I've Moved

Thanks for visiting my blog. I've moved my posts over to http://www.proceeduntilapprehended.com/. You're welcome to look around, but if you want to check out my latest or subscribe, please come see me over there.

Nevin

We're Breaking Up

Dear selfishmatters.blogspot.com,

Sorry, I know. Even starting a post with this title is bound to make you nervous. Let me cut to the chase. It's time we part ways. I love blogging. I don't think I'll every quit writing and inflicting my thoughts on the public, but I want to grow. My commitment to you was done in haste. I didn't yet know who I was going to be. Uh, yeah. It's not you, it's me.

I don't know how to measure this, but intuitively, I'm pretty sure I'm right. Visitors are turning around (or not even clicking) because you're too "out there." Yes, I get that you're deliberately provocative, but if my potential readers don't take the time to understand your clever double meaning, they may just presume our collaboration is inwardly focused. I want to hit them over the head with the value proposition.

At minimum, I want them to read for a bit before they decide this is all about me.

So, here's what I'm going to do... an ultimatum of sorts. I'm going to move over to www.ProceedUntilApprehended.com. You can either link to me because you know that if you love something, you should let it go, or I can go into your dashboard and post a "we've moved" announcement. Either way, I'm taking my content (and hopefully, my subscribers). I'm making a clean break. I hate to be so harsh, but, shit, if you've learned anything, you should know I'm selfish.

And no, you can't call me.

Defending the way it's always been done

When you start something new, you often see with great clarity the things that are wrong or inefficient. You ask simple questions like, "why is this done this way?" or "could we just stop doing that?"

It's a tremendously valuable perspective, but it's typically not received that way. Instead, the reaction is defensive, perhaps a bit perturbed. My guess, the person doing the reacting probably agrees with your point, but it's that you've made them feel foolish. It's hard to separate the emotions from the logic.

You see, everyone prides themselves on being a strategic thinker. It's like those surveys that ask people if they have above-average intelligence. The large majority will say they do. These folks have been fighting the good fight, even if it was a little in the weeds, and today you pointed out that they're churning instead of making it simple. It's like someone just showed them the shortcut after they've used the long route for five years (or twenty). They had a reason, you know... or in '82 that option wasn't available... or it's easy to say that NOW... or we've been building to that shift for a while, let it come.

As the instigator of a broader view, however, you should gird yourself for this kind of reaction. Finding an innovation was easy. The hard part is getting through the egos and the habits to make it happen.

Manage impulsivity and delay gratification

I apologize if this isn't new to you. I'm not necessarily writing anything original with this post. However, I find this to be such a simple, profound observation that I can't let it go, even if it's new for just one reader.

I want to share with you the "Marshmallow Test." I'm familiar with the Marshmallow Test because Daniel Goleman talks about it. Goleman is a leader in the Emotional Intelligence field of study, and it's very informative stuff, in that so-reasonable-it-must-be-true sort of way.

The Marshmallow Test had researchers putting a marshmallow in front of four-year-olds. If the child can wait 20 minutes without consuming it, they get another one. They get a total of two marshmallows. If they eat it before 20, that's it. They're done at one.

This can be seen as a pretty simple measure of these kid's ability to delay gratification. Twenty years later, the researchers show that the kids that had the ability to manage their impulsive desire to eat the marshmallow for twenty minutes did better on a number of measures intended to indicate life success.

Perhaps the lesson is obvious by this point, but let me hit you over the head with it anyway. We're confronted with opportunities to get instant gratification all the time. Buy now, pay next year. Skip the gym. Eat the dessert. Avoid the crucial conversation.

Beyond the results of the test, I think we all know we can challenge ourselves to put the long-term utility of our choices as a bigger priority than our immediate satisfaction.

I'm not saying don't pursue gratification, though it's an option. The lesson I take is that the more we can manage our impulses and make rationale decisions about what and when, the better off we are in the long run.

Finally, good advice to be successful

I've got one word for you. Plastics.

I don't have good advice. I tricked you, as so many others have before. In my defense, at least I'm willing to admit the charade.

I'm pretty frustrated by the "helpful" advice we get from friends, colleagues, parents, teachers, guidance counsellors, professors, supervisors, people that are older than you, people that have some sort of societal status... I'm sure you have more to add to the list.

It is soooo hard to discern good advice from bad. You can't tell from tone of voice, cut of clothes or the number of degrees on their wall. Seeing material evidence of their success or media coverage of their latest coup doesn't actually mean anything, either.

Whatever they say, you're still confronted with an individual that is giving well-meaning advice about a future they can't predict.

I'm in a unique role now to see LOTS of people who have listened to LOTS of well-meaning advice and are still struggling to find success, to get work or to feel valued. All those people that provided advice with gentle eyes and a hand on the shoulder? They didn't know. They just thought they knew. From a paradigm of "my position requires me to groom, control and cultivate," they sold a Nigerian inheritance.

I'm thinking it would be more helpful if they said, "I don't know what's needed. I've had a long and full life with a particular strategy for adding value, but I'm not sure it's relevant anymore. I think the only thing I can encourage you to do is ready yourself for a lot more change. Be ready, willing and adaptable."

THAT would have saved me some time... if I listened to it.

You are hereby authorized to innovate

I'm pretty sure the only thing stopping us from taking the action we really think we should be taking is ourselves.

A number of years back, I was feeling a tremendous frustration with some of the patterns and culture of my work. Everything was urgent and everything was a priority. I wouldn't be surprised if this sounds familiar to a few of you.

I was challenged. When it has to be high quality, when it has to be done fast and "for the last time Nevin, no, we can't hire more staff," what's to give? Time and time again, it was I that relented. I worked the weekend or the lunch hour, grumbled about it and ultimately got the task done.

Anyway, a couple years of this... yes, I said years... and as I said, I was sick of the pattern. I still wanted to create value in the organization, but I didn't believe in our methods for creating it. Actually, I didn't just disagree. I was confident we would NEVER reach our goals if we didn't fix some of that systemic stuff. I also came to the slow realization that no-one was going to save me from it. There was no-one from up on high who "got it" and was going to eventually fix it.

Then it came to me. Titles and authority don't matter. This wasn't just me saying "Titles and authority don't matter." This was a change of heart. A deep commitment came with knowing titles and authority don't matter. I knew change comes from those who simply choose to take personal responsibility, and this knowledge gave me permission to disobey, to challenge and to generally raise a ruckus.

We can look in the mirror and say, "I hereby authorize you to innovate." I think that's where the magic happens. Everything after that is just uncomfortable and deeply fulfilling.

I jest, of course. You get used to the discomfort.

So, here's an exercise. All the things that we have declared as untouchable in our jobs? They're not. Stop using that as excuse. Get honest with yourself. Ask what really happens if you don't get it in on time? What happens if you say, "sorry, I'm keeping my lunch plans?" Prove to me that it does more than start a conversation, a conversation you've been wanting to have for a long time.

And by the way, "not getting that promotion" doesn't count as a reason. We're talking about strategies for REDUCING the insanity.

Five tips to outwit the knowledge economy

Even the most reticent among us now acknowledge that the way our economy works and the way a large majority of us produce value has changed significantly. If you're not there yet, you should perhaps watch the latest version of Did You Know. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3rqW_n1Y8o&feature=youtube_gdata to get a sense of how this world is asking something different of you.

This fundamental shift clearly hasn't been matched by a smooth adaptationd by our population. Personally, I've experienced a significant lag between my realization that the world had changed and the creation of strategies to feel like I'm actually engaged in the shift.

Here's some rules I've now put in place. Perhaps they'll be of assistance:

Make information work for you
Set up filters and categories in your email, through RSS and screen your phone calls. If you don't manage the flow coming at you, it can be constant and very distracting.

Document your best ideas and share them
The name of the game is now reputation. People won't seek you out for your knowledge like they used to and letters behind your name now mean less than they ever have. If you want people to have confidence that you have the smarts for the next problem, solve some existing ones without being asked.

Become a student... and a teacher
Along with increased availability of information is an accelerated pace of change. The approach I advocate is to institute a self-study course that makes you an eternal Master's student. You can never be on top of it all, but to be relevant in the discussion, you have to be informed and carry an opinion. Teaching is a no-brainer. It's how we learn. There's also a huge audience as we all try and figure it out.

It's DIY
In The Pirate's Dilemma, Matt Mason references a punk magazine that showed the neck of a guitar and three possible chords. It said, "Here's a chord. Here's two more. Now go form you own band." Go nuts. There are no restrictions. At little to no cost, you get to try what you want.

Embrace your new role
Most of all, beyond any advice I'm providing, I urge you to find a way to enjoy this environment. It's not going away anytime soon. There are plenty of discoveries, perspectives and unconventional sources to keep things interesting, but they can also drive you nuts. Make sure you have the right frame of mind. It's more of a pick-up game than league play. No-one is looking over everything with the right answer, not even Seth Godin.

There is no single source. YOU are a source. I'm a source. Isn't this fun?

There's a payoff, it's just not the one you were trained for

I'm pretty sure I could have more salary, status, responsibility and corporate influence than I do right now. In fact, there's a few moments... without naming any names... when I saw a vote of non-confidence brought on by my "sticking up" for the kinds of things I talk about on this blog. These moments came with pretty clear reductions in my role in the organization. Nothing formal, mind you. That's not how bureaucrats do things. Rather, it's done in the re-routing, the bypassing or the reassignment.

I can't say I was surprised by these results. I'm in a pretty conservative, status quo-driven sort of organization and I'm very vocally not playing the urgency game that's on tap. What I try and bring to my organization can, through a certain lense, be seen as unhelpful.

When I first started down this path, I thought I was beginning a story that would end with me being warned to change my ways or lose my job. That fear has long since past. This role I've chosen won't put me out of a job. It puts me on the outside of the things that used to confirm my value in the organization. Even though I can rationalize that those aren't the things I want, it still stings. I was trained to pursue such rewards, after all.

When I take a moment to reflect, I'm reminded that my behaviour choices have improved the quality of my life and the lives of my family. There's likely too many benefits to truly list, but suffice to say I'm happier, more content and I'm devoting more time to my wife and kids.

I think there's a bigger picture payoff, too. I'm participating in (and sometimes forcing) a conversation about how and why we do things and about the imperative to change. It certainly doesn't provide the kind of gratification we're used to, but I'm energized by the pursuit. That's a pretty good benefit.

The Bubble Boy

The last person to get knocked out of a poker tournament before they get to the cash payouts is called the "Bubble Boy." Celebrating the arrival of the Bubble Boy is great fun for everyone but, you guessed it, the Bubble Boy.

I watched a World Series of Poker broadcast the other night when they were going to "break the bubble" and get into the cash. Poker celebrities were talking about the misery of being the Bubble Boy, their own experience with the bubble and their hopes for this year. They all took pity on the Bubble Boy, except Daniel Negreanu, a well-known Canadian player. Daniel celebrated the Bubble Boy as someone who took a risk when they were close to the reward. He said they could walk away and people should say, "there's a guy who is going to be a great poker player."

I think there's two ways to have a career, and one of them looks a lot like the Bubble Boy. You can choose to be the methodical, incremental value creator or you can be the make-it-or-break-it person, the one that succeeds and fails a dozen times. The one that creates stories worth telling - about the times they hit and the times they missed.

Sometimes that person has to walk away from the table, but it doesn't have to be in shame. Someone will be saying, "there's a guy who is going to do great things."

Pursuing Happiness

This might be a really simple idea, but sometimes I can forget it. My guess is that you're prone, too.

What we chase to make us happy and what actually makes us happy are often two different things. We chase a bigger salary, a nicer car, a trip to Mexico or a bigger office. We chase acknowledgement for our volunteer efforts or for someone to compliment our new shirt. We save up to buy... wait, who am I kidding? We use our credit card to buy a new camera.

Without fail, these items soon become part of our new routine or a distant memory. Once the euphoria fades away, we're filled with "what next?"

There's a pattern here, and if we step back for a moment it's easy to see it. The majority of our lives is spent in the routine, not the moment of achievement. If your happiness is derived from THE NEXT THING, you're establishing that you will live most of your life unfulfilled. Sure, you get a sense of satisfaction when you attain something, but that's fleeting.

I say we should focus on what's constant. Rather than "what's next?", how about asking "what am I doing on a consistent basis?" Then, if you plan to continue repeating the pattern, figure out how being in that moment can make you happy.

It feels like it got out of hand

I checked in with a colleague to see how he was and how his project was going.

He said he had completed his recommendation and submitted it. When he saw it in the next phase, it had substantially changed.

"How did you feel about that?" I asked.

"Well, by the end, it kinda got out of my hands anyway. I was more just interpreting instruction than making choices for the recommendation."

Turns out, it wasn't really his project anymore. He was still holding the document, but his "superiors" were calling the shots.

That's disappointing. That's a brain underutilized, to say the least.

When the project got into this dynamic, you can guess he was still spending a lot of time revising and editing the document. However, the rules changed in terms of what he did to make it better. Sure, he still found the document could be improved if he applied his knowledge and skill, but he actually did a subtle little calculation that dramatically changes the overall outcome. He first determined if he intrinsically cared enough about the project to go through the eye rolls, the patient deep breaths and the paternal voice that tells him why they're not doing it that way. Most of the time, you can guess that he determined it wasn't worth the discomfort.

If you're a manager, please understand that taking things out of people's hands isn't done by announcing that you're taking it out of their hands. I know you've got better sense than to take that drastic step. Taking things out of their hands happens when you amend their work without consultation or you cram your expectations for the product down their throat. I know you've got pressures and deadlines. What's the emergency that justifies ripping the individuality and creativity from your employees?

Survival is NOT Enough

Jonathan Mead and his Illuminated Mind have been exceptionally inspirational for me lately. I can't say enough about how his writing seems directed right at me. I mentioned in an earlier post about his terms of "renting out your mind" and "getting paid to exist." These are now daily phrases for me as I try and make sense of my place in the world.

Jonathan has now released a new, free ebook, the Zero Hour Work Week that you should read. After reading it myself, I sat down and started writing what I've called my "liberty project." This is a project plan to take me into uncharted waters... well, uncharted for me, not for people like Jonathan. It's about a disciplined, bootstrapping sort of workplan to create value for me, my family and my community. Best case scenario, I'm rewriting my plan for making a living. At minimum, I'm rewriting my strategy for how I'm relevant and how I make meaning.

This is deeply personal stuff and it's more than a little scary. I'll borrow from Seth Godin's Survival Is Not Enoughwhen I say it's hard to let go of my "winning strategy." This strategy has served me so very well up to now. In conventional terms, I've been doing everything right. I'm educated, I have lots of competence at marketing, strategic planning, policy development and simply just getting stuff done. When I'm not stirring the pot too much at work, my employers appreciate my efforts. I've come in to a bigger salary and more responsibility than I dreamed of... but I feel a dissonance. It feels like I'm running a fool's errand. The "success" I'm pursuing isn't actually what I want. When I step back, I see that I'm just one in a herd of buffalo, stampeding for a cliff. It would be so easy to just keep running, blamelessly running. But I can't do that. I've seen the truth. I'm obligated to stop, to reverse direction.

This is a journey almost entirely within my own mind, about my own behaviours and about my own willingness to rewrite my script. I'm reprogramming. Though this is almost entirely between my ears, it's surprisingly hard.

I'm working with a policy of being radically honest, even if that makes me uncomfortable. I recognize that this policy also results in a post that just sort of dangles out there without resolution, so here's one: I feel better being on the journey than having the feeling that I need to start.

Am I just being repetitive?

Now that I've been blogging for a while, I would say this is the question that haunts me the most. A lot of magnificent thinkers and writers are talking about the same sorts of things I am talking about.

I've just learned about www.caliandjody.com. They have a model is called ROWE, the Results Only Work Environment In my estimation, it's brilliant. I downloaded the introduction and first chapter of their book, Why Work Sucks and How to Fix It, and the evisceration they give to our out-dated perspective on time is fantastic.

So what am I doing here blogging when other people are already saying it so well? Well, two things. First, I'm forcing myself to get my own thoughts into a coherent format and be responsible for them. It's tremendously helpful, if not even a little cathartic. Second, I'm contributing my voice to a movement, one that needs every member the world can spare.

Your quiet agreement to some or all of what I say is great. Agreeing in a not so quiet manner, through voice or action, is powerful.

Oh, hang on. There's a third reason. By blogging, I'm learning a ton. I'm not sure I would have come across ROWE without the generosity of a reader. Thanks Sebastian.

Coral battles and the slow growth of bureaucracy

I just watched the Blue Planet episode where they show how coral grows and overtakes other coral.

Here's the piece that got me thinking. At 38 seconds there is some fascinating time-lapse footage of one coral overtaking another.



If you were snorkeling or scuba-diving by this fascinating scene, would you notice? I think it would look pretty static and I would swim on by.

Bureaucracy is pretty static too, right? What if we could time-lapse photograph a bureaucracy? What would become apparent that's difficult to see with the naked eye? Speeding up the pace would likely make the slow encroachment of policies, procedures, restrictions and risk aversion look as sinister as this coral. If you sped it up , I think you'd see that the well-intended efforts to influence and control employee behaviour actually kills an employee's discretion and ability to be independently thoughtful.

This progress goes seemingly unnoticed every day. We tend to take for granted, or perhaps we shrug off, the daily insults to our autonomy and ability to be discerning. We choose not to push back. Through time-lapse, we'd see that we're losing the battle. We'd see the bureaucracy move forward so steadily that you'd think it could only be planned.

I don't in any way think it is planned. Rather, I see it stemming from a culture and paradigm of command and control that doesn't work. Those that champion this out-dated style or those who don't stand up against it need to see some time-lapse footage of its effects.

Flow, Flee or Fight revisited

I had a media inquiry regarding my manifesto (a link to the manifesto is on the left if you want to see it). Here's the questions and my answers. I hope you enjoy it.

1. You say that: The vast majority of employees sit on the fence. They’re not completely gone, but they’re not completely there, either. I think this is a dismal story of how our businesses and our economy exists. What is the best way to stop people sitting on the fence?

I am going to point you to another resource for a better answer for this one. The Canadian Management Centre wrote The Perfect Storm. I've attached it. Following my read of that, I wrote on my whiteboard at work, "The environment engages and retains." That's it. Give them an environment that allows them to be creative, insightful and passionate. They'll do the rest. People sit on the fence because they don't believe their effort will make a difference. Give them an environment that is open and responsive, they'll see opportunity and get engaged.

My manifesto implicitly suggests that the creation of such an environment is not commonly done. If that's true, I'm suggesting an employee could say, "I don't care if they don't want to create a welcoming, engaging environment. I'm going to get engaged anyway." I'd say that's option 2, after it's clear the employer isn't going to make the right kind of environment in the first place.

2. Have you ever been the mastermind behind a big employee engagement strategy?

No. I've worked to get my own direct reports engaged, with moderate success. That was a staff of eight. Unfortunately, I work in one of those big bureaucracies that just doesn't have the impetus to create the kind of environment the Canadian Management Centre talks about. I may have created an environment that encouraged ideas, engagement, risk-taking and innovation, but I think there is always a level of distrust... staff know our ideas can and will get overruled. I am not the ultimate authority in that organization. This really spawned my vision for Flow, Flee or Fight. At some point, it becomes a very personal choice to instigate change from within your own circle of influence. Here comes option 2...

3. You make the important point that individuals within a company can instigate change. Have people written to you since your piece was published, to tell you they have done this successfully?

No. I get emails from people identifying with the article. They say that they tried fighting for a while, then they burnt out and switched to flee. That's what I do, too. I think we're not going to find that example of one person that changes the entire culture single-handedly, unless maybe they're the ultimate decision-maker. More likely, you're going to find subtle cultural shifts that happened because one, two or a dozen individuals make the decision to fight.

4. You cite a survey that has found that only one in five employees choose to undertake the discretionary effort required to resolve a new challenge. What does that say about modern workplaces?

It says that they are overwhelmingly inefficient. An employer could get so much more value out of employees, if only they made the investment necessary to create an engaging environment. I'm willing to wager that workers on the floors at GM have ideas and energy to reinvent that company... for real. Unfortunately, whatever environmental measures are in place have made an "us vs. them" environment. Employees are disempowered and disengaged. There's no incentive to dive in and innovate, so employees watch the company flounder and cash their paycheques.
There is a school of thought that suggests the GFC simply accelerates a much-needed change in the way work environments are designed. Modern workplaces aren't modern at all. They're clinging on to a "command and control" paradigm that doesn't motivate knowledge workers and is too inefficient. I suspect that most workplaces won't respond to this accelerated requirement for an engaging workplace. They'll keep clinging on to an old management philosophy while upstarts or progressive organizations figure it out and eat their lunch.

5. A lot of employees want to see change in an organisation, see the need to boost morale. Why do so few of these people ever do anything about it?

Fear. For every action they could take, there is a fear or social norm that they have to come to terms with.

The creation of an alternate culture requires leadership. It requires someone to say "I don't believe in our practices. I want to get to the same place as you, but I believe there's a better way to get there." At minimum, they will be labelled a heretic. They'll also be quietly encouraged to get back in line, to stop making the boss look bad and quit stressing everybody out. If an environment doesn't encourage a challenge to the status quo, this takes a lot of self-confidence and conviction.

6. A lot of employees will not be happy with your perspective, preferring to pass the buck to “management”. What is your response to that?

OK. How's that working out for you?

I'm talking about pursuing satisfaction and even happiness at work. I would be surprised to hear that someone is finding satisfaction through passing the buck. More likely, they're finding validation and a moral righteousness but things still suck. I'm open to alternatives that give people a sense of control and engagement, but complaining about the boss, by itself, has never seemed very satisfying.

We spend all too much time worrying about the dissenters. I'm more interested in the huge majority of employees that are "on the fence" or are inclined to put some work in to becoming engaged. You don't need 100 percent buy-in to change the environment.

What kind of choices are you making?

There appears to be two types of managers. There are those whose key priority is to deliver outcomes right now and there are those who have a priority to build a sustainable future.

I would suspect, in both camps, there is an acknowledgment of the importance of the other priority, but when push comes to shove, some managers choose to produce, others to build for sustainability.

My guesstimate of the split is something like 90% production-focused, 10% future-focused.

I think there's another interesting breakdown. Of the production-focused managers, you can split them about down the middle in terms of their awareness of how critical sustainable practices are. Half don't see a bigger picture. Sure, they've heard of things like diversity and succession planning, but they legitimately think they're doing the best they can for the organization by focusing on the more immediate challenges. I think it's fair to say I disagree with their conclusion, but I appreciate that they're acting on their convictions.

The other half of these production-oriented managers, however, full-well know they are on a sinking ship, it's just that when pushed, they choose to deliver a product over making choices that are in a longer-term interest. You see, it may not save the company, but it keeps them "safe," today.

Whenever I experience this sort of tactic, I'm frustrated, disappointed and more than a little perturbed.

You mean you KNOW that we can't sustain what we're doing, what we've promised and what we've planned, but you're STILL going to go ahead and do it? Is your salary that good? What legitimizes that behaviour? Does "not my job" cover it? What happens when you fail your customers, your clients or your job disappears? Still not your fault?

Sorry. That's not really intended for you, directly. If you're reading this blog, I think you're either a knowledge worker that just categorized your boss or you're a boss trying to muster the courage to be part of the 10%... like me.

Reading that over, it's one big rant - here's the solution, as I see it - stare your fears in the eye. Play them out. What will really happen? Acknowledge you're not going to lose your job for speaking up. Find ways to make long-term choices and move the ship, bit by bit. You'll be surprised to find a large majority of colleagues appreciating (albeit quietly) your efforts.

TLC for my anxiety

I'm acutely aware that I've only got one chance of living a life that I'm proud of.

I've been in job interviews before where they asked me what motivates me. I don't know if that's a good interview question. I'll leave that up to someone else to decide. Here's my answer:

"I don't want to sound fixated on death, but I think I put more time and thought into what will be said at my eulogy than most people. I have a certain anxiety in my stomach every day that asks if I'm doing right and if I'm making a difference. This is pretty motivating. I want to make sure that, when I'm done, I've done something meaningful."

I'm serious about this. I feel it right now. In addition to feeling it, I'd like to point out that I'm starting to like that I feel it. I think I'm on to something. I have started to cultivate it. I ask myself questions like "What will I be remembered for?" and I read Victor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning" or Mitch Albom's "Tuesdays with Morrie." The anxiety grows.

It has become so strong that I feel compelled to act on it. It's real, not some theoretical I should sort of statement. There's those situations where honesty is required but it's uncomfortable and perhaps a bit awkward. I find myself saying the truth because I want to be remembered as honest. I'm more inclined to challenge the old way of doing things because I want to make sure we create results, though perhaps my boss and others just want to get the job done. I have also started asking and answering questions on a blog that will turn off 90% of the people I know and scare my parents.

It feels like a freight train slowly gathering speed.

Unconventional plans for my new job

I am getting VERY excited about going over to my new position with the Saskatchewan Public Service Commission. I believe the PSC offers some enlightened management practices, a positive working culture and an important, meaningful mandate.

For all of its positive traits, I'm sort of anticipating that there's also a culture of "policy adherence" that has gone a bit overboard. What I mean is that HR functions are quite often the whipping boy in an organization, and staff tend to rely on policies and interpretation of policies to serve as a a form of protection (or backbone). I recognize this is also partly done out of respect for a collective bargaining agreement, though I do think there's a difference between respecting it and instantly capitulating to it.

I'm probably not going to be very accepting of policy adherence, if in fact I come across it. I'm toying with a work-specific mission statement, sort of a supplement to my still relevant personal mission statement.

Here's some language, though perhaps I'll call it draft. [If my new supervisor is reading this, feedback is definitely welcome.]

I am here to add value. To make a difference. Providing an unencumbered perspective and approach is an overlooked and misunderstood way to add value.

Boundaries and expectations need to be questioned.

This will make some colleagues uncomfortable. They'll come around... or they won't.

My job is to ask unflinching questions and be radically honest. I'll operate with the best intentions and without permission.

And the shorter version: Boundaries are the enemy. As gently as possible, blow the fucking lid off.

I just said that publicly. Gulp.

lest anyone be confused...

I believe the "soft stuff" is the hard stuff.

Flowers and Innovation

I feel so lucky have a friend like Spencer that shares stuff like this. It's a story about Tony Hsieh, the legend behind Zappos.

It's a long read so be prepared. If you make it to the end and the flower story, I'd like for you to know my flower story.

I ordered flowers here once for a business partner. It wasn't this situation, but the purchase was entirely warranted and appropriate. I didn't ask for permission or approval for the purchase. Once the purchase hit the system, four different people told me I couldn't do it. "OK," I said, "but the cow is out of the barn. Reprimand me and pay me back." The answer? I should have known better. I should have checked. I should have gotten prior approval.

It ended up being an out-of-pocket expense for my boss. I told him I didn't want the money, I wanted him to fight it. He wouldn't. He preferred to pay, instead.