MAIN SOURCES

MAIN SOURCES
Showing posts with label martius luigi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label martius luigi. Show all posts

Sunday, September 21, 2014

Your Brand Is the Exhaust Fume of the Engine of Your Life










“How do you manage your brand?” I get asked that question really often, especially at public-venue speaking events. Typically, I sigh. It is not that the question is silly, or the questioner shallow, but because this question itself represents so much of what is stopping all of us from doing work that matters.
We talk about “reinventing your brand” when in reality the goal is to reinvent what you work on. We talk about the “brand called you” when we talk about being able to do more of the work you love to do. We talk about ways to “deliver on the impact equation” without asking first, “what is it you want to impact?” We are told by marketing gurus that “everyone now owns a media company!” — as if somehow this is, itself, the goal — rather than a means to an end. Marketing has become the default language — the lingua franca of the day — that we use to describe work, and it is distorting how we evaluate what matters.
Yes, it’s true that web tools can let you be known for the work you do more easily and more cost effectively, letting you own how you present yourself to the world. But that’s probably the least interesting thing about these social constructs and social media tools.
The much more relevant point is that you now get to create, share, and connect ideas with others to do work, ideally meaningful and impactful work. As in the person who was able to accelerate scientific research because of the online game, “Fold It.” This particular game enables important research in the medical field, research that is usually conducted by scientists with PhDs. But making it a game that anyone could play allowed someone “unexpected” to help. A woman who worked as an executive assistant by day turned out to be the best protein folder in the world at night.
As I’ve written in more depth elsewhere, connected individuals can now achieve what once only centralized organizations could. The implications for this are huge. It changes the basis of market power for organizations because size no longer protects competitive advantage. It changes management because people can figure out for themselves what needs to be done to implement the larger strategy. It changes careers because we no longer need to belong to an organization to be able to create scale or impact. You don’t even need to be “old enough” — five-year olds can invent consumer goods products. Today, what matters is the ability to create, not the ability to first prove you can.
So let’s stop using the language of marketing to talk about meaning.
The truth is this: The brand follows the work. Your brand is the exhaust created by the engine of your life. It is a by-product of what happens as you share what you are creating, and with whom you are creating.
It is a sign, yes. Significant, yes. But the real signal comes from being able to answer these two questions:
What is it you care about? It takes courage to find and follow an individual path; finding our own path takes us off the path that others are following, in directions that can seem distinctly alone. Each of us is standing in a place no one else stands in as a function of our history, experience, vision and hopes. I call this onlyness, that thing that only you can bring to any situation. Go with it, and you end up being able to design your own life — and maybe redesign entire industries, too. At the very least, it lets you improve the results of any group you are a part of. Berkeley professors Charlan Jeanne Nemeth and Jack A. Goncalo have proven that “minority viewpoints” aid the quality of decision making by juries, by teams, and for the purpose of innovation. In other words, even when distinct points of view turn out to be wrong, speaking them lets everyone think better, create more solutions, and improve creativity. But if you don’t know what it is you care about and why, you lack the ability to contribute meaningfully.
How will you find and work with allies? While it may be lonely to step into your own path, once you do, you attract those with affinity. The clearer you are in your onlyness, the strong your magnet for the right people for you (and possibly repulsion for others.) This is a good thing. It helps you find, filter, and formulate. It eliminates wasted effort to convince those who will never be convinced. It lets you know what kind of workplace is right for you, and it lets you find the right people for your projects. It lets you align in purpose with others. Esther Dyson points out that the “trick today is not just to find the right target (that is, a person), as social networks such as LinkedIn and search tools can do, but to enlist allies and manage the work to achieve a specific goal.” (Emphasis mine.) Proximity used to reign supreme — where you lived, what school you went to, and whom your parents knew was more of a factor in what opportunities you had. Proximity is still one factor, but in the social era, the other four Ps of community end up growing in importance and power. Communities of passion who share a common interest (photography, or food, or books) can inform new product lines. Communities of purpose willingly share a common task to build something (like Wikipedia) together. Communities of practice, who share a common career or field of business, will extend your offer if it extends their expertise (like Intuit has with its accountant community). Communities of providence allow people to discover connections with others (as in Google+) and thus enable the sharing of information, products, and ideas.
Just recently, I passed up an opportunity to serve on a Fortune 100 Board of Directors. The company has a well-known history of dysfunctional board dynamics and it became clear to me that there was little one person could do to change it. When a friend asked why I was still considering the opportunity, I answered, “It would lend me legitimacy.” When I heard those words come out of my mouth, I knew I had to turn it down. If I’d said yes, it would have been because of “brand” — because I’d want readers like you to see me with more esteem. But in truth, it wouldn’t have meant I was doing more good work.
I’ve studied how actual value is created for over 10 years now, and what I know to be true is this: While what people think of us does matter, what matters much more is our ability to do and deliver. That’s what makes the ultimate difference in the world. And that’s what reputations are really built on. That’s what will draw people to you.
Yes, we are in the middle of a vast sea change in which social can put the power of connection to work to solve meaningful problems. But in order to do that more meaningful work, we need to recognize what is holding us back. In a world of “personal brand” and “leadership brand” and “personal reinvention” and so forth, we should not forget: the real signal is the work itself, and the social signaling is just its echo.
More blog posts by 
80-nilofer-merchant

Nilofer Merchant has personally launched 100 products amounting to $18B in revenue. Her blue-chip career includes Apple, Autodesk, GoLive/Adobe. She's served on both public and private boards. Today, she lectures at Stanford. She’s an expert on collaborative leadership and author of The New How and 11 Rules for Creating Value in the Social Era.

Six Principles for Developing Humility as a Leader




Whether we’re looking at business or politics, sports or entertainment, it’s clear we live in an era of self-celebration. Fame is equated with success, and being self-referential has become the norm. As a result we are encouraged to pump ourselves full of alarming self-confidence. Bluster and the alpha instinct, contends Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, professor of business psychology, often get mistaken for ability and effectiveness (at least for a while). It may well be why so many (incompetent) men rise ahead of women to leadership positions, as Chamorro-Premuzic argued in a recent HBR post.
Yes, we have scores of books, articles, and studies that warn us of the perils of hubris. The word comes from the Greek and means extreme pride and arrogance, generally indicating a loss of connection to reality brought about when those in power vastly overestimate their capabilities. And yes, many of us have also seen evidence that its opposite, humility, inspires loyalty, helps to build and sustain cohesive, productive team work, and decreases staff turnover. Jim Collins had a lot to say about CEOs he saw demonstrating modesty and leading quietly, not charismatically, in his 2001 bestseller Good to Great.
Yet the attribute of humility seems to be neglected in leadership development programs. And to the extent it is considered by managers rising through the ranks, it is often misunderstood. How can we change this?
First, let’s get a few things straight. Humility is not hospitality, courtesy, or a kind and friendly demeanor. Humility has nothing to do with being meek, weak, or indecisive. Perhaps more surprising, it does not entail shunning publicity. Organizations need people who get marketing, including self-marketing, to flourish and prosper.
Hubris, meanwhile, is not a fair label to apply to any person who thinks differently and has the courage to assert or act on their convictions. Studies show, however, that serious problems emerge when robust individualism commingles with narcissism — another term for which we can thank the Greeks (whose demigod Narcissus fell in love with his own reflection). Narcissism combines an exaggerated sense of one’s own abilities and achievements with a constant need for attention, affirmation, and praise. While the label tends to be applied loosely to anyone behaving in a self-absorbed way, psychologists know narcissism to be a formal personality disorder for some, and a real impediment to their forming healthy relationships. The narcissist lacks self-awareness and empathy and is often hypersensitive to criticism or perceived insults. He or she frequently exaggerates contributions and claims to be “expert” at many different things. If you are part of an organization with a leader exhibiting such characteristics, you have a problem. (Executive search firms and hiring committees beware.)
But beyond refusing to hire or promote such extreme cases, can and should organizations try to cultivate more humility in their leadership ranks? How would that goal take shape in the context of a formal leadership development program? As a starting point, we would suggest a curriculum designed around six basic principles. If you’re a developing leader, you should be taught to:
Know what you don’t know. 
Resist “master of the universe” impulses. You may yourself excel in an area, but as a leader you are, by definition, a generalist. Rely on those who have relevant qualification and expertise. Know when to defer and delegate.
Resist falling for your own publicity. 
We all do it: whether we’re writing a press release or a self-appraisal, we put the best spin on our success — and then conveniently forget that the reality wasn’t as flawless. Drinking in the glory of a triumph can be energizing. Too big a drink is intoxicating. It blurs vision and impairs judgment.
Never underestimate the competition. 
You may be brilliant, ambitious, and audacious. But the world is filled with other hard-working, high-IQ, and creative professionals. Don’t kid yourself that they and their innovations aren’t a serious threat.
Embrace and promote a spirit of service. 
Employees quickly figure out which leaders are dedicated to helping them succeed, and which are scrambling for personal success at their expense. Customers do, too.
Listen, even (no, especially) to the weird ideas.
Only when you are not convinced that your idea is or will be better than someone else’s do you really open your ears to what they are saying. But there is ample evidence that you should: the most imaginative and valuable ideas tend to come from left field, from some associate who seems a little offbeat, and may not hold an exalted position in the organization.
Be passionately curious.
Constantly welcome and seek out new knowledge, and insist on curiosity from those around you. Research has found linkages between curiosity and many positive leadership attributes (including emotional and social intelligence). Take it from Einstein. “I have no special talent,” he claimed. “I am only passionately curious.”
We can’t imagine that an individual exposed to the six principles above and encouraged to take them to heart could become anything but a better leader.
But meanwhile, assuming your organization isn’t already helping its leaders develop such habits of mind, let us leave you with two humble, and humbling, suggestions. First: subject yourself to a 360 review. Anonymous feedback from the people who surround you may constitute a mirror you won’t love gazing into, but as Ann Landers wrote: “Don’t accept your dog’s admiration as conclusive evidence that you are wonderful.” 360 feedback pays off in two ways. It shows you how your self-perception deviates from others’ perception of your leadership. (And in leadership, perception is reality.) And it gives you a valuable practice in receiving feedback and turning criticism into a plan for growth and development.
Second, get a coach. We all have blind spots, and there’s certainly no shame in getting help with them. Fast Company reports that 43% of CEOs and 71% of Senior Executives say they’ve worked with a coach. And 92% of leaders being coached say they plan to use a coach again.
Resolve to work on your own humility and you will begin to notice and appreciate its power all around you. In a recent meeting we convened in Los Angeles, the accomplished Chairman and CEO of a major Hollywood studio shared the benefit of his experience with 20 young professionals and students. What did this leader emphasize with the group? He spoke of his own failures, weaknesses, and blind spots, and how they had spurred his learning and success. The fact that he spoke about himself in this way deeply impressed the group. He projected convincing self-confidence, authenticity, and wisdom.
He was a convincing example of the kind of leader our organizations should be trying harder to develop — the kind that knows it’s better to develop a taste for humility now than be forced to eat humble pie later.

John Dame is CEO of Dame Management Strategies (DMS). Jeffrey Gedmin is CEO of the Legatum Institute.

What Gets Measured in Education




The world over, the performance of colleges is under fire.  It’s about time that happened, but there should also be serious concerns about the new report cards that are being fashioned for tertiary educational institutions.
The Obama Administration in the U.S., for instance, plans to create a new performance-based rating system with teeth.  In future, it says, resources will flow only where tangible student-focused outcomes justify their deployment.  Those outcomes will be, most likely, improved retention and graduation rates; fewer wasted credits; lower student debt-burdens; easier access to financial support; greater efficiency estimated by linking progress to degrees and demonstrations of competency, not to credit hours or seat times; more students hired within a reasonable period after graduation; higher salary levels for them; and so on.
Are these useful measures?  Of course.  Will tracking them prove helpful to college managements?  Of course.  Will knowing them be relevant to students and families?  Of course.
But these are not measures of educational performance; these measure only the efficiency of the educational process.  Think, for a moment, of a college as if it were a factory, a pipeline that takes in raw materials and puts them through a structured series of steps that leads to the creation of  “finished products,” namely well-educated students.  The measurements under discussion are yardsticks of the pipeline’s asset utilization and process efficiency levels.  If we improve them, the “factory” will run better.
However, if colleges use only these metrics to evaluate their performance, they will continue to repeat past errors.  For, they will be measuring virtually everything except the one thing that matters most: Student learning.
Nonsense, will be the predictable rebuttal; colleges already measure learning.  What do you think grades indicate?  What do you think degrees stand for?  What do you think the Latin on a diploma signals?
Even if you believe that colleges grade, certify, and award degrees accurately, there are grave limitations to the way they do it.  Their measurements primarily reward discipline-based knowledge — not the capabilities in critical thinking, analytic reasoning, communication skills, and interpersonal effectiveness that employers most care about and that are essential for students to succeed as adults in the real world.
Research shows that there are links between traditional academic performance and economic status.  For instance, students with the advantages that prepare them to test well at one level tend to test well at other levels too.  So the fact that students are performing well according to standard measures may have little, if anything, to do with a college’s learning-related performance.  It may just have a great admissions office and a powerful brand, taking in talented kids through the front door and not messing them up.
Meanwhile, two great ironies are unfolding.  One, while the accuracy of traditional grading stagnates, the ability to carry out true learning-related assessments has advanced with lightning speed.  Improvements in the U.S. Collegiate Learning Assessment; the skills-and-employability assessment instruments pioneered by organizations such as Aspiring Minds in India; the algorithms used to track learning in online video games; the analytics that underlie the learning experiences offered by massive open online courses; and US Education Testing Services’ new proficiency profiles and skills instruments are all changing what assessments can lead to.  (That’s a topic I will revisit in my next post.)
Two, this is also a time when corporations and executives can help create the outcomes they desire as long as they don’t focus only on helping colleges to boost process efficiency or re-shape curriculums.  The corporate world knows a lot about how to evaluate the kinds of learning that matter to it.  It’s time business shared that expertise with colleges, and joined them in efforts to build novel tools that will help measure students’ real learning performances.
More blog posts by 
More on: Education
80-kantrow

Alan Kantrow is an advisor to tertiary educational institutions around the world.

How to Manage Biased People




By now it’s generally accepted that if senior leaders suffer from cognitive biases their decisions can severely undermine company performance. Yet, leaders are not the only members of organizations that exercise poor judgment: Non-leaders are sometimes irrational too. Bearing this in mind, it is imperative that strategy-setters make explicit allowance for just how cognitively fragile their employees might be – or else they risk not fully understanding why their “perfectly rational” strategies don’t work.
Take the recent case of JC Penney, which hired and abruptly fired its CEO, Ron Johnson, after the major changes he instituted took the company from bad to worse. Johnson’s critics have explicitly accused the former Apple superstar of having suffered from no less than three cognitive disorders during his tenure, including: overconfidence (for failing to test his risky pricing strategy), representativeness (for trying to force the Apple retail model onto JC Penney), and anchoring (for having ignored pricing-related, cognitive biases amongst JC Penney’s customers).
Yet, the workforce that Johnson inherited at JC Penney seemed no less guilty of having their ownmental hang-ups, including: defense-attribution bias (for failing to recognize that JC Penney was a sinking ship long before Johnson arrived), Dunning-Kruger effect (for failing to see their roles in making that ship sink), and status-quo bias (for refusing to acknowledge that change was needed). Moreover, in a stunning display of large-scale, bounded rationality, more than 4600 of JC Penney’s head office staff used nearly 35% of the company’s broadband for streaming Youtube during office hours in 2012. In other words, a significant portion of the JC Penney workforce failed to see any connection between their loafing activities and the company’s poor performance.
His own cognitive biases aside, it’s unlikely that any of Johnson’s initiatives would have stuck at JC Penney without first making explicit allowance for the judgment lapses and biased mental dispositions of his new employees. For a firm already in a 6-year slide, how else could he have escaped the associations between his presence and the company’s further decline? By what other means could he have shown how much organizational incompetence was already impeding performance?
Johnson should have directly addressed the biases at the outset, while he forged his strategy. Instead, he fell into the common trap of failing to recognize how organizational biases can derail the execution of that strategy. Perhaps, for example, he felt that firing many of the blatant culprits would solve the problem. It didn’t. Instead, Johnson and new leaders like him need to go deeper into the psyches of lower-level employees. Here are four steps outlining how this might be achieved:
Assess the staff’s personal goals. Let’s be realistic: Having a mission statement too often means very little to low-seniority staff in many organizations. Leaders should recognize that the most common employee goals are more personal in nature: They want job security, good compensation, career progression, etc. Using anonymous surveys, well-structured retreats, and other devices to itemize these goals is an important starting point in overcoming biases that result from misalignment between corporate leaders and the people doing the work. The aim should be to gather a list of the most important goals that characterize what the staff “is thinking about.”
Identify the major bias. Without exhaustively listing the most common employee biases, it suffices to say that the most important one relates to the staff’s misperception of how their goals, their actions, and the company’s strategy are linked. If employees believe that the company’s current direction will ultimately lead to meeting their goals (when it doesn’t) and that a new direction will miss their goals (when it won’t), they will become resistant and inactive and other biases will flow. Hence, the leader must discern, through the examination of those surveys and retreat feedback, whether her staff has an accurate perception of reality.
Lead employees towards logically understanding the fallacies. Once major misperceptions of reality have been identified, it’s vital for you as a leader to publicly demonstrate that those ways of thinking, if accepted and believed, will not lead to the accomplishment of important goals—including those of everyday employees. For example, your staff may highly value job security and defend the status quo; however, if the current strategic direction is leading the company to disaster (as in the pre-Johnson, JC Penney case), as a leader you need to demonstrate the fallacy of the status quo.
Offer an alternative strategy that will still achieve everyone’s goals. Having demonstrated the fallacies, you’re now positioned to win the staff over to your camp in forging, launching, and executing a better strategy. That strategy should aim to meet—in addition to the standard financial and operational performance goals—feasible goals for employees. Where goals are infeasible the leader should explicitly state the reason and logic behind what’s been omitted.
As Ron Johnson learned the hard way, cognitive biases amongst lower-seniority staff can be deadly for even the best of strategies if they go unchecked. But if they’re identified early, executives have a better chance of overcoming them. By demonstrating their potentially negative impacts and transparently offering strategic alternatives to employees, senior leaders can get the buy-in they need and avoid the mistakes of JC Penney’s now-ousted CEO.
More blog posts by 

Maurice Ewing is a globally experienced executive and the forthcoming author of The Leap Factor. You can follow him on Twitter @mauriceewing.

Online Security as Herd Immunity




Online security is only successful if every company does its part.
That was the message of Edward Snowden’s keynote conversation at the SXSW Interactive conference this week, conducted via (highly protected) video link. I was one of the thousands of tech professionals who made up the audience for his first live video appearance, which focused on the need for stronger security practices in the face of government surveillance. “We rely on the ability to trust our communications,” Snowden argued. “Without that we don’t have anything. Our economy cannot succeed.”
I’ve done some pro-vaccination work in my professional life, and Snowden’s exhortation reminded me of nothing so much as the argument for vaccination. That’s because like the effectiveness of online security as Snowden described it, the effectiveness of vaccination depends on herd immunity: as long as enough of the community is vaccinated, diseases like measles and rubella are unheard of.  But herd immunity only works if everybody does their part: if too many people depend on their neighbors’ vaccination rather than vaccinating themselves, we get disease outbreaks instead of a healthy community.
Just as all members of a geographic community benefit from widespread vaccination, all members of the business community benefit from widespread immunity to government (or competitor) surveillance. The ability to keep communications private allows  employees to innovate and collaborate, without their ideas getting scooped by competitors. Private web browsing allows talented professionals to find and apply for your job openings, without fearing that their current employer will notice. Private payment systems allow customers to buy your products, even if they are personal or embarrassing.
But, as with herd immunity, the benefits of privacy are available only if a critical mass of companies and individuals make the effort to protect it. Widespread adoption of privacy tools sustains the market for strong encryption and security software – a field that demands constant innovation to stay ahead of both hackers and government surveillance. Widespread adoption of privacy practices ensures that companies can use privacy-enhancing tools whenever they need them – without being flagged as suspicious. And widespread caution about collecting and retaining data prevents governments (or data brokers) from getting access to datasets that can be used to profile and target specific individuals.
Implementing strong privacy safeguards comes at a personal or business cost, however small: it takes a little bit of extra time and a little bit of extra effort, in part because existing privacy tools aren’t always easy to use. (Again, if more companies adopted strong privacy practices, it would help create market demand for better and more usable tools.) For those of us who put a lot of personal information online in the context of building a social media presence, there is also the potential reputational cost of sacrificing a little bit of visibility or engagement in favor of some degree of discretion.
In urging companies and individuals to assume these small costs, Snowden sounded much like vaccination advocates who encourage each of us to do our part for herd immunity. As with vaccination, it’s tempting to let other people do the heavy lifting: as long as a critical mass of companies use privacy-enabling tools like encryption and anonymized browsing, you know those tools will be available whenever you or your employees need to use them, so it’s easy to forego individual vigilance.
If, on the other hand, unsecured web browsers are the norm in corporate environments, a company that does use the anonymizer Tor or encourages employees to use their “private browsing” option looks like a company with something to hide. If the vast majority of transactions are itemized and trackable through loyalty cards, credit cards and social login, the transactions your customers keep private start to look suspicious. If companies collect and retain large amounts of data – even data that looks innocuous – it helps build the datasets that governments and some businesses (like insurance companies or advertisers) can use to profile, target and advantage (or disadvantage) specific individuals. And if companies cut corners in network design or data management, they make all that data accessible to hackers as well as government intelligence agencies.
Rather than eroding the expectation of online privacy, companies can and should help to build it. Big data is now the name of the game, but as Snowden said on Monday, “you should only collect the data and hold it for as long as necessary for the operation of the business”; any additional data represents a risk for your customers and for your business. Companies can protect the privacy of the data that they do collect by ensuring that all drives and network communications are encrypted. And as Snowden argued, companies not only have a responsibility to encrypt communications (something too many companies have done only since Snowden’s revelations came to light), but to develop technologies that protect privacy in a simple, cheap, effective way that is invisible to users.”
Companies that take these measures are not only contributing to a business environment in which privacy is the norm: they’re also building value for their own shareholders. A company’s networks and security are only as strong as its weakest link: a single employee using a low-security password may be all it takes to compromise corporate systems. It’s not enough for a business to trust that generalized security and privacy norms will provide herd immunity for the free market: each and every organization has an immediate stake in encouraging its employees to adhere to the highest security standards.
And that’s what makes me hopeful that not only SXSW attendees, but the larger business community, will heed Snowden’s call to arms. Companies have self-interested reasons (as well as a legal duty) to drive stronger security practices.  But it’s up to each and every company to do its part.
More blog posts by 
80-alexandra-samuel

Alexandra Samuel is Vice-President of Social Media at Vision Critical, a market research technology provider. She is the author of Work Smarter, Rule Your Email (Harvard Business Review Press, February 2014). Follow her on Twitter at @awsamuel.

Can You Be Too Rich?


Is there such a thing as too rich?
Like most reasonable people, I agree whole-heartedly that people who accomplish greater, worthier, nobler things should be rewarded more than those who don’t. I’m not the World’s Last Communist, shaking his fist atop Karl Marx’s grave at the very idea of riches.
So. Perhaps I’ve asked an absurd question. Perhaps there’s no such thing as too rich — anywhere, ever. But try this thought experiment: Imagine that there’s a single person in the economy who is so rich he’s worth what everyone else is, combined. If there were such a person, he’d be able to buy everything the rest of us own. In time, his family, inheriting his wealth, would become a dynasty; and he could, by bestowing favors, direct the course of society as he so desired. In all but name, such a person would be a king; and no one else’s rights, wishes, desires, or aims could truly matter. And so no society with such a person in it could be reasonably said to be free.
It seems to me, then, there is such a thing as too rich, at least for people who wish to call themselves free. The only question is: Where is the line is drawn? How rich is too rich?
Imagine that you’re so rich you can afford the finest of every good in the economy. The best education, the best car, the best champagne, and so on. Would that be a justifiable level of wealth for a person to not just enjoy — but to aim for? A lot of people would probably say yes.
Now imagine you’re so rich that you can buy the finest of every good in the economy not just once — but 10 times over. Everything. The 10 finest homes. Meals. Doctors. Servants. Entire wardrobes. Apartments, mansions, investment portfolios. The 10 best yachts. Ten private jets. Would that be an excessive level of wealth?
Suddenly, such a level of wealth begins to sound not just unreasonable, but senseless. After all, what possible purpose could owning 10 gigantic homes, yachts, or jets serve? Why should anyonewant to be that rich? Not just rich — but super rich?
What is it that induces a sense of repugnance in many of us — in most sensible people — about not just riches, but super-riches? Why is it that when an invisible line is crossed, our attitudes to wealth transform from admiration, to repulsion?
The doctor; the businessman; the neighborhood banker — all these are likely to be merely rich; and probably, many would argue, justifiably so. Their riches can be evidently seen to reflect a contribution to the common wealth. There is a purpose to their work, which requires long years of training and discipline, to which society rightly assigns a steep value.
But to paraphrase the famous line from F. Scott Fitzgerald: the super-rich are very different from the merely rich. The super-rich are not just worth millions; but billions. And they are not doctors; businessmen; bankers. They are hedge fund tycoons; “private equity” barons; privateers who have bought the natural resources of entire countries whole; CEOs with golden parachutes the size of small planets. And their wealth is questionable; not just in moral terms, but also in economic ones. For what useful purpose do speculation, profiteering, and company-flipping serve? In what way do they benefit the societies that incubate them?
The rich, if they do not plant prosperity’s seeds, at least tend to its branches — but the super-rich appear to be merely picking off the choicest fruit.
When societies allow the rich to grow into the super-rich, they are making a series of mistakes. The mistake is not just that a class of super-rich are fundamentally undemocratic because they hold the polity ransom. The mistake is not just that a class of super-rich is fundamentally uneconomic because the super-rich hoard vast amounts of capital, starving the economy of investment, opportunity. The mistake is not just that a class of super-rich is fundamentally inequitable because it is essentially impossible that any human being has single-handedly truly created enough value to be worth tens of billions. The mistake is not just that a class of super-rich is fundamentally unreasonable because there is no good reason for anyone to want such extreme riches. The mistake is not just that a class of super-rich is fundamentally antisocial, for the super-rich will never have to rely on public goods in the same way that the merely rich still need parks, subways, roads, and bridges.
All those are small mistakes. Here is the big one.
When societies allow the rich to grow into the super-rich, they are limiting what those societies can achieve.
Imagine a bountiful forest. And then — no one can say quite why — a small handful of the trees suddenly grow tall. Much taller. They became so tall and strong and broad that they block the sunlight from all the other trees. The other trees begin to wilt, and wither, and disappear. Their roots crack, and split, and turn to dust. And one day, not long after, even the roots of the tallest trees can find no water, can grip no soil. They begin to fall. Soon the whole forest becomes a desert.
A dry academic term like “income inequality” doesn’t really begin to cover it, does it?
When super-riches grow unchecked, no one wins — not even the super-rich themselves, in the long run. Everyone’s possibility is stifled when the invisible line from rich to super-rich is crossed. And that is precisely why no society should desire a class of super-rich; for it assures us that a society’s human potential will be eroded. And that is precisely why the moral sentiments of most reasonable people are instinctively, naturally opposed to the idea of super riches.
At this juncture, I’m sure that defenders of free markets will complain: Who are you to say that anyone shouldn’t be super-rich? But it is precisely defenders of free markets who should object most vehemently to the super-rich. I defy you to find me a fully-fledged member of the super-rich today who isn’t a monopolist, a scion, an oligarch … or all three.
Is there such a thing as too rich?
Here is my answer: No forest should become a desert.
More blog posts by 
More on: Economy
80-umair-haque

Umair Haque is Director of Havas Media Labs and author of Betterness: Economics for Humans and The New Capitalist Manifesto: Building a Disruptively Better Business. He is ranked one of the world's most influential management thinkers by Thinkers50. Follow him on twitter @umairh.

Friday, September 19, 2014

The Skills Most Entrepreneurs Lack


Entrepreneurs are a unique group of people, but they behave in patterns. In fact, as I recently wrote here on HBR, my firm’s research shows that most serial entrepreneurs display persuasion, leadership, personal accountability, goal orientation, and interpersonal skills. But in that same study, we also discovered a set of skills they do not possess.
To rehash our methods, we assessed subjects identified as serial entrepreneurs on what personal skills they possessed. Then they were compared to a control group of 17,000. As before, this group was assessed on their mastery of 23 practical, job-related skills. We measured whether skills were well developed, developed, moderately developed, or needed developing.
After analyzing the data, we found four distinct skills lacking in most serial entrepreneurs, three skills statistically significantly and one other also noticeably lacking. The statistical significance is derived by comparing the lowest ranking skills to the entrepreneurs’ top skills, as evaluated in the first study.


Empathy is one of the qualities serial entrepreneurs lack most. Entrepreneurs build things and solve problems for people, but according to this study they do this in hopes of a return on investment. Entrepreneurs may have high empathy on an intellectual level, in that they want to produce a product or service that will help someone. This is often, however, also tied to the entrepreneur receiving a return for their time and effort, which people with high empathy do not generally expect.
Entrepreneurial-minded people are not proficient in managing themselves and their time. In many jobs, managing personal day-to-day tasks might take away from accomplishing larger company goals, which are critical to entrepreneurs. Since entrepreneurs typically have many projects underway at one time, they simply do not have time to micromanage each. Often they need assistance managing everyday tasks and should hire or delegate them to someone who has mastered this skill.
This leads to another skill entrepreneurs lack: planning and organizing. Similar to self-management, if entrepreneurs spent time planning and organizing every task or meeting, they would never get anything else done. Once again, hiring someone to keep their calendar, organize meetings and events, keep the office de-cluttered, and help keep them on schedule can put them at an advantage.
Entrepreneurs also do not excel above the control group when it comes to analytical problem solving. They have high utilitarian motivators (potential future gains, monetary returns, new products or ideas), so their focus is often on making a quick decision. They have a sense of urgency in decision-making, and by nature they do not have time to collect and analyze the data. They see numbers as getting in their way, and they should – everyone who has told them an idea wouldn’t pan out has used data and logic to illustrate that point. For example, Martin Luther King Jr. stated, “I have a dream.” He did not say, “I have a plan and strategy.” Entrepreneurs have the vision, but need to employ people to create an executable strategy and carry it through.
Entrepreneurial-minded individuals possess a distinct set of skills that lead to great leadership and ideas. Perhaps the skills they have not mastered are equally important. With an understanding of those weaknesses, they can compensate for them by surrounding themselves with people who excel in these areas. As a leader, realizing other’s strengths and dovetailing them into your own weaknesses is key to developing a team that will carry out your grand vision and achieve goals.
More blog posts by 
80-bill-bonnstetter

Bill J. Bonnstetter is chairman of Target Training International, Ltd.

Seven Rules for Managing Creative-But-Difficult People

Moody, erratic, eccentric, and arrogant? Perhaps — but you can’t just get rid of them. In fact, unless you learn to get the best out of your creative employees, you will sooner or later end up filing for bankruptcy. Conversely, if you just hire and promote people who are friendly and easy to manage, your firm will be mediocre at best. Suppressed creativity is a malign organizational tumour. Although every organization claims to care about innovation, very few are willing to do what it takes to keep their creative people happy, or at least, productive. So what are the keys to engaging and retaining creative employees?
1. Spoil them and let them fail: Like parents who celebrate their children’s mess: show your creatives unconditional support and encourage them to do the absurd and fail. Innovation comes from uncertainty, risk, and experimentation — if you know it will work, it isn’t creative. Creative people are the natural experimenters, so let them try and test and play. Of course, there are costs associated with experimentation — but these are lower than the cost of NOT innovating.
2. Surround them by semi-boring people: The worst thing you can do to a creative employee is to force them to work with someone like them — they would compete for ideas, brainstorm eternally, or simply ignore each other. That said, you cannot surround creatives with really boring or conventional people — they would not understand them, and fall out. In line with this, recent research indicates that teams made up of diverse members who are open to taking each others’ perspective perform most creatively.
The solution, then, is to support your creatives with colleagues who are too conventional to challenge their ideas, but unconventional enough to collaborate with them. These colleagues will need to pay attention to details, mundane executional processes, and do the dirty work: Messi needs Busquets and Puyol; Ronaldo needs Alonso and Ramos.
3. Only involve them in meaningful work: Natural innovators tend to have more vision, research I’ve done indicates. They see the bigger picture and are able to understand why things matter (even if they cannot explain it). The downside to this is that they simply won’t engage in meaningless work. This all-or-nothing approach to work mirrors the bipolar temperament of creative artists, who perform well only when inspired — and inspiration is fueled by meaning. This rule can also be applied to other employees: everyone is more creative when driven by their genuine interests and a hungry mind.
As novelist John Irving said, “the reason I can work so hard at my writing is that it’s not work for me”. At the same time, in any organization there will be employees who are less interested in, well, doing interesting work; they are satisfied with simply clocking in and out, and are incentivized by external rewards. Companies should ensure that trivial or meaningless work is assigned to these employees.
4. Don’t pressure them: Creativity is usually enhanced by giving people more freedom and flexibility at work. If you like structure, order and predictability, you are probably not creative. However, we are all more likely to perform more creatively in spontaneous, unpredictable circumstances — because we cannot rely on our habits. Don’t constrain your creative employees; don’t force them to follow processes or structures. Let them work remotely and outside normal hours; don’t ask where they are, what they are doing or how they do it. This is the secret to managing Don Draper, and why he never went to work for a bigger competitor. This is also why so many top athletes fail to make the transition from a small to a big team, and why business founders are usually unhappy to remain in charge of their ventures once they are acquired by a bigger company.
5. Pay them poorlyDon’t overpay them: There is a longstanding debate about the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Over the past two decades, psychologists have provided compelling evidence for the so-called “over-justification” effect, namely the process whereby higher external rewards impair performance by depressing a person’s genuine or intrinsic interest. Most notably, two large-scale meta-analyses reported that, when tasks are inherently meaningful (and creative tasks are certainly in this condition), external rewards diminish engagement. This is true in both adults and children, especially when people are rewarded merely for performing a task. However, providing positive feedback (praises) does not harm intrinsic motivation, so long as the feedback is perceived as genuine. [Editor's note: This is clearly a controversial point; Dr. Chamorro-Premuzic has expanded on it in his new article, "Does Money Really Affect Motivation? A Review of the Research." In line with his comments in the thread below, we've also updated the header on this section to be more accurate.]
The moral of the story? The more you pay people to do what they love, the less they will love it. In the words of Czikszentmihalyi, “the most important quality, the one that is most consistently present in all creative individuals, is the ability to enjoy the process of creation for its own sake.” More importantly, people with a talent for innovation are not driven by money. Data from our research archive, which includes over 50,000 managers from 20 different countries, indicates quite clearly that the more imaginative and inquisitive people are, the more they are driven by recognition and sheer scientific curiosity rather than commercial needs.
6. Surprise them: Few things are as aggravating to creatives as boredom. Indeed, creative people are prewired to seek constant change, even when it’s counterproductive. They take a different route to work every day, even if it gets them lost, and never repeat an order at a restaurant, even if they really liked it. Creativity is linked to higher tolerance of ambiguity. Creatives love complexity and enjoy making simple things complex rather than vice-versa. Instead of looking for the answer to a problem, they prefer to find a million answers or a million problems. It is therefore essential that you keep surprising your creative employees; failing that, you should at least let them create enough chaos to make their own lives less predictable.
7. Make them feel important: As T.S. Eliot noted, “most of the trouble in this world is caused by people wanting to be important”. And the reason is that others fail to recognize them. Fairness is not treating everyone the same, but like they deserve. Every organization has high and low potential employees, but only competent managers can identify them. If you fail to recognize your employees’ creative potential, they will go somewhere where they feel more valued.
A final caveat: even when you are able to manage your creative employees, it does not mean that you should let them manage others. In fact, natural innovators are rarely gifted with leadership skills. There is a profile for good leaders, and a profile for creative people — and they are rather different. Steve Jobs had better relationships with gadgets than people, and most Google engineers are utterly disinterested in management. One of the reasons for the rapid plateau of start-ups is that their founders tend to remain in charge. They should learn from Mark Zuckerberg who brought in Sheryl Sandberg to make up for his own leadership deficits. Research confirms the stereotypical view that corporate innovators — intrapreneurs — exhibit many of the psychopathic characteristics that prevent them from being effective leaders: they are rebellious, anti-social, self-centered and often too low in empathy to care about the welfare of others. But manage them well, and their inventions will delight us all.
Editor’s note: We updated the headline on this post April 10 to reflect that its intent is to discuss a small subset of people who happen to be both creative and difficult to work with; not to imply that all creative people are difficult. We regret the error.
More blog posts by 
80-Tomas-Chamorro-Premuzic

Dr Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic is an international authority in personality profiling and psychometric testing. He is a Professor of Business Psychology at University College London (UCL), Vice President of Research and Innovation at Hogan Assessment Systems, and has previously taught at the London School of Economics and New York University. He is co-founder of metaprofiling.com. His book is Confidence: Overcoming Low Self-Esteem, Insecurity, and Self-Doubt.