Go Ahead - Try It!

I like to learn. No, maybe that's not entirely true.  I like to have knowledge but I'm not always amenable to the process of leaning.  I tend to want the knowledge to somehow download into my brain like Neo learning kung fu (yes, that was a complete nerdy Matrix reference I am proud to say). What I also know, though, is that the best way for me to learn is to process the knowledge in smaller pieces. This way I reduce my chances for frustration and increase the chances that I will retain what I have learned as it is easier to apply a bit of knowledge at a time rather than large volumes of data.  It's just how most of our brains work. 

Reducing the learning process to a shorter period of time is also a great way to introduce yourself to something new.  Matt Cutts, an engineer at Google, would agree.  In this short TED talk he mentions the various 30-day "experiments" he completed where he committed to trying new things for 30 days.  It is surprising how little time you need to practice something before it becomes ingrained as habit.

Check out the talk below and go out there and try it!

Your Nose is Growing...Lies in the Workplace

I once had a co-worker, let's call this person Pat, who certain acrimonious people in the office referred to as "The Parrot".  Pat received the moniker by tending to nod her head and agree with people concerning topics she did not have a high comfort level with.  In other words, Pat would agree or disagree on these topics purely based on the general consensus.  You might say that Pat's mimicking essentially meant Pat lied to disguise a lack of knowledge on the given topic.  You would likely be right.  How terrible - what an unethical way to conduct yourself, right?  Possibly, however, Pat is not alone in her missteps at navigating office culture and politics.  According to Christopher Bonanos' article The Lies We Tell at Work, Pat is part of the majority who lie in the workplace.  Some of those lies have darker motives and, as usually is the case, result in the loss of gainful employment for the deceitful.  

The better news is that most of the workplace tall tales fall more into the "light' lies category.  These tend to be in the interest of getting work done and avoiding conflict - so, don't feel too bad.  If you decide not to give an honest opinion when a co-worker asks if you like her new haircut it's because telling her the new do makes her look like a standard poodle is not important enough to disrupt office harmony.  

What you need to look out for, states psychology professor and The Liar in Your Life author Robert Feldman, "the greater the deception, the more workplace culture is likely a factor".  In other words, employees easily pick up on what is and is not acceptable in any organization.  It's good practice to do a bit of a culture check once in a while - survey your employees and "walk and talk" the floor.  Listen to what they are saying and observe what they are doing.  

In the end certain workplace lies are okay - protecting company secrets (e.g. "the secret formula") because it provides your company a market advantage, fostering interpersonal relationships ("that lunch you've brought from home smells great"), or in cases where you promise less then deliver more.

Hiring for Culture or Qualifications?

Okay - admit it.  You've conducted an interview with a potential candidate and allowed, at least in small part, your own cultural biases to help make the hiring decision.  It's okay - many have done it and, to some degree, it is even preferred that you use company cultural markers to factor into the hiring process.  In fact, many companies are preferring to hire for cultural fit rather than add a new staff member based purely on qualifications.  Sure, it sounds like a bunch of human resource managers asking "Google-type" interview questions like "What is your favorite food?" and hiring candidates who like the same foods as them.  Not so. Think about what the typical interview is like (I mean the old standby, classic interview).  Usually you ask questions designed to find out what the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate are and ask questions designed to determine whether the candidate can back up their claims.  Is that the best way to find the most creative candidates, though?  Is it the best way to find candidates who will enjoy working with your current employees; e.g. someone who will be a great contributor?

According to Logan Hill's Bloomberg Businessweek article Only BFFs Need Apply, the answer is yes.  Companies are increasingly hiring for cultural fit which does not necessarily mean the most qualified candidate is being chosen.  As a marketing executive states "I once hired a woman who really didn't have the right background or experience...and because we got along so well, I was able to train her easily, and she ended up doing great things for us".  A recent Inc.com article by Ilya Pozin lists passion and commitment as one of the top qualities his company looks for and lists relevant experience as fourth.  Tony Hsieh, CEO of Zappos, in an interview with Inc.com, states that they have passed on hiring people who are smart and have the necessary qualifications but who do not seem to fit the company culture. Zappos even bases 50% of their reviews on whether the employee is inspiring the company culture. 

What is driving the move to cultural fit as being as important (or more important) than requisite qualifications?   Blame millennials according to Dan Schawbel, author of Me: 2.0.  Millennials have priorities that differ from previous generations.  "They'd rather have meaningful work over more pay....they want a culture that's less hierarchical, more flexible, and more understanding of differences" states Schawbel. 

Finding Your Super Stance!

It's time for another TED talk.  This time I thought I would throw in some self-empowerment that will assist you professionally but also personally.  Amy Cuddy, a social psychologist and professor with Harvard Business School, shares her research regarding power dynamics.  What I found interesting is a study that Cuddy mentions in the beginning of the talk.  The study had people observe doctor-patient interactions without sound; meaning, they could only infer how the interaction went and could not hear what was being said.  Based on simple observation, they were able to predict which doctors would have an issue with lawsuits.  Basically, how well you can interact non-verbally, as well as verbally, has a high impact on employee relations (when relating the study results to a business application). 

Now....go out there and display your best Superman or Wonder Woman stance!

Hit "Delete" to "Reply All"

How much time do you spend reading emails that are of no interest to you because you were part of a "reply all"?  Well, if your numbers are similar to the average you are spending a good 5 percent or more of your workday opening and reading such emails.  Beyond being annoyed that you just received the fifteenth "reply all" response to an email on whether staff prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream for the office party, opening these emails puts a dent in productivity.  Considering that approximately 15 percent of your day is spent on email that 5 percent can really add up.  "Spread those stats over a 10,000-employee company and you rapidly get to a pretty big number in terms of dollar cost- in the tens of millions of dollars per year" according to Bloomberg Businessweek article Re: Re: Re: Confidential.  

Some companies are taking drastic measures to combat the time waste (and interrupted concentration) that all those unwanted emails results in.  Wells Fargo's sales division head, Gene Sellers, decided that he was tired of it all and pronounced the "reply all" button dead to his staff.  The button is forboden and may only be used in special circumstances that involve the staff as a whole. Netmanners.com suggests users utilize Bcc   to remove the option of "reply all" from the receivers of your message.  

From my experience I can tell you that the majority of the "repy all" messages I have been on the receiving end of were due to simple carelessness.  These were instances were the sender was not paying attention, distracted, or just wanted to get the message out of their inbox.  Taking a moment to review, not only your response, but who you are responding to can save much aggravation and possibly avoid some nasty repercussions (for those not too nice griping emails).