhat satisfied” (16%) and we have a full 82% of workers in some degree of dissatisfaction with their job situation. Only 19% of us are satisfied with our job situation. I don’t know how you feel, but in my opinion, 82% (even mildly) unhappy employees is an epidemic by any standard.

That statistic includes the vocal pessimists and depressed individuals but also the silent anhedonics–all of these suffer from “The Eeyore Syndrome.”

From my own experience I can attest that I’ve suffered The Eeyore Syndrome in the past, in fact I’ve know many, many people who suffer this debilitating malady. Reflecting on the topic of last week’s post–how Millennials are in for a rough time in the modern workplace–it would appear that unhappiness with one’s career will become even more of an epidemic over the next few years and probably won’t get much better any time soon.

Despite this alarming rate of unhappiness, this epidemic hasn’t been publicized as much as it should. Why is that? Because, as I said, anhedonic people rarely voice their unhappiness so it remains hidden from view–it’s just simmering below the surface–allowed to negatively affect how they perform in their job. It thus becomes a downward spiral into lower job performance and more unhappiness.

I will tell you that if I were still in top management I’d be real concerned with that 82% statistic and seek to understand why. So I offer a challenge to all the managers reading this–understand why your employees are unhappy and do something about it–if you do you both will be more successful in your careers.

To that end here’s some insight into why so many people are unhappy with their work. According to the 2013 article “Top 5 Reasons Your Employer Makes You Miserable” put out by The Working Poor, “there are five key things that always seem to be an issue that make employees unhappy at work:

1. “Not making the working environment conducive of the job at hand: If you’re going to have 50 people in an office and each is required to have things that they need only for work, give them the space to keep those things at work.” [I cover this stupefying reality about bosses (and management) extensively in my book Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw. It’s really more than just having space to do your job or being delegated to a non-descript cubicle. It’s about the fact that many times management actively works to withhold both information and resources that employees need to be able to do well in their jobs.]
2. “Double talking your employees: This is found a lot in sales environments [but really can be found in any work environment.] [The boss] tells the employees what sales numbers [or other goal] they need in order to be successful at their job, but they know that in order to reach those goals the employees may have to do things “outside” the guidelines of how they’re supposed to reach those goals. [This is related to #1 above–give employees the resources they need to be successful. Don’t make them have to break the rules or torpedo their fellow employees to reach their job goals.]
3. “Managers that don’t know how to manage people: You have this person who always gets the job done! But that doesn’t mean that this person makes a good manager.  They need more than being good at their previous position.  But if they have no interpersonal skills and do not know how to motivate people in a positive way, they are not management material!” [This is why most employees, when asked what makes them unhappy, say it’s their boss.]
4. “Not giving employees enough time off: Employers will tell you that they care about your life outside of work. But they require overtime on a daily basis! Employees need time away from work! Some people need/want overtime. [Some don’t–they can get their job done in eight hours. Don’t expect workaholic management styles to catch on at the lower levels of the organization.]
5. “Not appreciating your employees: Big companies will tell you that they appreciate all your hard work. Then there’s a reduction in force (RIF) and your job responsibilities increase by 50%, but your pay increases by 1%–or not at all.” [This constant “down-sizing” that many companies practice is what’s called “the relentless race to the bottom.”

I’m sure that any of you reading this can add others to the list–your unhappiness is probably unique to your situation. Obviously this list doesn’t include factors outside of work that bleed over into how an employee feels about his/her life situation and thus job.

Or are you unsure whether you’re really happy or unhappy at work–sounds not possible–but I’m sure there are some of you riding the fence. So I thought I’d offer some insight that can maybe shed some light on your own case.

In his 2007 article, “Top 10 Signs You’re Unhappy at Work,” author Alexander Kjerelf offers a short test you can give yourself. Ask yourself these questions:

• You procrastinate
• You spend Sunday night worrying about Monday morning
• You’re really competitive about salary and titles
• You don’t feel like helping co-workers
• Work days feel long
• You have no friends at work
• You don’t care about anything.
• Small things bug you
• You’re suspicious of other people’s motives
• Physical symptoms

As Dostoevsky once said, “The greatest happiness is to know the source of unhappiness.”

Despite all that, I have to wonder if there’s not another factor at play in why so many people are unhappy at work. Reflecting back on last week’s post about the challenges that the millennials will face in the workforce, I agree with Canadian novelist Doug Coupland (who popularized the term “McJob”) that, “Unhappiness is something we’re never taught about; we are taught to expect happiness, but never a Plan B to use when the happiness doesn’t arrive.”

Remember, you’re still suffering “The Eeyore Syndrome” even if you’re not proclaiming your unhappiness to the world as the donkey does. In my book Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw I provide my solution (Plan B) if you find yourself suffering this syndrome–find a new job, or career, or whatever it takes to move closer to happiness–life is too short.

In his May 2013 CNBC article “Overqualified yet Underprepared, Graduates Face ‘Unique Paradox’ Study,” author Jermaine Taylor details the challenge that upcoming graduates will have in both finding a job in their field of choice and in enjoying what job they do get.

As Taylor tells us, “As close to 2 million college students prepare to graduate, a study finds that many of them face what it calls a ‘unique paradox.’ While the young people are qualified–even overqualified, in many cases–to enter the workplace, most of them feel ill-suited to tackle the harsh realities of an evolving job market. The wide-ranging study was conducted by the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. and it involved more than 4,900 graduates, most of who finished college between 2009 and 2012. The study suggests that graduates are growing increasingly disillusioned with the employment outcomes of their education.”

The generation that Taylor is talking about is what’s called the Millennials–those born between 1977 and 1992. The problem is that the new millennial graduates can’t find jobs in their field and the jobs they’re forced to take don’t allow them to use all the skills and theory that they learned in school.[1]  While this revelation isn’t necessarily breaking news it is important to take into account when plotting the future of the modern workplace.

What we have is an upcoming workforce that’s both in debt and unhappy about their career and where it might be headed. When we add to that the fact that most young graduates entering the workforce for the first time have no idea what they’re in for “workplace culture” wise, it’s no surprise that that there’s trouble brewing. By this I mean the culture shock they’ll experience when they find out, the hard way, how the workplace really works.

There are a few profound reasons why the Millennials are in for tough time. In his 2012 Forbes article “Gimme, Gimme, Gimme — Millennials in the Workplace,” Ty Kiisel sheds some light into this second aspect of the “Unique Paradox.” Kiisel tells us, “The youth of today have very strong opinions about the workplace–how it should be run, and what their place should be in it.” Kiisel cites a recent poll conducted by MTV which reveals some insight into what Millennials are looking for in the workforce

Kiisel lays the groundwork by telling us that, “The generations preceding the Millennials are sort of like cowboys, a rugged, individualistic lot. In general, these Baby Boomers and Gen X’ers believe in a command-and-control management approach, value working individually, view managers as experts and look to their employers for career planning. They like clear boundaries and have a generally inward-looking perspective as compared to Millennials.”

Since it’s estimated that by 2020, nearly half (46 percent) of all U.S. workers will be Millennials, herein is where the rub exists. Command-and-control management approach, working individually, viewing management as experts, and relying on their employers for career planning is not at all the workplace that will play well to the millennial generation. If you could boil down the key traits of the Millennials it would include: the need for instant gratification, having a much deeper technology focus, valuing (and expecting) mentoring and a need for constant feedback. These fly in the face of how the typical modern workplace is currently run.

As Kiisel tells us, “This generation has been working in groups collaborating with each other since they were in elementary school. The immediacy of the social media technology they use has made it possible for them to interact almost instantaneously. They are unlike Boomers who want their objectives and to be left alone to execute. Millennials want an almost constant stream of [information and] feedback.” Millennials won’t fair too well with the current business practice of annual reviews and annual pay raises.

According to Kiisel, “…80% of Millennials said they want regular feedback from their managers, and 75% yearn for mentors.” They will be sadly surprised when they suffer their first yearly performance review. They will be surprised to find that this scourge of modern business typically is only negative in focus–they relish “constructive” criticism, not being told only of their shortcomings.

Also effective mentoring is another practice that’s copiously missing in the modern workplace. No, having a cadre of sycophants doesn’t count as mentoring.

Kiisel also points out, “What’s more, the survey suggests that most Millennials think the boomers could learn a thing or two from them.” It will be interesting to see the Millennials try to tell the sociopathic fringe, that’s in power in modern business today, that they know more about how to run the business.

Kiisel also tells us that Millennials prize transparency and a flat organizational structure in which they can enjoy a high level of accountability and collaboration. The traditional hierarchical organization, command-and-control management methods, protected fiefdoms and interpersonal gamesmanship will not work with Millennials. Millennials embrace a leadership ideal that is significantly different from that of current modern business organizations–more of a servant leadership model.

Kiisel also points out that Millennials have a difficult time making decisions since they have had their parents making decisions for them for most of their childhood, so when they must make decisions–that no one can really help them with–Millennials will flounder. This is a huge difference from Baby Boomers and Gen X, who thrive on making their own decisions. Millennials probably won’t score high on the performance review skill of “decision making.”

This rise of the millennial generation and the friction that their ideals and work-ethic will cause on the modern workplace is covered in detail in my book Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw and is why I encourage all newcomers to the workplace to read my book. It will provide them the backdrop of what they’ll experience once they get out into the real world of business. Being overqualified for the job is really the least of their worries.

What’s the answer to this upcoming dilemma? To me we just let nature run its course as I believe that modern business is in for a perfect storm as the Millennials start infiltrating the workplace in greater numbers. The good news is that once they become the majority they will change the workplace to fit their ideals and thus the management system that’s been in place for the last 150 years will finally face a well-deserved ignominious death. Maybe then servant leadership, true accountability, true teamwork and collaboration and a cessation of all the games people play for their own gain, will take hold.

In 1927 Werner Heisenberg, a German physicist, Nobel Laureate, and one of the founders of the field of quantum mechanics, discovered what’s now called “The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.” It explains how certain pairs of physical properties of subatomic particles cannot be known at the same time. Heisenberg’s principle states that “the more precisely the POSITION is determined, the less precisely the MOMENTUM is known.” A simple way of describing the principle is that when you measure the momentum of a particle, you lose the ability to know where it is going, because the measurement process changes the trajectory of the particle.

“The Heisenberg Principle” can also been applied to the context of business and the workplace in regard to the performance review process. Re-worded in that context, we have: a performance metric is useful as a performance metric as long as it isn’t used as a performance metric. When you measure the performance (or behavior) of a person there is a substantial likelihood that you will change the trajectory (behavior) of that person–and as we shall see that change is not always for the better–hence why it can be a curse.

Another factor (in social-science terms) at work here is what’s called “observer bias:” the error introduced into measurement when observers overemphasize behavior they expect to find and fail to notice behavior they do not expect, or don’t want.

In his now famous article, “On the Folly of Rewarding A, While Hoping for B” ©1975, Steven Kerr explains how this unintended result of the performance review process happens more that most would think.

As Kerr tells us, “Numerous examples exist of reward systems that are fouled up in that behaviors which are rewarded are those which the rewarder is trying to discourage, while the behavior he desires is not being rewarded at all. Usually rewards are distributed according to individual performance. The college basketball player who feeds his teammates instead of shooting will not compile impressive scoring statistics and is less likely to be drafted by the pros. The ballplayer who hits to right field to advance the runners will win neither the batting nor home run titles, and will be offered smaller raises. It therefore is rational for players to think of themselves first and the team second.” This explains why teamwork is so often hard to truly achieve.

Kerr continues, “In business organizations where rewards are dispensed for individual goals achieved, without regard for overall [organizational] effectiveness, similar attitudes are often observed. Under most [performance review] systems, goals in areas where quantification is difficult often go unspecified. The organization therefore often is in a position where it hopes for employee effort in the areas of team building, interpersonal relations, creativity, etc., but it formally rewards none of these. In cases where promotions and raises are formally tied to [the performance review results], the system itself contains a paradox in that it asks employees to set challenging, risky goals, only to face smaller paychecks and possibly damaged careers if these goals are not accomplished”

Here’s the kicker…according to Kerr, “a survey [that he performed] of a typical organization revealed that the same behaviors which managers thought dysfunctional were those which lower level employees claimed were rewarded.”

Kerr uses the example, “tendencies toward apple-polishing (sycophantic behavior), which management claimed [they didn’t tolerate] were those claimed by subordinates to be their most rational course of action in light of the existing reward system. In this case management apparently was not getting the behaviors it was hoping for, but it certainly was getting the behaviors that were perceived by subordinates to be rewarding.”

Also “observer bias” is introduced because evaluators see a behavior and interpret it according to what it means to them, whereas it may mean something else to the person showing the behavior.

Here’s another way to look at this. The performance of any person in an organization is equal to their contribution to performance plus the contribution from the interaction between them and the rest of the organization In other words, an individual’s performance cannot be separated from the organization itself. Thus as you increase the number of employees the complexity of this increases almost exponentially. Moreover, in an organization that’s in any way dysfunctional it compounds the problem even more as the interaction between employees (communication, teamwork, etc.) is usually confrontational and thus becomes counterproductive to the overall organizational performance and that of the individuals themselves.

So from the Heisenberg Curse perspective what this all means is that regardless of what “performance measures” are used in the performance review process, they may not illicit the behavior that the organization is striving for, in fact they may illicit the exact opposite behavior.

This is because an employee’s true performance (behavior) will be 1) the product of interaction with the system as a whole, and 2) the fact that some performance parameters may mean a totally different thing from what the evaluators believe it to be. This is why most performance review processes that try to reward behavior A, will instead get behavior B.

Thus we have another compelling reason to rid modern business of the “individual” performance review and concentrate instead on the performance of the system (the organization) as a whole. Individual performance is then measured as the person’s contribution to the organization meeting its goals and rewards are then metered out to the individuals according to their contribution.