The Controlled Rebel

In my (admittedly limited) experience in consulting I have learned that organizations actually want people that don't settle for the status quo. They may not know it, but they do. They want someone who can seek and destroy things that don't make sense. Not someone who wreaks carnage upon anything and anyone in their path, but a silent and deadly killer of bureaucracy, band aid solutions, and misguided holdover decisions. They want someone who doesn't settle for the status quo because frankly not settling is a lot of work. Both in the discovery of what doesn't make sense and in the crafting of solutions to impact meaningful change. Most people in organizations are just too busy to engage in one let alone both of these activities.

Don't get me wrong, organizations don't want someone to come in and totally rock the boat. They don't want an abrasive personality demanding radical change. They don't want someone to scream "bullshit" when the sacred cows are defended or when the inevitable "this is how we have always done it" arises. What they do want is someone to call "bullshit" in a professional and perhaps even a disguised manner so the organization doesn't have to address the reality that the status quo isn't working. The controlled rebel who can skillfully navigate this delicate balancing act is in demand.....even if most organizations don't know it.

Transition, The Status Quo, & An Ever-Present Enemy

It has been a long time since I have posted. A very long time. I almost feel guilty about it. But a lot has transpired since my last post on sacrifice. I have separated from the Air Force, travelled across country to settle back in Portland, OR, gone through one hell of a job search process, accepted a new position, started my new job, started searching for a house, not to mention the living my life part! It has been a roller coaster ride with many highs and lows, it has taught me some lessons, but most of all it has taught me about myself.

Transition is an interesting thing. There are very few moments in our lives where we really cross over into a new chapter. Most transitions are just slight iterations or developments of where we already are. And although those minor forks in the road are very important and defining in the aggregate, they are not nearly as beneficial introspectively as a major life changing transition like the one I am currently navigating.

My transition out of the military has forced me to really evaluate what I value, what I want my life to look like, and how I am going to make it happen. As I have discussed in many a post, happiness is always the ultimate goal for me and for my family. As evident by my last post on sacrifice, that doesn't mean that there aren't things or periods of happiness that you sacrifice in the name of long term fulfillment. But this transition has really been an amazing challenge in the sense that I had to make a lot of tough decisions regarding whether an option is worth it or not. Worth it in the short term, the long term, and in the entirety of the life I want to live.

Which leads to the next insight derived from my transition experience, that of the status quo. People are social beings. Undisputed. I believe that people are inherently good. Often disputed. With those contexts in mind I think that people are naturally inclined to default in some sense to the status quo, to push others to do the same, and at times to inadvertently give others horrible advice. I don't think that people want to offer poor advice they just innately find comfort in giving advice that is shared by others. Below are some real life examples and anecdotes that not only relevant to my situation but also illustrate my theory above.

"It is a tough economy out there."
"Aren't you scared to not get a job?"
"Why don't you stay in Boston and get a government civilian job?"
"You can't be too picky. People nowadays are just lucky to have a job."
"You might have to take a job you hate until you find something else that you really want."

Did some of these comments piss me off? Yeah, a little bit. Especially when I heard them 500 times. But going back to my initial thoughts, none of these comments were made with any ill intent. I was never mad at the person making the comment it was just the questioning in the aggregate that became frustrating. People give advice based on their own frame of reference and set of life values and as a whole many of those values align to a common theme. The challenge, when following your gut, is to keep a tight watch on what is best for YOU and not to let the constant pressure of the status quo influence your decision making. This was an enormous challenge for me especially when things got tough, when I was rejected, when I hit dead ends, or when nothing was happening at all. It was during times like these that I became all too familiar with the ever-present enemy.

My ever present-enemy is an enemy shared by all....self doubt. My parents gave me and my younger brother an incredible upbringing. I look back and feel like they raised us the 'right' way. They instilled within us a sense of humility and taught us to treat everyone with dignity and respect. They kept me grounded while encouraging me to achieve whatever I wanted. I attribute much of my long term success to those maxims being ingrained into who I am. I think being humble has not only helped me to get along with a wide variety of people throughout my life, but it has also kept me hungry and striving for more. But being humble can open you up to self doubt in the short term. Whether it has been in school, sports, the military, business, or life in general I have always battled self doubt as I am sure most people do. I have witnessed kids in hockey who are anything but humble, to the point that it negatively affects their team relationships, consistently reach heights beyond their ability just because they aren't paralyzed by self doubt. There are a lot of successful people out there who are successful because they attack life with a relentless self assurance. Although I wouldn't trade places with those people, I have taken notice at how they have overcome (or bypassed) fear to achieve their goals. In my case, overcoming fear or self doubt must be a much more conscious decision based on who I am. It is a challenge and one that I continually face at every stage of my life.

My transition to corporate life has been no exception and with the numerous ups and downs throughout the process I frequently faced self doubt and wondered if my goals and dreams were actually attainable. As the old cliche goes, hindsight is always 20/20, and looking back over the last few months I can start to see that my focus on my goals, refusal to accept the status quo, and my ability to overcome the ever-present enemy were all critical in my successful transition. It wasn't always easy but I can look back at this chapter as an embodiment of how to be resilient in pursuit of happiness.

Converging vs. Diverging From The Norm

How do you differentiate between a high performing organization and everyone else? There are countless answers that likely differentiate the two. However, as I was sitting in a two hour training seminar for contracting personnel at work today and I couldn't help but notice one extremely important differentiator.

When people hear the term government acquisition, high performing organization is not necessarily the first thing that comes to mind. That is not to say that there aren't extremely capable people and teams within the career field because I have definitely worked with both. However, the combination of bureaucracy, regulation, and a risk averse culture of the government procurement career field doesn’t propel it into the ranks of what many consider a high performing organization.

As I sat through the training session I could not help but notice the same phrases directed at the audience. "If you don't do this....then the auditors will slam you," or "You better do this.....or the Inspector General may write you up," and "You should be doing this.......because it is a direct reflection of you and your superior's work." It was relentless and I couldn't help but feeling like I was being pushed around a bit. Threatened almost. The kind of warnings one receives throughout childhood. Unfortunately these kinds of messages are the norm in the government arena. In the government contracting environment individuals are pushed to converge with what is ordinary. In that environment ordinary is good. Ordinary means staying well within bounds. Ordinary means being reactive to any feedback that is filtered down. Ordinary is the safe play. Ordinary (hopefully) keeps your organization out of the headlines.

In my experience, high performing organizations force you diverge from the ordinary. A high performing organization says "You better create or do something new and unique....or something bad will happen to you." There is a distinct incentive to not only break free of the status quo but to change it for the better. Instead of coloring well within the lines you go outside them and establish new boundaries that you would not have known were possible had you not put yourself out there. When an organization forces you to diverge from the ordinary you in essence become extraordinary, and being extraordinary is the epitome of what a high performing organization is all about.

Thoughts On "Why Are All Our Best Officers Leaving The MIlitary"

There is an article that was recently published in The Atlantic magazine that is surely stirring up some controversy. The article is bluntly called, "Why Our Best Officers Are Leaving The Military."

I must start with a disclaimer of sorts. I am transitioning out of the military this summer. With my pending transition the title of the article definitely caught my eye, as it surely was designed to do. However, it wasn't because I consider myself the "best." I am a pretty humble guy so by nature it is hard to view myself as one of the best officers. I was more curious than anything else. With that being said, I certainly do not think that ALL of our nation's best officers are leaving the military. I have served with some unbelievably talented officers and leaders that are making the military a career and like any other organization the leaders will be a representation of our nation as a whole with the good, the bad, and the ugly making up our leadership ranks.

With my personal disclaimer out of the way, I must say that I think the article most definitely holds some validity and that many of the problems identified in throughout author's article are real.

Why are so many of the most talented officers now abandoning military life for the private sector? An exclusive survey of West Point graduates shows that it’s not just money. Increasingly, the military is creating a command structure that rewards conformism and ignores merit. As a result, it’s losing its vaunted ability to cultivate entrepreneurs in uniform.

What I really liked about the article is that it wasn't just some naive opinion piece with a catchy title. The writing was backed with real life studies and surveys that have been researched over the years. As I began to read the findings that came from the aforementioned surveys and studies I was amazed at how closely they matched my own reasons for separating. Not only my own reasons but the frustrations I have discussed with my peers over the course of my military career.

A widely circulated 2010 report from the Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War College said: “Since the late 1980s … prospects for the Officer Corps’ future have been darkened by … plummeting company-grade officer retention rates. Significantly, this leakage includes a large share of high-performing officers.” Similar alarms have been sounded for decades, starting long before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan made the exit rate of good officers an acute crisis. When General Peter Schoomaker served as Army chief of staff from 2003 to 2007, he emphasized a “culture of innovation” up and down the ranks to shift the Army away from its Cold War focus on big, conventional battles and toward new threats. In many respects (weapons, tactics, logistics, training), the Army did transform. But the talent crisis persisted for a simple reason: the problem isn’t cultural. The military’s problem is a deeply anti-entrepreneurial personnel structure. From officer evaluations to promotions to job assignments, all branches of the military operate more like a government bureaucracy with a unionized workforce than like a cutting-edge meritocracy.

And that is when it hit me. When I read the final word of the passage. The word 'meritocracy' instantly took me back to something I did while deployed to Iraq. While deployed, at the request of my Commander, I completed a voluntary and informal "exit survey." The survey was created by my Commander, when she learned I was separating from the Air Force, to track trends of departing Company Grade Officers from the Contracting career field. Her genuine desire to address the problems in our military/career field coupled with her care for her people not only made me feel obligated to complete the survey, it made me feel honored to provide brutally honest feedback that may in some small way make the Air Force a bit better for the people behind me.

I opened my 'exit survey' for the first time since submitting it to my Commander in Iraq and I went to one of the first sections. The section asked me to describe my top five reasons for separating. Under reason number four I had listed "Meritocracy." Below is an excerpt of my response:

Meritocracy: I have always been very intrinsically motivated. I enjoy giving my best and do so without many external incentives. However, I have found that working in the government setting can be frustrating at times. I think that being in a career field that is heavily populated with civilians and contractors as well as military has made it even more frustrating. It is hard to work in [the] contracting [career field] and not notice that there are plenty of workers who do in fact very little working. Not only is it frustrating to watch as a fellow teammate but it is typically compounded by the fact that many of these people make more money than me and get more time away from the office than me. Not that money is everything to me. Not even close. I think that as an officer [in the military] the money and benefits are more than sufficient for my lifestyle and I am appreciative of how I have been able to set myself up quite nicely for the future given the paycheck I receive. However, I do have a problem working in an environment where the external incentives seem completely misaligned with the amount of responsibility and contributions to the team. I hate to generalize my civilian counterparts because I have worked with some great ones, but over time I have noticed a trend that many civilians want all the benefits of being in the military without any of the sacrifice that comes with it. I am not naïve enough to think that my transition to the corporate world with solve all my frustrations and that everything will be “fair”. However, I am looking for an environment where I can differentiate myself through performance and be compensated both internally and externally based on my merits.

As I continued through the article, I was amazed at the findings from the respondents in the survey and how closely they matched many of my peers sentiments and experiences. Below are some of the results that really stood out to me.

Among active- duty respondents, 82 percent believed that half or more of the best are leaving. Only 30 percent of the full panel agreed that the military personnel system “does a good job promoting the right officers to General,” and a mere 7 percent agreed that it “does a good job retaining the best leaders.”

Is this so terrible? One can argue that every system has flaws and that the military should be judged on its ultimate mission: maintaining national security and winning wars. But that’s exactly the point: 65 percent of the graduates agreed that the exit rate of the best officers leads to a less competent general-officer corps. Seventy-eight percent agreed that it harms national security.

The shame of this loss of talent is that the U.S. military does such a good job attracting and training great leaders. The men and women who volunteer as military officers learn to remain calm and think quickly under intense pressure. They are comfortable making command decisions, working in teams, and motivating people. Such skills translate powerfully to the private sector, particularly business: male military officers are almost three times as likely as other American men to become CEOs, according to a 2006 Korn/Ferry International study.

I too believe that the military does an excellent job attracting and training leaders. In fact one of the sections of my exit survey asked what I thought the Air Force does well. Below is my response:

What do you think the Air Force does exceptionally well?

Developing professional critical thinking leaders: I look back at all the unique challenges, experiences, and educational opportunities I have been given while in the Air Force and I start to think that the Air Force has given me much more than I ever gave in return. Sure the sacrifices are difficult; however I feel that the 9 years I spent in the military lifestyle have set me up for success in any endeavor I choose to pursue.

I think the Air Force has developed a culture, especially amongst its officers, that is founded on professional character based leadership. This is not an easy culture to establish en masse, but the further I go along in my career the more I realize how successful the Air Force has been at providing me a foundation for leadership success.

I think that based on the statistics above, Corporate America is finding value in folks with military leadership experience. The fact that men with military experience are three times as likely to become CEO as compared to their civilian counterparts is a statistic that shows the transitional success is not a mere coincidence. So why does the military have a hard time retaining great leaders when they do such a great job crafting them? That is a question author Tim Kane also sought to answer through his research.

Why is the military so bad at retaining these people? It’s convenient to believe that top officers simply have more- lucrative opportunities in the private sector, and that their departures are inevitable. But the reason overwhelmingly cited by veterans and active-duty officers alike is that the military personnel system—every aspect of it—is nearly blind to merit. Performance evaluations emphasize a zero-defect mentality, meaning that risk-avoidance trickles down the chain of command. Promotions can be anticipated almost to the day— regardless of an officer’s competence—so that there is essentially no difference in rank among officers the same age, even after 15 years of service. Job assignments are managed by a faceless, centralized bureaucracy that keeps everyone guessing where they might be shipped next.

The Pentagon’s response to such complaints has traditionally been to throw money at the problem, in the form of millions of dollars in talent-blind retention bonuses. More often than not, such bonuses go to any officer in the “critical” career fields of the moment, regardless of performance evaluations. This only ensures that the services retain the most risk-averse, and leads to long-term mediocrity.

When I asked veterans for the reasons they left the military, the top response was “frustration with military bureaucracy”—cited by 82 percent of respondents (with 50 percent agreeing strongly). In contrast, the conventional explanation for talent bleed—the high frequency of deployments—was cited by only 63 percent of respondents, and was the fifth-most-common reason. According to 9 out of 10 respondents, many of the best officers would stay if the military was more of a meritocracy.

Ironically deployments was the fifth reason out of five on my exit questionnaire as well. Although these generalizations are not true for all members of the military I think that there are many that do feel aligned with the concerns cited above. Most of my best friends in the military are competitors. Many spent years competing at the highest levels of sports, academics, etc. and the most frustrating environment you could possibly put them in is one where they feel constrained and held back. I am a firm believer that over time people rise and fall to where they deserve to be based on their merits. However, when driven people are given the choice to enter an environment that more efficiently rewards overachievers and winners inevitably some will make the jump.

Another facet of the current military struggle is differing outlooks on the status quo. For better or for worse many within the younger generations look at the status quo differently than their upper leadership. It is not that the younger leaders of the military do not buy into a culture that promotes integrity, honor, service and excellence, as that is definitely a cultural norm that they believe in. What the youth of the military struggles with is the status quo line of thinking. The youth of our country has been brought up to embrace their differences, to stand out, and to become their own unique person. One has to look no further than the trends of our information age to see the demand for individualization thriving. Anyone can start a blog, a Facebook page, a YouTube channel, a Twitter account, and much more. People are creating their own individual identities and virtual thought profiles online from a very young age. In a sense the new currency is ideas and the marketplace is rewarding people for their ideas. Anyone who has served in the military knows that is not always the case in the military environment. Often the individualized personas and unique beliefs that are embraced in the new world are seen as 'risky' in the military world.

In a 2007 essay in the Armed Forces Journal, Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yingling offered a compelling explanation for this risk-averse tendency. A veteran of three tours in Iraq, Yingling articulated a common frustration among the troops: that a failure of generalship was losing the war. His critique focused not on failures of strategy but on the failures of the general-officer corps making the strategy, and of the anti-entrepreneurial career ladder that produced them: “It is unreasonable to expect that an officer who spends 25 years conforming to institutional expectations will emerge as an innovator in his late forties.”

In America today, capitalism is entrepreneurial: our economy is defined by individuals failing or succeeding on the strength of their ideas. Crucially, the military has not recognized this shift. And the Army, in particular, has not changed from its “inefficient industrial era practices,” as a report by the Strategic Studies Institute put it last year. It still treats each employee as an interchangeable commodity rather than as a unique individual with skills that can be optimized.

That last line really hits it on the head for me. How can the military take the unique individuals that serve as the core of its make up and skillfully utilize those assets to make the organization better than it was? That is the ultimate goal. Of course it is easier said than done in one of the largest organizations in the world but the journey of a thousand miles starts with one step.

I love the military and what it stands for. Any organization that is consistently recognized as one of America's most trusted institutions while simultaneously navigating some of the most critical and challenging missions on the planet is doing a lot of things right. I decided to write this post because I believe in our military and I want it to continue to be the world's best for my friends that stay in, for my country, and for the next generation. I truly believe that by consistently striving to improve and by continually addressing the evolving challenges like the ones outlined in this article, our nation's fighting force will continue its tradition of success long after I am gone.

Becoming The Trend

Above is the (great) video for "Icarus Lives!" by the band Periphery. I must admit that when my brother first turned me on to them I didn't necessarily know how to digest them. I dug their sound but looking back I definitely didn't appreciate just how unique their music really is. Judging by the 'e-chatter' floating around about these guys it is safe to say that they have made an impact on the metal community. Although I wouldn't say they are my favorite band of all time it does speak volumes that I have probably listened to their cd more in the last few months than I have any other cd I have. Why am I intrigued by this band? Because they don't sound like anybody else.

That got me thinking back to all the bands that I have really dug over the years. What do they have in common? They don't sound like anyone else. They have a distinct personality or dare I say it, brand. Of course there are copy bands that will follow in the footsteps of unique bands, but when a great band steps outside of what is common there is a period of time where they truly stand alone. I think those few drops of sand in the hourglass where a band is out ahead of the trends are really special moments. And it is those moments that generally shift the way a genre is headed. Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Megadeth, Metallica, Pantera, In Flames, At The Gates, Killswitch Engage, The Black Dahlia Murder are a few that come to mind over the last few decades that have truly been unique and influential and that stand alone for a brief period of time before eventually shifting the direction of the genre (list is definitely up for debate). So what happens when a band bucks the trend and ventures out into aberrance? They become the trend.

Although established social norms often reward conformance and toeing the line so to speak, it is these trips off the beaten path that can be the most rewarding and defining in the long run. How can I seek opportunities to break free from the status quo, to truly grow as a person, yet still remain tangible and enjoyable to be around as a husband, a friend, a professional, and a member of society? Where can I go against the grain and become the trend for the betterment of myself and those around me? That is the challenge, and if it takes analyzing metal bands on my blog for me to recognize this transcendent life lesson so be it.

Personal MBA Update - First Break All The Rules

First Break All The Rules by Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman - Going against the status quo is a fairly prevalent cliche that is easy to latch onto and the study of management is no exception. However First Break All The Rules parades the anti-establishment management flag based at least in part on the largest Gallup poll results on management ever undertaken. Although the field is generally viewed as more of an art than a science the useful guidelines and anecdotes are based on hard data taken from thousands of managers at numerous companies across the globe. Although I am considered rather green or wet behind the ears in my career journey, I still took quite a bit from this book. I don't manage a division or have 300 plus direct reports, but I feel that management is more a study of interpersonal skills and organizational habits that we all can learn from. There were definitely some parts that I could not relate to at all, but that is not to say I will never encounter similar situations or apply those lessons to other situations. One surprisingly useful discovery within this book was the introspective nature of the material. The way the book was written had me looking at my life to see if I was surrounded by effective managers, by a high performing organization, and with people who were happy. Furthermore it offered the right line of questioning to evaluate whether or not a position is good for my unique set of talents and behaviors. Definitely some interesting stuff that is value added not only for those seeking to be better managers, but for those seeking to make sure that they are positioned most effectively to exploit their unique makeup. Here are my notes from the book:

Introduction:

- The greatest managers in the world do not have much in common but they do have one thing; Before they do anything else they first break all the rules of conventional wisdom.

The Measuring Stick:

- Like the disaster of Britain's ships at the Scilly Isles, many businesses suffer from an inability to measure what they know is critically important

- No one has figured how to measure attracting and keeping talented people

- Intellectual capital is becoming more important and valued

- Gallup interviewed over a million employees and came up with 12 questions measuring the strength of the workplace:

1. Do I know what is expected of me at work?

2. Do I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right?

3. At work do I have the opportunity to do what I do best everyday?

4. In the last 7 days have I received recognition or praise for doing good work?

5. Does my supervisor or someone at work seem to care about me as a person?

6. Is there someone who encourages my development?

7. At work do my opinions seem to count?

8. Does the mission/purpose of my company make me feel my job is important?

9. Are my coworkers committed to doing quality work?

10. Do I have a best friend a work?

11. In the last 6 months has someone at work talked to me about my progress?

12. This year have I had opportunities to learn and grow?

- Questions contain an extreme like "best" or "everyday"

- No questions w/pay, benefits, senior management, organizational structure. There were but they disappear during analysis. Not unimportant but equally important. The questions above are the real discriminators

- Asked companies for scores measuring 1. productivity 2. profitability 3. employee retention 4. customer satisfaction

- Compared the 12 questions to the 4 business measurements to see if there is a correlation

1. There is a link between employee opinion and business unit performance 2. The immediate manager had the most impact on employee opinion

- All 12 questions were linked to at least 1 business outcome

- 10 of 12 questions were linked to productivity, 8 of 12 to profitability, 5 of 12 to employee retention

- Most powerful questions had strongest links to the most business outcomes

- 6 most powerful:

1. Do I know what is expected of me?

2. Do I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right?

3. At work do I have the opportunity to do what I do best everyday?

4. In the last 7 days have I received recognition or praise for doing good work?

5. Does my supervisor or someone at work seem to care about me as a person?

6. Is there someone who encourages my development?

- Mountain Climbing: Why is there an order to the 12 questions?

- Base camp: What do I get?

1. Do I know what is expected of me?

2. Do I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right?

-Camp 1: What do I give?:

3. At work do I have the opportunity to do what I do best everyday?

4. In the last 7 days have I received recognition or praise for doing good work?

5. Does my supervisor or someone at work seem to care about me as a person?

6. Is there someone who encourages my development?

- Camp 2: Do I belong here?:

7. At work do my opinions seem to count?

8. Does the mission/purpose of my company make me feel my job is important?

9. Are my coworkers committed to doing quality work?

10. Do I have a best friend a work?

- Camp 3: How can we all grow?:

11. In the last 6 months has someone at work talked to me about my progress?

12. This year have I had opportunities to learn and grow?

- Base camp and camp 1 is where you should focus your time and energy as a manager. If lower level needs aren't met everything else is irrelevant

The Wisdom of Great Managers:

- Frog and Scorpion parable

- Each person is true to their unique nature. There is a limit to how much remolding you can do to someone

- The great managers don't bemoan the differences they capitalize on them. They try to help each person become more of who they already are.

- People don't change that much. Don't waste time trying to put in what was left out. Try to draw out what was left in. That is hard enough.

- "Smart individual performers keep getting moved into manager positions without the slightest idea of what the manager role is, let alone the ability to play it. We send them off to one of these leadership development courses, but they come back more impressed with their mini executive status than with the day to day challenges of being a good manager. No one knows what being a good manager is anymore."

- The manager is the "catalyst" role

- 4 activities a manager must do extremely well: 1. select a person 2. set expectations 3. motivate the person 4. develop the person

- Those four activities say what great managers do but not how

1. Select for talent - not just experience, intelligence and determination

2. Define the right outcomes - not the right steps

3. Focus on strengths not weaknesses

4. Find the right fit - not the next rung on the ladder

The First Key: Select For Talent:

- Normally we associate talent only with celebrated excellence. Talent seems to be a rare and precious thing bestowed on special far away people

- Great managers disagree with this definition of talent

- Talent is a recurring pattern of thought, feeling, or behavior that can be productively applied. Your talents are behaviors you find yourself doing often

- Every role performed at excellence requires talent because it requires recurring patterns of thought feeling or behavior

- Most managers select for experience, intelligence, or determination. Talent if mentioned at all is an afterthought

- The right talents are the prerequisites for excellence

- The way you filter the earths stimuli is largely the source of your talents

- People get the same stimuli, produce different reactions and therefore have varying degrees of performance

- Great manager mantra pg 79

- Neuroscience confirms what great managers know. Peoples filters and the recurring patterns of behavior it creates, is enduring. In the most important ways people are permanently wonderfully unique, So are you. So are the people you hire.

- Great managers are not troubled by the fact that there is a limit to how much people can change. It is happy confirmation that people are different.

- There is no point wishing away individuality. It is better to nurture it and help someone understand their filter and to channel it towards productive behavior

- Skills, knowledge, and talents are distinct elements of a persons performance

- Skills are the how to's

- Knowledge is what you are aware of: 1. the factual things you know 2. experiential things you have picked up along the way

- 3 kinds of talents:

1. Striving - is the why of a person. Why they get out of bed everyday. Why are they motivated to push etc.

2. Thinking - the how of a person. How they think, how they weigh alternatives, how they make decisions etc.

3. Relating - the who of a person. Whom they trust, who they build relationships with, who they confront and ignore etc.

- None of this implies a person cannot change. Everyone can change and learn and get better. The language of skills knowledge and talents simply helps the manager identify where radical change is possible and where it is not!

- Two of the most pervasive management myths:

1. Talents are rare and special - everyone has recurring patterns of behavior. The talent alone isn't special, it is the matching of talent with the role that is special.

2. Some roles are so easy they don't require talent - Great managers do not believe that their filter is common to everyone. They're wired to believe that people are wired to excel at a role and will derive satisfaction from doing it well

- Peter Drucker said, "Even today, remarkably few Americans are prepared to select jobs for themselves. When you ask, 'Do you know what you are good at? Do you know your limitations?' they look at you with a blank stare. Or they often respond in terms of subject knowledge, which is the wrong answer."

- Know what you are looking for. Study your best.

- John Wooden said, "No matter how you total success in the coaching profession, it all comes down to a single factor - talent. There may be a hundred great coaches of whom you have never heard of in basketball, football, or any sport who will probably never receive the acclaim they deserve simply because they have not been blessed with the talent. Although not every coach can win consistently with talent, no coach can win without it."

- Talent is only potential. It takes great managers to turn talent to performance.

The Second Key: Define the Right Outcomes:

- Managers have less control than those they manage. They cannot do anything. They motivate influence etc. They have remote control.

- Their dilemma: The manager must retain control and focus people on performance but they are bound by the belief that they cannot force everyone to perform in the same way

- The solution: define the right outcomes and let each person find their own way to get their

- There is a strong temptation for managers to try and control and implement one best way

- The managers challenge is not to perfect people but to capitalize on each persons uniqueness

- Rules of thumb:

1. Don't break the bank - employees mus follow the required steps that deal with accuracy or safety

2. Standards rule - must follow required steps that are company or industry standards

3. Don't let the creed overshadow the message - required steps are only useful if they don't obscure the desired outcome

4. There are no steps leading to customer satisfaction - Required steps only prevent dissatisfaction they cannot drive customer satisfaction

Level I - customers expect accuracy

Level II - they expect availability

Level III - they expect a partnership. They want you to be listened to and responded to and to feel they are on the same side of the fence as you

Level IV - they expect advice. The feel closest to organizations that help them learn

- Focusing on outcomes is one thing but now do you know what are the right outcomes for your customers?

1. What is right for your customers - customers define value

2. What is right for your company - are outcomes in line with your strategy

3. What is right for the individual - go from players to playbook and not the other way

The Third Key: Focus on Strengths:

- Focus on each persons strengths and manage their weaknesses. Help people become more of who they are

- If you want to turn talent into performance you have to position each person so you are paying them to do what they are naturally wired to do. You have to oust them into the right role

- It is not treat others as you would want to be treated. Manage by exception. Treat others how they want to be treated

- Spend the most time with your best people. Your role is to turn talent into performance

- If you are paying less attention to your stars you are encouraging them to change their behavior to get noticed and those behaviors are what made them stars to begin with

- The fairest thing to do is treat everyone differently

- Don Shula on fairness, "I am going to be very consistent with every one of you because Ill treat every one of you differently. That's the way it is. The harder a guy works, the better he performs, and the more he meets my guidelines, the more leeway he is going to have with me. By the same token, if a guy doesn't work very hard for me or if hes not a very good player, hes not going to be around for very long."

- You learn from top performers

- Top performers have the most room for growth. Don't be held back by focusing on the average. Focus on excellence

- This does not mean that poor performance should be ignored. Just consider what is causing it

- A non talent is something that somebody doesn't possess. It can become a weakness when a person is in a role that requires that non talent

- Devising a support system is more productive and fun than trying to fix weaknesses. It allows you to focus on strengths and manage weaknesses.

- Find a business partner whose peaks match your valleys

- If all else fails you may have made a casting error and you must find the person an alternative role

The Fourth Key: The Right Fit:

- Every manager is eventually asked "where do I go from here" by employees looking to grow, earn more, get more prestige etc. What is the right answer?

- There is no right answer just a right way to approach the question. Help each person find the right fit

- The Peter Principle states that we promote up to a persons level of incompetence

- Create heroes in every role. Everyone climbing mindlessly to ever decreasing rungs is not productive or realistic

- Some roles performed excellently are more valuable that roles up the ladder performed averagely

- Broadbanding overlaps pay scales and promotes excellence at the current position

- Perform creative acts of revolt to reward excellence

- Acquiring varied experiences is important but peripheral to a healthy career. It is an accessory but not a driving force

- Self discovery is the driving guiding force for a healthy career

- Sunday night blues test. If you feel that stab of depression at the end of the weekend ask why? If not ask why?

- Managers should be the mirror to help discovery by constant feedback, reviews and goals

- Managers can level the playing field by creating heroes, designing levels of achievement, and broadbanding so decisions are made based more on talents and non talents vs money prestige

- Phil Jackson "Athletes aren't the most verbal breed. That's why bare attention and listening without judgement are so important."

Turning the Keys: A Practical Guide:

- The art of interviewing for talent:

1. Make sure the talent interview stands alone. Leave out pay and other details. Make sure the patterns of thought, feelings, and behavior match the job

2. Ask a few open ended questions and try to keep quiet. Let them reveal themselves to you. Believe what they say no matter what that reveals

3. Listen for specifics. The details are less important than the top of the mind simplicity with which they recall them. Specifics and top of mind will reveal recurring talents

4. Clues to talent. People are complex so you cant predict perfectly but listen for clues to the talents they have. A. rapid learning B. Satisfactions

5. Know what to listen for. Know how the best people respond and use those responses as differentiators

- Use performance management routine that is simple uses frequent interaction and focuses on the future and has employees track their own performance and learning

- Routine page 225

- What great managers expect of every talented employee: Look in the mirror any chance you get, muse, discover yourself, build your constituency, keep track, catch your peers doing something right

- What can you do if you work for someone who is not a great manager:

1. If they are too busy schedule a performance meeting for them

2. If they force you to do things their way set up a meeting to set performance outcomes

3. If they praise at inappropriate times bring it up in performance meeting

4. If they constantly ask how you are doing or intrude schedule a meeting on your time

5. If they ignore distrust take credit blame or disrespect then get out from under them

- How to break through conventional wisdom barricades:

1. Keep focus on outcomes

2. Value world class performance in every role

3. Study your best

4. Teach the language of great managers