Very often a change of self is needed more than a change of scene.
—A. C. Benson
Before you build, you have to assess the foundation to make sure it’s solid and the footers are securely set on bedrock. Only then can you build with the assurance that your project will stand the test of time and remain steadfast through stormy seasons and shifting soil. While the vast majority of this book is about building the new, it’s necessary for us to understand the influences that have bred an environment in which it’s difficult to pursue healthy relationships.
The single greatest factor impeding healthy relationships is myopia. Myopia can best be described simply as shortsightedness. In ophthalmology, myopia is a visual defect in which distant objects appear blurred because their images are focused in front of the retina rather than on it, thereby creating nearsightedness. Objects that are close are clear, but those that are more remote remain blurred. The remedy is to reshape the lens through which one looks so that images are focused clearly on the retina to gain proper perspective.
In culture, myopia is often referred to as an inability to see into the future. It may be described as a lack of foresight or discernment. It could also be narrow-mindedness or the inability to see the wake that one leaves in the world. In this case, it refers to making choices today for reasons of personal comfort and convenience that may have long-lasting negative consequences on generations to come. This cultural myopia exchanges long-term value for short-term gain, saddling the next generation with the negative baggage of our bad decisions. This myopia can manifest itself in a variety of ways, from lack of environmental conscientiousness to the poor politics of partisanship, which sacrifices collaboration on the altar of petrified ideology (beliefs that have long been proven lifeless but have, nevertheless, hardened into stone).
Relationally speaking, myopia can best be described as a me-first mentality. It’s the tendency to make choices based on what is best for me, with blatant disregard for how those choices may impact those around me. It’s the result of an independent spirit, fostered by a society that is becoming increasingly disconnected. “Looking out for number one” has become the obsession of an obtuse generation. This inability to see beyond self has led to the weakening of relational bridges and the fracturing of the foundation of society itself. Unless we make a conscientious attempt to correct the lens through which we look, our vision of the future will remain blurred. This me-first mentality shows up in the marketplace in a number of unhealthy ways. Let’s explore just a few of these destructive perspectives.
Self-Protection: The Fear of Being Found Out
An executive-level leader I had the privilege of working with was struggling greatly in his relationships with his direct reports. His career as a sales leader had been stellar. He was a highly respected team member who had contributed significantly to the success of the organization as an individual contributor. He had performed spectacularly in his sales role, providing service to existing accounts and adding new clients to each territory over which he had been given responsibility. Because of his knowledge of the product lines and sales processes, he was tapped to give oversight to the sales organization. For about nine months, things ran smoothly. He gave general direction to the team and coached them on sales techniques that had made him successful. But then the relational gears began to grind and the sales engine began to stall. The team was losing momentum fast. Infighting among team members and frustration between sales and operations had led to a growing discontentment throughout the ranks. Critical relational lines were leaking emotional fluid. They had lost power to the engine and he had no idea how to jump-start it again.
The executive was bright, energetic, and articulate. He was a master of schmooze. He could light up any room with his humor and carried himself with poise in every social situation. By all appearances he was winsome and confident. But good times conceal what tough times reveal. There was a crack in his leadership capacity that was less noticeable until the pressure began to pry the team apart. While competent in the sales arena, he lacked the emotional intelligence to effectively read his team and lead them to relational health. He also lacked the emotional fortitude to wade into conflict and address the unhealthy behavior that had hijacked the team’s performance.
As I coached him, a deep-seated secret began to surface, which crippled his effectiveness. In a moment of candor, he confessed that he labored under the nagging fear of eventually being exposed as a fraud. There was a single question that relentlessly pounded away at his confidence like a woodpecker on soft wood. The question that continually haunted him was this: “How long will it be until they discover that I am not all that I pretend to be?”
This single question drove him to create an elaborate system of self-protection through deflection. Whenever conflict would arise, he would seek to avoid it. He would minimize and dismiss it, hoping it would go away. He would make excuses for one, both, or all parties involved, equally distributing the blame while never effectively addressing the issues. Or he would ask someone else on the team to do the dirty work, only to have the tensions mount higher. He often acted out of fear. By not addressing the issues head on, he was only postponing the inevitable, allowing the situation to worsen.
His fear of being found out had effectively incapacitated him from providing the strong leadership his team needed. Hiding behind a veneer of performance, he had learned to self-promote and self-protect. He had discovered how to distance himself from the dirt, so as not to get soiled. But, while protecting his appearance, he forfeited healthy relationships. Healthy relationships require authenticity and vulnerability. They also require the strength to move into difficult situations with the ability to speak the truth and, when necessary, deliver consequences to sideline bad behavior. Leadership requires us to roll up our sleeves and dig into the messiness of our humanity. But his fear had rendered him helpless to do the more difficult tasks of leadership.
The tendency to mask and cover weaknesses produces a pretense that prevents us from connecting deeply with others. When one cannot face oneself honestly, one cannot lead others effectively. When there is a delta between reality and the image we convey to others, we create pretense to fill the void. Pretense always requires self-protection to survive. We distance ourselves from others in order to hide our vulnerabilities. When we do this, we may think we are shielding ourselves from exposure, but we are really creating a chasm that prevents us from connecting with others in a meaningful way.
Possessing weaknesses is part of being human. Attempting to camouflage weaknesses is an act of futility. But acknowledging weaknesses and working on them is endearing and will garner both praise and support in healthy community. At the same time, self-acceptance is crucial in order to move in healthy ways with others. And authenticity is necessary for building open and trusting relationships. We will explore this more fully later.
Self-Promotion: Competition vs. Collaboration
Games are based on it. Society reinforces it. Enterprises attempt to leverage it. Some thrive in the face of it. Others pursue it at all cost. Yet countless others are damaged by it. I am talking about competition—the innate human tendency to strive against others in pursuit of a prize or place of prominence. For games to be fun, you have to have a winner and a loser. But the consequences of games, at least at the level at which most of us play, are essentially nonexistent. Even if you play in and win the Super Bowl, there is a long-lasting positive impact for only an extremely small number of people.
We compete because we love the thrill of the challenge and it gives us a way to compare ourselves to others. We all want to be seen as winners. But if our tendency toward competition causes us to self-promote to the point of disrespecting others or minimizing their contributions, then we can destroy collaboration.
This tendency toward competition is based on what I call the ER Factor. Whenever we attempt to position ourselves as being strong-ER, smart-ER, fast-ER, pretti-ER, wealthi-ER, wis-ER, or essentially bett-ER than others, we have assumed the role of the competitor. The ER Factor derives its name from the two elements that fuel competition—ego and rivalry. These two components drive competition, but they also destroy relationships. Think about it. If you are in a relationship with someone who must constantly prove themselves to be strong-ER, smart-ER, and bett-ER than you, it won’t be too long until that relationship is ov-ER! No one likes to be forced to walk in the shadow of another. The ER Factor is the antithesis of servant leadership. It causes us to seek what is best for ourselves and sacrifices relationships on the altar of self-promotion.
Similarly, many well-meaning organizations have leveraged this human tendency toward competition to spur elevated performance. Think of the proverbial sales challenge. The team or individual with the highest production gets the prize. Whether it’s a piece of cut glass, a bonus, or a trip to an exotic destination, the race is on to beat everyone else. In this scenario, the organization thinks it’s spurring elevated production. The reality is that it almost always results in unintended collateral damage. An individual or team that performs well may essentially block others from discovering their “secret sauce” or best practices to ensure their own victory. Collaboration is sacrificed in the wake of competition. While one individual or team may rise to the top, others may be floundering for lack of knowledge or resources that may be at the disposal of their competitors.
I watched this vividly illustrated in a large sales organization. The perennial winner of virtually every competition was a sales associate who had been in the industry for considerably longer than everyone else in the office. Due to her tenure and success, she had built a team of two assistants who did the majority of her calling and paperwork. Because of her success, those in operations tended to give her more latitude and even preferential treatment. Of course she was going to be more productive than the others who had to do all the work themselves and jockey for the attention of those in operations. But no one seemed to be bothered by the inequity. Corporate had set up the competition and everyone on the local level had all but acquiesced. Short of acknowledging her the winner at the start, everyone had assumed an inferior position. The competition was by all accounts counterproductive.
Imagine how much more impactful it could have been to have structured the work environment in such a way as to reward those who shared the most best practices. What if the enterprise had recognized those who spent time mentoring and coaching others to success? What if sharing the secret sauce was rewarded? Rather than silo and sequester resources, what if team members engaged in a collaborative interchange that elevated everyone’s performance? Imagine how much more the organization would have benefited from such an approach.
I’m not suggesting all competition is bad. And I’m certainly not suggesting we bolster everyone’s self-esteem by doling out trophies for just showing up. What I am saying is that you almost always garner more through collaboration than you ever will through competition, especially in high-stakes arenas. Competition, in its most effective form, should always be pursued not to best others but to bring the greatest value possible to your target audience. We compete not against others but for the growth and benefit of our clients, both internally and externally. If anything, we compete with ourselves in an attempt to bring more value to the table tomorrow than we did today, always seeking to improve on our best. And we collaborate with others to champion growth. An attitude of growth says, “I’m going to be better today than I was yesterday, and I’m only half as good today as I will be tomorrow!”
People As Pawns
Attitudes about the human component of business are changing. Identifiers such as human capital are being replaced by the terms associate and team member. And titles such as Human Resources are being changed to the Office of People and Culture. Along with the shift in nomenclature is a movement away from viewing people simply as assets of the organization.
The tendency to see humans as assets was an unintended consequence of applying the Principles of Scientific Management. Introduced by Frederick Winslow Taylor shortly after the turn of the twentieth century, the Principles of Scientific Management were formulated to increase efficiency in factory work as America’s economy moved from farm based to one primarily driven by manufacturing. On the farm, individuals learned certain skills necessary for daily survival. Apprenticeship was the means through which these skills were imparted, and they were often passed on through families for generations. Thus, individuals were most often known and identified by their vocation. Apprenticeship was personal and hands-on in nature. When work shifted from agrarian to manufacturing jobs in the city, individual identities based on heritage and specialization gave way to mass identification. Farmers, blacksmiths, clerks, merchants, and dairymen became factory workers. Work was standardized for operational excellence, and workers were seen as a part of the system or assets to be leveraged for maximum productivity.
Management replaced mentorship. Routine replaced relationship. While systemization brought greater productivity in many realms, it minimized the importance of the individual, reducing the workforce to cogs in a wheel. The best management was seen as a true science, resting on clearly defined laws, rules, and principles as the foundation of efficiency. The individual was only as valuable as their willingness to relinquish their individual identity and step into the production line, where conformity led to productivity.
While serving as the predecessor to systems of process improvement and organizational efficiency like Lean Management and Six Sigma, the Principles of Scientific Management are essentially values-neutral. Values neutrality means that these principles carry little or no moral or ethical weight in and of themselves. In this system, value is seen as the elimination of waste, reducing production time and cost. The value to the customer is a defect-free item at a reduced cost. But such value does not necessarily carry with it a sense of corporate responsibility or individual morality. There is little redeeming value in a cheaper product if it in some way compromises the lives of those who produce it.
Let me explain. It’s true that Frederick Taylor’s management theories contributed significantly to increasing the productivity of early American factories. However, those very same principles of process efficiency were implemented to exterminate life in the Nazi concentration camps of World War II. The principles themselves have no moral or ethical sensibility. Applied within the context of a relationally healthy culture, the Principles of Scientific Management can be leveraged to reduce waste and improve quality. However, void of social responsibility and without an alignment of personal and organizational values, the very same principles can grind the workforce into automatons, manipulated by an organization without conscience.1
This is what many refer to as a “churn and burn” organizational culture. Everyone plays a role and, to the extent that they are willing to sacrifice self, each is promoted. Some refer to this as an “up or out” organizational approach. You either climb up the ladder, often at your own peril or at the expense of others, or you are forced out to find another ladder leaning against another wall. In this type of corporate culture, friendship among colleagues can be hard to find. Like salmon swimming upstream while avoiding a hungry bear, people in these work environments find it difficult to locate safe waters, where deeper relationships can be spawned. Jockeying and positioning for promotions often curtail collaboration. Self-protection and self-promotion abound. Deep relationships are scarce. People are moved around like pawns in a game of corporate chess and then sacrificed to protect the greater interest of the more valuable pieces on the board. All the while, some wonder why employee engagement statistics hover at such low levels.
Independence and Isolation
With the coming of the information age, the pendulum has now swung to an emphasis on individualism. The playing field has been leveled by the sheer fact that all the information one could possibly need is only a few keystrokes away. If it were information alone that we needed, we really wouldn’t need one another anymore. Life-sustaining information was once passed from one generation to another. Such relational connectivity was imperative for survival. Now we only need access to the internet. We can gain access to information, conduct conference calls with team members globally, and provide webinars for clients without ever having to be face-to-face with anyone. Technology connects us to everyone and no one.
We can claim hundreds, if not thousands, of friends on Facebook and yet be truly known by no one. We can be connected in gigantic networks, such as LinkedIn, and still lack for productive business relationships. We can have a flock of followers on Twitter and never reveal anything personal or meaningful. It’s the popularity parody. Technology has the ability to connect millions, while the million connections remain impersonal.
Technology has bred a spirit of both independence and isolation. Independence in that we really don’t need others to show us or teach us anything. We can get access to everything we need to know all by ourselves. We don’t seem to need a teacher, coach, mentor, or even parent to give us the information required to survive. Google allows us to explore every topic imaginable. YouTube entertains and shows us how to do things. Wikipedia provides collective intelligence.
At the same time, the nature of interpersonal communication has changed dramatically as well. Families sit together at the dinner table in rapt silence, preoccupied on their smart devices—if they even still eat dinner together. Friends have multiple conversations simultaneously through texting and rarely hear each other’s voices. Colleagues sit in tightly clustered work spaces, merely feet or floors apart, and prefer to type rather than talk. Surrounded by a multitude of virtual friends, we find ourselves isolated from meaningful relationships. The art of small talk has been lost. And getting to know others deeply through conversation has been replaced by stalking on social media. Awash in a sea of humanity, we find ourselves swimming alone.
I’m not trashing technology. Technology has produced advancements in science and society that previous generations never could have imagined. Technology is simply a tool. And, as a tool, it can be wielded for great good or abused to our own demise. And one of the negative impacts of technology is that, left unchecked, it can actually impede our ability to relate to others in meaningful ways. We must master technology, or it will be our master.
Everyone Is a Free Agent
My father-in-law, Tyrus Acton, worked for the same company for thirty-one years. After his “retirement,” he consulted for that company for several more years. He was a traveling salesman. He covered a four-state territory, driving countless miles on interstate highways during the week and was home every weekend. He was a road warrior. He enjoyed what he did and he was good at it. He was committed to the company and the company was committed to him. His appreciation and adulation for the company ran so deep that it impacted the next generation. His son started working for the same company straight out of college and has now been with them for thirty-four years. Today, my brother-in-law, Ty, is the president of Tingue Brown and Company.
My wife, LuAnne, has had a similar career. While she was in college, she met Karlton Jackson, principal of JMG Realty. When he decided to launch his own property management firm to provide services for apartment communities, he invited her to join his team as a leasing agent at one of their sites. That was over thirty years ago. Today, she is the executive vice president of business development and client relations. Although she has had lucrative offers to join other groups, her loyalty remains at JMG. Karlton is like a brother to her and the whole team is like a family. They work hard together—and they play together. They know one another deeply. They are committed to one another, their brand, and their clients. And it shows in everything they do. Loyalty and longevity like this are hard to find in the marketplace today.
Previous generations were told that if they studied hard, were admitted to a good college, and secured high grades, then they could build a career in a reputable company, work their way up the corporate ladder, and eventually retire with a secure pension. That is no longer the case. It’s rare to find lifelong careers that span thirty or forty years with the same organization and end with a company-wide celebration and the bestowal of a golden watch.
Today it’s common for young people entering the marketplace to have five or six jobs in the first decade of their careers. And people no longer strive for the golden watch. It’s a relic of a bygone era. The symbolism of the golden watch, being on your own time in your golden years as opposed to being on the company’s time, is no longer relevant. Those entering the marketplace today expect the company to adhere to their time schedule and follow their agenda from the start.
There is very little commitment today in terms of company loyalty. Long gone are the days when organizations could count on long-tenured, faithful employees. Players for life are all but mythical. Today everyone is a free agent. They play with a certain franchise for a season, however they choose to define a season, and then determine whether they will re-sign with that club or move on to another more appealing proposition. Many variables play into that decision, but the more significant factors are almost always related to the health and depth of their relationships with other team members.
If you want to recruit and retain top talent in today’s marketplace environment, then you have to learn how to work as a team and love like a family.
Low-Trust Cultures
Trust is the commodity of leadership. Healthy relationships are built on a solid foundation of trust. Healthy relationships are impossible when there is a lack of trust. When trust is low, resistance is high. People question leadership, push back heavily, and fill communication vacuums with negative assumptions. They are skeptical and suspicious of the motivations of others. Unnecessary friction slows endeavors significantly, if not stalling them altogether.
Conversely, when trust is high, resistance is low. When trust is high, collaboration thrives because people believe the best in one another and reach consensus more quickly. Productive organizations seek to build high-trust relationships across every level throughout the enterprise.
The most critical relationships are those between team leaders and their direct reports. It has been well established that people do not quit companies; they quit managers. The relationship between manager and team member is likely the most important bond determining retention of talent for any organization. The quality of this relationship is paramount. The challenge comes in the fact that few organizations invest adequately to prepare people for leadership. Those who have been successful individual contributors are often moved into positions in which they are responsible for giving oversight to a team, without being equipped to address the relational dynamics. Because they have been productive as individuals, it’s assumed that they possess the necessary competencies and emotional intelligence to lead others. This is a faulty and sometimes costly assumption. When companies choose not to invest heavily in growing leaders, it’s a clear signal that the organization has little long-term commitment to talent.
It’s absolutely imperative that organizations invest in the next generation of leaders, developing bench strength to adequately prepare for the sustainability and growth of the enterprise. The secret is to invest heavily in these high-potential players in such a way that they could go anywhere and be successful, while showing them so much love they would never want to leave.
Another factor that has seriously eroded trust in many organizations is the frequency of seeing senior leaders take care of themselves financially with blatant disregard of the cost to others. Many proverbial “golden parachutes” have been constructed for top-tier leaders by ripping apart the fabric of an organization and stitching it together with the threadbare heartstrings of those who have invested heavily at great personal cost. This doesn’t have to happen often for people to become cynical. When self-preservation becomes evident among leaders, the desire of others to follow them is greatly diminished. Leaders would do well to remember that the fastest way to success is to ensure the success of others.
Clearing the Undergrowth
Each of these destructive factors must be addressed before we can build a work environment that inspires people to bring their best every day. Like kudzu growing unchecked along a tree-lined country road, these factors are the undergrowth that can choke the life out of any organization’s culture. Once the damaging underbrush has been exposed, we can clear it out and begin to nurture the growth of healthy relationships.
››GAINING TRACTION: Questions for Consideration & Application