It may not be a typical thing to discuss superheroes in a business context. But today, we’re going to go for it.

Even if we’re not into “comic books,” most of us are probably familiar with a bit of their mythology. A pop culture fascination with superheroes has come screaming into popular media in the past two decades, pushing the once-relegated-to-the-bedroom-of-nerds fanfare squarely into the mainstream. By this point, you’ve almost certainly seen Spider-Man, Heroes, Smallville, one of the five Superman movies, one of the X-Men films, Thor, Captain America, or any number of the other “superhero” flicks released recently.

In addition to delivering a boatload of melodramatic fun and action, in any superhero story we inevitably find the protagonist struggling with how to use his or her superpower: the thing that makes them different from the “normal” folks.

Despite our lack of wall-crawling ability, x-ray vision, or amazing powers of flight, this isolation and confusion of purpose is a feeling we can relate to. No matter how connected we are, we all have moments of insecure loneliness.

We all feel “left out” or “not normal” from time to time.

The problem with this is that “normal” is an illusion. Human beings are ineffably unique, and we see the world through our own completely individualized lenses. We do our best to respect these differences, but they also create some tension — and isolation. We are naturally skewed to do some things really well, and other things… well, not so much. This is OK — and the way it should be — but it often makes us feel like we have these “superpowers” (things we’re really good at) and we’re not quite sure how to harness their power.

(Even if you don’t feel like you’ve got any superpowers, you do. Hang with me for a moment… it will make more sense in a few paragraphs.)

This is a central, and often missed, component of how to best lead from one’s strengths. In a nutshell, it is the areas of our biggest strengths which cast the largest shadows. It is our top talents that give us the most clues into some of our most fragile tendencies.

True, my natural abilities — the talent that lies within my proclivities, my paradigms, my lens, my worldview — are the areas which have the greatest potential for exponential growth. But they are my largest potential area for doing harm, as well.

Let me explain. For me, the most potential for damage does not come with me trying to do the things that are outside my natural talent circle. I am naturally terrible at those things, and in truth, I should try my best to avoid them because I will fail there more often than not. (Ideally, I should partner with someone strong in these areas.) The greatest harm I can do to the world doesn’t typically come from those “weak” things (remember, they don’t come naturally to me, and I am much less likely to even attempt them). No, the greatest damage I can do is by not learning how to control my strength.

Here’s a bit of info on me: I am relentless in my pursuit of excellence. I have an almost palpable need to be successful. In addition, I am obscenely idealistic. I believe SO intensely in the potential of humanity, I feel SO passionately about the good that people can accomplish, that I am simply unwilling to accept the status quo. It’s like my soul simply rejects that as an option (dramatic, I realize… but true).

These qualities I have can be good things — but only IF I can learn to leverage them properly. I have learned, through much pain, that if I do not control the rampant idealism within me, for example, it can overtake everything else I feel and make me hopelessly, incessantly discontent. I have also learned to take on projects very carefully, because if a feeling of success is not found there, my talent will almost “force” me to rationalize an abandonment of the situation.

Of course, these talents of mine can be amazing strengths. If my peers (and my organization) can put up with a fanatical drive to be the best in the world, I will help make everything around me successful. And that’s good for everyone!

This is where it comes back to the superheroes. In our work at Strengths Doctors, we often make the admittedly melodramatic comparison of talent/strength to “superpowers.” There is always an intrinsic paradoxical tension with “power,” be it an otherworldly gift from the yellow sun (that’s what gives Superman his power, btw) or your almost-as-unbelievable ability to make instantaneous connections with people, be a brainstorming genius, or be able to genuinely feel what others do.

Those things are amazing. But the things that give us the most power also deliver the ability to do incredible damage. Think about it this way: Superman’s strength certainly comes in handy when he’s fighting a foe, but it requires more control than anything else when he’s shaking hands, petting dogs, or making an omelet. (You were wondering when we’d get there.)

Our strengths can be our yellow sun, or they can be our kryptonite.

Our power can be overwhelming — sometimes almost unbearable — until we learn how to manage it.

Perhaps the most relevant quote from a comic-based film is also one of the most famous. In Spider-man, Peter Parker’s Uncle Ben says to him: “With great power comes great responsibility.”

I imagine you’ve known some leaders that haven’t been able to control their abilities. It’s almost like they are constantly running over themselves, right? These are the leaders that make decisions without any consideration or strategy, boss people around unnecessarily, take on far too many projects and get ulcers, and never take a firm stance on direction. Most times, this is not a lack of strength — it is the opposite. It is a strength in overdrive. It is unbridled talent at its worst, and it will destroy a person’s leadership and, eventually, the organization with it.

It is an astronomical misstep to miss this component of leading from our strengths: choosing to build a strengths-based environment means controlling our power as much as it does maximizing our strengths. Our greatest areas of weaknesses don’t come from the bottom of our talents; they come from the same top themes our strengths come from.

With great power does truly come great responsibility. And with practice, we can use the knowledge of our top talents for insights into how to leverage their power for the good of our leadership development and the health of our organization.

//

When left alone business systems, like a river, will always gravitate to the path of least resistance. This isn’t necessarily a good thing, because creating an open company culture that is based on the strengths of employees and fosters engagement and creativity is essential—though it certainly goes in the “resistance” category.

It’s worth our energy, though, because building a work environment that does this may be the single most important thing a leader can do in the new economy.

Architecting a workplace that can celebrate individual talents will feel like forging a trail through thorns, at least at first, because it is intensely unconventional. There are a few reasons why this is so. One of these is the myth of “the American Dream.”

Many of us, especially in America, have been told for most of our lives that 1) we can be anything we want to be, and 2) if we try hard enough we will succeed.

But neither of these things are true.

For example: I could practice basketball twenty-five hours a day with the fortitude of Rudy and still never, ever be Michael Jordan. Also, I will never be an NFL linebacker. (If you’ve met, or seen a picture of, me you know this is true.)

These things are just a reality. I can’t do “anything” I might think I want to—at least not if I want to do them well.

But my mix of unique background and talents does mean there are things I can do better than anyone else in the world—I just have to discover what they are.

The same is true for every employee we have. Many of them are—right now, at this very moment… look around—being crammed into positions that don’t fit them.

They’re being told to compete in the NBA, but they are not a basketball player.

And if this is the case, their failure isn’t their fault—it’s ours.

In the emerging culture, this is the job of leaders and managers: to help unleash the immense potential of each employee and to coach each person in finding a position where they and their talents can flourish.

Remember: without followers we are not leaders; we are just lonely explorers.

Leadership is not for you—it’s always for the people who follow you.

Real leadership is, and always has been, about creating a legacy. The primary job responsibility of the leaders of tomorrow will be to care for the people who report to them. Plain and simple.

If we are not doing that, we are failing.

//

P.S. I did a video and posted a bit more research on this idea awhile back. Check it out here.

//

At work, the more “experience” the better. Most job postings even list a certain number of years a person has to have in that field before even applying for the opening.

A small part of this makes sense. There are certain things we can only learn from experience.

But most of it — especially the time requirement — is absolutely ridiculous.

When we’re learning something in school, is it our amount of “experience” with something that dictates how well we understand it? Do we judge a student’s success on how long it takes them to figure out how to do a math problem? Do we laud those who had to spend more time in 3rd grade?

“Timmy is our best student — he’s spent 4 years learning the quadratic equation.”

In a learning environment like school, we would find this mindset absolutely absurd.* Backwards. In education, we associate intelligence with speed. How quickly a person can absorb something is a sign of their natural talent and proclivity for that subject. But at work, we assume the opposite… all the time.

Do people need experience? Sure, but not everybody needs the same amount. People learn at different rates and in different styles. Slapping a number of prerequisite years on a job posting is mostly laziness.

How does your organization measure experience? Could it be time to re-think the definition…?

//

*Hm… makes me wonder what kind of environment we have at work.

//

For the past few months, I’ve been fortunate to be a part of a group called the MIX Hackathon Pilot, helping to brainstorm ways to reinvent management from the inside-out.

To do this, we followed a fascinating process that looked something like this:

1. List the most successful communities of passion that exist, as well as the communities of passion you belong to
2. Define “community of passion”
3. Identify the barriers to creating a community of passion
4. Rate and rank the barriers
5. Create mini-hack prototypes that address the barriers
6. Rate and rank the mini-hacks
7. Join a hacking team and produce the full hack

(Even being the consummate nerd that I am, all this talk of “hacking” had me a bit confused when I first began. If you are in the same boat as I was, just know that we’re borrowing this term from the tech world and re-appropriating it to the way we think about management. Essentially a hack is simply an idea that will hopefully “hack” into the way we currently do things and change them in a positive way.)

In Stage 5, I proposed a mini-hack called “Build A Strengths-Based Environment” and to my delight the community ranked it highly. I was asked to lead a small team to build it out into a full hack, and just this morning I posted it on the MIX site.

Here’s the basic overview:

At the core of a healthy organization is the idea that people are respected and valued for their different gifts/strengths/talents. This is where true diversity is found, as well, as it is these innate abilities which create our worldview and varied perspectives.

If a tribe can adopt a mindset which truly helps people see each other as unique, special, individuals that have gifts and strengths, and that these talents provide important variety and valuable differing perspectives to the team, an almost magical level of trust and collaboration forms.

While a strengths-affirming culture is not easy to achieve, it is an essential goal for companies who wish to remain competitive in the new hyperconnected, collaborative economy.

Check out the full, very detailed hack here.

There are few things better than finding/creating work that uses our strengths. We did our best to make this hack incredibly practical and straightforward – I hope you will find it helpful!

//

Today’s post is a chapter called “Train! Train! Train!” from Tom Peters’ book Essentials: Leadership. This is a fabulous little book, absolutely stuffed full of wisdom and insight (and creative usage of fonts/punctuation) on how the world of work is changing. If you have any desire to future-proof your career, I hope you will go buy it and read it. Like, now.

In preparation for a speech to the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), I discovered data that pegged the average annual hours in the classroom for the average American worker. The number: 26.3.

TWENTY-SIX-POINT-THREE.

26.3

THAT IS THE MOST OBSCENE NUMBER I HAVE COME ACROSS IN A LONG, LONG, LONG TIME.

We live in an age of “intellectual capital” — and 75 percent to 90 percent of what we college-trained white-collar workers do will be usurped by a $239.00 microprocessor in the course of the next ten or so years. What are we doing to become … better and better … more valuable … and more valuable still? It sounds to me, based on the ASTD data, that we are spending a … full … six minutes a day working on improvement!

As I prepared for that ASTD speech, I turned lawyerly and kept a record of my own activities for three weeks in May 2001. I performed 41 hours of “work” — seminars ranging from an hour-anda-a-half to seven hours in length. Life being life, I devoted 17 hours to what can only be classified as “other” (mostly petty bullshit, which dogs us all). And my “training” (which is to say, preparation) time ran … 187 hours.

That is, the ratio of “training” to “work” for the average worker is 0.01. For me it was 4.67. Almost a 500-fold difference.

I’m not bragging. Not at all.

To the contrary, I believe that I am increasingly “normal” for a “creative-intensification worker.” For a group of people who we typically call “Talent.”

Think of “that word.” TALENT. Think of its exemplars. Think about … TRAINING. Can you imagine 26.3 hours … per year … for a … diva … violinist … sprinter … golfer … pilot … soldier … surgeon … astronaut?

OF COURSE YOU CAN’T.

Why is it?

Why is it … that divas do it, violinists do it, sprinters do it, golfers do it, pilots do it, soldiers do it, surgeons do it, astronauts do it … and only “businesspeople” don’t seem to think it’s necessary?

I think it’s a disgrace, which is one thing. (ONE BIG THING.) I think it is going to catch up with us — as individuals and enterprises — which is far more important.

//

P.S. Of course, Tom doesn’t mention Tiger Woods here, but I thought it personalized our topic in a clear way. I can’t think of many things more ludicrous than picturing Tiger on the greens for six minutes a day and then expecting to win the Masters. So why do we do this in business? Particularly with our senior leaders?

Please pick up this book. You’ll be glad you did.

//

I have a few thoughts I want to share with you today, and I promise they’re all related. The big umbrella idea is this:

Science knows an awful lot about human behavior.
Business ignores almost all of it.

Now, before you send me emails, I’m well aware of the amount of discussion about latest scientific theories around management that occur in training sessions, leadership magazines, and executive meetings. That’s not the problem — the problem is: most of this talk never translates into action.

I want to talk about WHY it never changes.

As an example, let’s discuss recruiting. When done internally or externally, this process is mostly terrible. And it’s not because of the recruiters, many of whom are amazing people (I know quite a few). The problem is the process itself. And I am talking about the entire process here — the big picture of how we find great people and then put them in the right places.

There’s a popular theory in talent management that says past performance is the best way to indicate future success. This is outdated science. Believe me, if a person is stuck in the wrong role, their failures in that position have absolutely no bearing on their ability to be successful in a spot that truly fits them.

What dictates that we must search/filter this way? It’s easier, sure, but it hurts us all in the long run.

In recruiting, we also often fall back on things like “years of experience.” But this is dangerous — and to be honest, pretty lazy. Why? Because the amount of years someone has done something says virtually nothing about how much they’ve learned doing it. As one of my invisible mentors has said, “Nine years of experience is very different from one year of experience, nine times.” Most times, “the process” doesn’t allow us to be very concerned with telling the difference.

Why do we continue doing things this way when we clearly know better?

If we’re being really honest, the reason WHY is that many of our companies have “policies” and “procedures” that actually inhibit us from treating people like human beings.

In that case, perhaps we should spend more time on working to change the policies.

I’m not placing the blame on any individual in particular here (other than the people who read this and continue to be blinded to it… I feel pretty good about blaming them). In many cases, it’s the way we’ve designed our organizations that’s the real culprit here.

Let’s fix it.

//

Additional reading: Korn/Ferry has done some great work around “Agile Learning” that provides some insightful clues on how to reinvent recruiting. Check it out here.

//

Last week, I told you that Bob Lefsetz, an individual whose updates I read fairly regularly, recently wrote a post called “Credibility.” His list was very insightful, but as he is a music writer, it required a bit of translating for us to get the most out of it in our business world context.

In Part One, we talked about the first 6 ways to build credibility. Here are ideas 7-12:

7. TV is overrated. Bob’s thoughts: “[TV is] broadcasting in an era of narrowcasting. Anybody can be on TV, few can hold an audience captive live. Focus on the latter.” If we wish to be an entrepreneur, author, speaker, thought leader, or linchpin in any kind of business, we definitely need ways to get the word out about what we do. But TV just isn’t the holy grail it used to be. The narrow distribution channels the internet offers have infinitely more potential for building meaningful connections (see #2 & #3). And it’s cheap. TV, notsomuch.
8. Don’t sign with the major label. Like radio (#6), a “major label deal” in music is often seen as some kind of “golden ticket” that can magically make an artist instantly viable. (For awhile this actually worked, but no longer.) Instead, Bob says, “Don’t shoot for the stars, shoot for the street.” The hard-earned following is worth far more in the long run. Also, an independent never has to be worried about being labeled a “sellout.” This again illustrates the striking shift from the goal of “instant impact” to a slowly and intentionally built grassroots movement.
9. Don’t work with any artist without credibility. Good advice for business-types, too. We always need to be mindful of who we’re associating with. Even when it comes to the people we follow on Twitter or groups we belong to on LinkedIn — these associations connect us to certain things in the minds of others. We all know perception is reality, but it’s easy to forget that these tiny, minuscule actions are what create that perception for others.
10. Know that now, more than ever, rewards come to those who wait. A twist on #4 and #8. Bob talks about certain YouTube stars who rocket to popularity and then fizzle quickly. My thoughts? This is simply the internet’s Rule of Remarkability — when the tail is this long, for something to get passed around it must be unquestionably remarkable. If it’s remarkably BAD, it goes viral quickly and dies just as fast. If it’s remarkably GOOD, it usually builds slowly — but with meaning and credibility. Things take time to find their audience.
11. Have fun.This is a huge part of being able to succeed at any difficult endeavor. Why? Because it’s impossible to sustain the obscene amount of work it takes to be remarkable at something we aren’t passionate about. You’ve heard about 10,000 hours, right? Also, we’re typically better at the things that feel “fun” to us. It’s hard to have fun doing something we suck at! We’ve heard it a million times, but it may be worth a reminder: life really is too short to not enjoy the journey.
12. Take risks. I’m only beginning to understand the complexity of this relationship, but there is something symbiotic about success and failure. It doesn’t seem possible to get to success without going through failure, so perhaps the trick is to simply fail faster and smarter. Get your idea/product/group/book/blog/album/business out there and see what happens! It’s the only way to move forward. Go do it.

Thanks again to Bob Lefsetz for creating such a great list.

What do you think? Have we missed anything? Any other credibility builders you’d like to add to the list?

//

One of the individuals whose updates I read fairly religiously is an incendiary music writer by the name of Bob Lefsetz. (I’ve mentioned him before; he’s basically a big-picture change-observant thinker disguised as a ballsy foul-mouthed music curmudgeon.)

A few weeks ago, Lefsetz wrote a post called “Credibility.” In my mind, credibility might be the number one “thing” many of us strive for. If we wish to be an entrepreneur, an author, a speaker, a thought leader, or a linchpin in any kind of business, we need to have it. And we need to have as much of it as possible.

In many ways, credibility is what defines our ability to have a career at all, and the amount of credibility we project will determine if we can get paid for what we do — and how big (or small) the check will be.

In his post, Lefsetz defines 12 things a musician needs to do to build credibility and have a career. I think the list is absolutely terrific, but to make it more meaningful for us “over here,” I’m going to translate this list into the business world.

I’ll post the first half today and the last 6 next week, so it’s not completely overwhelming.

The first 6 ways to build credibility are:

1. Focus on the product, the art. To build credibility we need a “thing.” Whether it’s a book, or a company, or some kind of group, people need someTHING to latch on to when they think about you. Think about how people get introduced — as “the author of _____” or “the CEO of _____” or “the founder of _____”. Credibility means we’ve created something tangible — and remarkable.
2. Gain fans. Before something like Twitter, it would’ve been hard to imagine how this idea works in a business context. No longer. We’re all famous now, if only to a couple hundred people. Make those relationships meaningful.
3. Continue to reward the core with product and access. Let people get to know you, and give those who get “it” (whatever you’re doing) more attention. Why? If you’ve achieved any amount of success, these people are a big part of the reason why. Treat them like they’re special — because they are.
4. Don’t try to blow it up too soon! I both love and hate this one. Bob says, “If you’re not willing to wait, you’re not willing to have a career,” and I know it’s true. (If you’ve read read Outliers, you know it too.) But, as a person who loves to make things happen, it sure is hard to be patient. Like a great relationship, or a good wine for that matter, credibility is built over time.
5. Leave money on the table. This is about being both willing and able to say NO to things. (A good chunk of The Dip is about this.) Desperation is in complete opposition to being able to live a strong life. If we aren’t yet in the position to be able to walk away from money, it’s important we find a way to do that before we get too far “in.” Saying no to bad offers now will mean better ones down the road.
6. Unless you play Top Forty music, forget about radio. In music, unknown artists look to radio as a “quick ticket” to the big time. In business this looks different, but we make these kinds of decisions all the time, don’t we? We take the promotion or job we know doesn’t “fit” us because the money’s good, or sign with a company that is shiny on the outside but empty where it counts. Don’t take the shortcuts — they don’t work.

I’ll post the last 6 next Monday!

Do any of these stand out to you? Have you used any? Disagree at all? Ideas to add?

//

The act of promoting people who are well-connected over being well-talented has always been dangerous (even though it happens all the time). But in the new economy, it will be an even more hazardous practice.

Why?

Mostly because these people don’t do anything to create real, authentic value. They can’t; they don’t have the ability. And in the new economy, this kind of capital-V Value is KING. (If you missed why this is true, go here.)

Today’s topic is almost the flip side of my post from the other day about tribes. Your tribe can get you “in” (and I’m all for that) but as leaders we better make damn sure the people we let in have the talent that fits what we need.*

And as an employee, this is why it’s becoming even more crucial to know your niche, discover your strengths, and unleash your genius. As long as the internet remains neutral, the balance will continue to shift from nepotism and favors to fairness and meritocracy.

The big reason for this is that in the new world, the larger society now has the ability, wherewithal, and tools to:

1. Expose incongruities, and
2. Self-reorganize in order to do something about it.

To put it simply…

If you are a hack, the entire world can be made aware of it with a few keystrokes.

But the good part is that if you are remarkable, the world can know that, too.

//

*Side note: companies try to do this now, but most aren’t very good at it. The big reason why is that they focus on getting the wrong things: skills and experience being at the top of the list. Those are both things that can be taught, correct? Move those two to the bottom of your list, and put character, culture fit, and talent at the top.

//

I found the great cartoon image here.

//

As you all probably know, I’m a pretty big fan of a website called Brazen Careerist. It’s a great community of intelligent and savvy (mostly young) professionals who are passionate about their careers and finding better ways to work.

The community leaders are constantly trying to innovate ways for similarly-impassioned individuals to meet and connect, and thus, have come up with this:

Come on by and check it out (look me up if you do). I think it’s pretty cool.

//