There is a fine distinction to be made in the area of "wanting." Of course it is fine to want a new car, a home reminiscent of those on HGTV, clothes that step out of GQ or Marie Claire. And of course, it is fine, desirable even, to want to more love, or laughter or free time. . .any of those intangibles that may or may not come with a price tag.
The distinction is this: it is fine to want, but don't feel poor because you have less than you may desire. The truth is, and you know this just from simple living, often what we have is enough.
Your car may not be the newest - but it gets you from place to place. Your house may not be designer finished - but it provides shelter and warmth and a place to sleep. You may desire more love or laughter (and hopefully you will find it), but don't ignore that which you have.
Most of us are lucky enough to have what we need to sustain our lives. . .even prosper. That means we have enough.
If we believe we don't have enough, our belief structure is rooted in scarcity. If one's belief structure is focused on what we don't have, there is no room to reach out to others. . .there is not enough to share. . .there is nothing left to fulfill one of the greatest components of a life force - which is giving to others.
It is my observation that people who believe they have enough, and are thankful for that which they have, are able and willing to do all of the above. In that process of reaching out and giving to others from a point of personal richness. . .they themselves are both emboldened and enriched.
What we have may not be everything we desire (it really never is). But to recognize that we do have (probably more than) enough. . .is the springboard for lives rooted in thankfulness and individuals who not only enrich themselves, but those surrounding them.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Friday, November 20, 2015
Six Tips for the Interviewer
Having just gone through the interview process (as an interviewer) again, I am reminded how frustrating it can be. You want to hire the right person for the job and a right match for your team. . .but it is difficult to make a fair assessment in just a few hours time when you are essentially having an introductory conversation that is outside the everyday realities of work.
Here, then, are a few reminders for the interviewer.
1. The interview is not the end-game. Some of the best people on the team were people who were satisfactory, but not necessarily outstanding interviews. Some of the best interviews I've had turned out to be mediocre team members.
2. Practical experience aces the interview. I have seen this happen multiple times. A truly great employee ends up, perhaps due to nerves or whatever, not being a great interview. If this happens, don't rely on the interview, but instead rely on the practical experience of the team member you know.
3. Don't try to get "tricky" in the interview. Do not try to trip up the interviewee, or put them in the "hot seat" or pressure test the individual. It's not the reality of anyone's workplace (no matter how stressful you believe your workplace to be) and it's not fair to the individual.
4. Have a conversation. You are only going to get the real essence of the interviewee, and they of you, if you remove the pretense and sit down and have a real conversation. Try to make it as relaxing for all parties - it will be easier for you and it will give you a better chance to know the potential team member.
5. It's not a speaking contest. Don't look for the quick answer, the best-spoken answer or the most-referenced answer. Look instead for the quality answer, the one that is thoughtful and will provide the best match for the work and the team.
6. Don't be a afraid to make a mistake. At some point, you will hire someone you wish you hadn't - then you coach. Meanwhile, don't freeze up at the hiring point. Engage the person who you believe brings the best attitude, a satisfactory skill set and the ability to get along with, and enhance, the total team.
Like it? Share it!
My book "Courageous Questions, Confident Leaders" is available on Amazon Kindle.
Here, then, are a few reminders for the interviewer.
1. The interview is not the end-game. Some of the best people on the team were people who were satisfactory, but not necessarily outstanding interviews. Some of the best interviews I've had turned out to be mediocre team members.
2. Practical experience aces the interview. I have seen this happen multiple times. A truly great employee ends up, perhaps due to nerves or whatever, not being a great interview. If this happens, don't rely on the interview, but instead rely on the practical experience of the team member you know.
3. Don't try to get "tricky" in the interview. Do not try to trip up the interviewee, or put them in the "hot seat" or pressure test the individual. It's not the reality of anyone's workplace (no matter how stressful you believe your workplace to be) and it's not fair to the individual.
4. Have a conversation. You are only going to get the real essence of the interviewee, and they of you, if you remove the pretense and sit down and have a real conversation. Try to make it as relaxing for all parties - it will be easier for you and it will give you a better chance to know the potential team member.
5. It's not a speaking contest. Don't look for the quick answer, the best-spoken answer or the most-referenced answer. Look instead for the quality answer, the one that is thoughtful and will provide the best match for the work and the team.
6. Don't be a afraid to make a mistake. At some point, you will hire someone you wish you hadn't - then you coach. Meanwhile, don't freeze up at the hiring point. Engage the person who you believe brings the best attitude, a satisfactory skill set and the ability to get along with, and enhance, the total team.
Like it? Share it!
My book "Courageous Questions, Confident Leaders" is available on Amazon Kindle.
Friday, November 13, 2015
Of Marco, Machines and People
Usually I don't engage political punditry - unless there is something so heroic or so heinous that it deserves special mention. Unfortunately, we are in the latter category.
While most candidates at this week's Republican presidential primary debate were against raising the minimum wage (Donald Trump, "Wages are too high.") it was Marco Rubio who opined. . .
"If you raise the minimum wage, you're going to make people more expensive than a machine."
Seriously, if that is our measure of what is a fair wage - then all hope is lost.
In hopes of writing more than a diatribe against the imperialness of this all, let me point out elements in the statement that we should all eschew. The first is the comparison of people and machines. One of my bosses, upon contemplating the hundred or so people working for him, actually said, "If we could fire them all and replace them with robots, we'd be so much better off." He was wrong, of course, because robots and machines do not have human, emotional intelligence which is keystone to a successful operation.
There are places in our culture for machines. . .and then there are places for people who live and breathe and have opinions and have needs and can give your enterprise a superior edge. Let's not confuse the two.
Secondly, to have the audacity to suggest that the minimum wage has to be lower than what any machine could do the job for is just mind-blowingly ignorant of both what talented people bring to the workplace as well as what a fair income in America should look like. The current American minimum wage results in an annual income of just a little over $15,000/annually. Who do you know that can survive on $15,000/annually? The establishment of a fair wage should not be a comparison against a machine; it should be benchmarked to what is a livable wage.
Thirdly, Rubio's statement demonstrates no vision in terms of the evolution of industry and the workplace. Assuredly, we have developed machines that can do work expediently and efficiently; at the same time, we are developing new business models and technologies that require human skill sets and knowledge. To suggest that we are in a place in which we must choose between machines and humans is one dimensional thinking.
We must be fair with our team members. We must be cognizant of the responsibility we play in society in assuring that employees are paid a fair, livable wage. Without that, we are developing a cynical workforce that will (deservedly) revolt and a society that is devoid of fairness and compassion.
Like it? Share it!
My book "Courageous Questions, Confident Leaders" is available on Amazon Kindle.
While most candidates at this week's Republican presidential primary debate were against raising the minimum wage (Donald Trump, "Wages are too high.") it was Marco Rubio who opined. . .
"If you raise the minimum wage, you're going to make people more expensive than a machine."
Seriously, if that is our measure of what is a fair wage - then all hope is lost.
In hopes of writing more than a diatribe against the imperialness of this all, let me point out elements in the statement that we should all eschew. The first is the comparison of people and machines. One of my bosses, upon contemplating the hundred or so people working for him, actually said, "If we could fire them all and replace them with robots, we'd be so much better off." He was wrong, of course, because robots and machines do not have human, emotional intelligence which is keystone to a successful operation.
There are places in our culture for machines. . .and then there are places for people who live and breathe and have opinions and have needs and can give your enterprise a superior edge. Let's not confuse the two.
Secondly, to have the audacity to suggest that the minimum wage has to be lower than what any machine could do the job for is just mind-blowingly ignorant of both what talented people bring to the workplace as well as what a fair income in America should look like. The current American minimum wage results in an annual income of just a little over $15,000/annually. Who do you know that can survive on $15,000/annually? The establishment of a fair wage should not be a comparison against a machine; it should be benchmarked to what is a livable wage.
Thirdly, Rubio's statement demonstrates no vision in terms of the evolution of industry and the workplace. Assuredly, we have developed machines that can do work expediently and efficiently; at the same time, we are developing new business models and technologies that require human skill sets and knowledge. To suggest that we are in a place in which we must choose between machines and humans is one dimensional thinking.
We must be fair with our team members. We must be cognizant of the responsibility we play in society in assuring that employees are paid a fair, livable wage. Without that, we are developing a cynical workforce that will (deservedly) revolt and a society that is devoid of fairness and compassion.
Like it? Share it!
My book "Courageous Questions, Confident Leaders" is available on Amazon Kindle.
Friday, November 6, 2015
Four Rules About "The Bonus"
"The Bonus" is a great thing. . .a reward of cash and/or equity for a job well-done. The bonus is also an emotional issue and, if not managed properly, an element that can work contrary to the good of the enterprise. I've been in and out of bonus programs. . .so here are a few observations that I believe should be rules of the road regarding the bonus.
1. Do not frame it as part of the base compensation. I have seen cheap CEOs and CFOs try to get away with this: "well yes, the salary is low. . .but if the individual is really good they will earn their bonus and be on par with their peers in the remainder of the industry."
For the love of God - pay people what they are worth. If you make the mistaken assumption that the bonus is only to get someone on par with a competitive wage, you've committed a grievous error. You will not be able to attract and keep top talent.
A "bonus" is called a "bonus" because it is just that. . .a reward for a job well done - not part of a base compensation.
2. The bonus should only be paid if the enterprise makes its goals. I have seen bonus structures go both ways: an individual may make their bonus based on individual performance if the enterprise does not make their goals or the enterprise as a total has to make their goals before any individual can bonus.
Granted there are arguments to be made on both sides; the stronger is the latter. If individuals can bonus without the enterprise making its goals, it opens up the world of fiefdoms, backstabbing, land grabbing and all sorts of unpleasantries because individuals are so focused on getting their money - they are not concerned with the overall health and welfare of the organization.
All team members within an organization must be pointed in the direction of making the overall goal.
3. The bonus should be paid annually. The more I work with financial numbers the more I have come to realize that a short-term vision does not result in long-term benefits. Quarterly performances can be too unpredictable and too swayed by anomalies. Go for the annual bonus.
4. Behaviors can (and should) be part of the bonus equation. If the enterprise is rewarding on numeric performance only - they are developing a cultural void and have no hopes of achieving some of the finer parts of the art. Yes, judging and evaluating behavior can be tricky - but that's what we are paid to do. Establish metrics and outcomes and measure against those. . .and also have the guts to evaluate if the individual is behaving according to the laws of the land.
The "Bonus" is indeed a reward for the individual - but it should also be properly structured so that it is a bonus to the operation of the entire enterprise.
Like it? Share it!
My book "Courageous Questions, Confident Leaders" is available on Amazon Kindle.
1. Do not frame it as part of the base compensation. I have seen cheap CEOs and CFOs try to get away with this: "well yes, the salary is low. . .but if the individual is really good they will earn their bonus and be on par with their peers in the remainder of the industry."
For the love of God - pay people what they are worth. If you make the mistaken assumption that the bonus is only to get someone on par with a competitive wage, you've committed a grievous error. You will not be able to attract and keep top talent.
A "bonus" is called a "bonus" because it is just that. . .a reward for a job well done - not part of a base compensation.
2. The bonus should only be paid if the enterprise makes its goals. I have seen bonus structures go both ways: an individual may make their bonus based on individual performance if the enterprise does not make their goals or the enterprise as a total has to make their goals before any individual can bonus.
Granted there are arguments to be made on both sides; the stronger is the latter. If individuals can bonus without the enterprise making its goals, it opens up the world of fiefdoms, backstabbing, land grabbing and all sorts of unpleasantries because individuals are so focused on getting their money - they are not concerned with the overall health and welfare of the organization.
All team members within an organization must be pointed in the direction of making the overall goal.
3. The bonus should be paid annually. The more I work with financial numbers the more I have come to realize that a short-term vision does not result in long-term benefits. Quarterly performances can be too unpredictable and too swayed by anomalies. Go for the annual bonus.
4. Behaviors can (and should) be part of the bonus equation. If the enterprise is rewarding on numeric performance only - they are developing a cultural void and have no hopes of achieving some of the finer parts of the art. Yes, judging and evaluating behavior can be tricky - but that's what we are paid to do. Establish metrics and outcomes and measure against those. . .and also have the guts to evaluate if the individual is behaving according to the laws of the land.
The "Bonus" is indeed a reward for the individual - but it should also be properly structured so that it is a bonus to the operation of the entire enterprise.
Like it? Share it!
My book "Courageous Questions, Confident Leaders" is available on Amazon Kindle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)