Workplace Moves

What are your workplace options? It’s time to check, mate. ✎ By Wayne K. Spear

In my consulting work, I meet people who are unsatisfied in their workplace role. They like their organization, and want to stay in it, but also want to make a move.

They often have no idea what to do, or how to do it.

There are many kinds of workplace moves. The kind of move that’s right for you depends on the nature of your situation.

Consider the many forms of dissatisfaction:

– You have talents that are not being used
– Your role isn’t natural to you
– You are not challenged enough
– You are challenged too much
– You are not being properly trained and supported
– You are being micro-managed
– Your immediate supervisor is incompetent and/or a jerk

Think of your workplace as a chessboard. Each piece on the board has its own style and range of movement. Just like a game of chess, your workplace offers a variety of movement.

In most cases, you can modify your role, through workplace communication and collaboration. Maybe all you need is a small adjustment, which bring us to …

The Pawn

Pawn

This is the simplest move of all, best suited to cases where you’re in the right role but want a little more (or less) responsibility, authority, or challenge: promotion vs. voluntary demotion. Some companies I know of will even accommodate the request for a demotion without cutting pay.

The King

King

The King is all about modest incremental, adjacent motion. This is how most moves occur, not only in business but in life. The expert on Italian opera makes a lateral move into the Italian food business. The best-selling author of Car Repair decides to write a book called Motorcycle Repair (rather than, say, Existentialism Explained). It’s about leveraging your proven expertise to move into a neighboring field. This is a logical, step-by-step process, and it makes the most sense in workplace situations where you want a bit more (or less) responsibility, authority and challenge—rather than a huge change.

The Knight

Knight

The moves of a Knight are bolder than those of a King. The Knight can leap over other pieces, as well as travel greater distance. More important, the Knight’s movements appear to be non-linear. In reality, the Knight makes a double move—two steps and a turn. This type of movement makes sense when you require a bolder transition that will take you slightly outside your current role and circumstances. In this move, it’s not only the degree of challenge and responsibility at issue, it’s the character of your role. You want something different, but not wildly different.

The Bishop

Bishop

Here we get into bolder moves. The Bishop is about transitions. Rather than keep on the established path, this piece moves at angles into new territory. This is a more difficult workplace move to make, but it can be done if you’ve demonstrated your talents and competence, or if you’ve completed training. I have seen employees move successfully from HR to finance. I’ve seen an entry-level Admin Assistant become a Financial Comptroller. It happens. As long as there is an openness and trust, and a willingness to create and commit to a plan, anything is possible.

The Rook

Rook

The Rook is also about big moves, but of a logical nature. Here we consider a powerful workplace strategy—the lateral move. Lateral moves are great if you want more challenge without more responsibility, or if you want to learn from a mentor in another part of the company. Also, it isn’t always possible to negotiate a better role with your boss, or to work out personality issues. Sometimes you just have to plan your escape. A lateral move is therefore advisable when you find yourself unable to work amicably with a supervisor.

The Queen

Queen

The world is a Queen’s oyster. She has it all, because she can see it all. The Queen looks out over the entire range of motion and chooses where she wants to land. This piece reminds us that an organization holds a wide range of opportunities. What if you don’t see the perfect role for your individual skills? Then consider having a discussion about creating a role. Good companies are open to this, so you should be open to thinking, and moving, like a Queen.

Winner and Losers

Have great answers to better questions. ✎ By Wayne K. Spear

Finish
Photo courtesy of Philo Nordlund on Flickr

In the Middle Ages, the king was the winner. He lived in a castle with legions of servants who brought him the best food and wine.

The king didn’t have air conditioning or aspirin or deodorant or a smart phone. You probably wouldn’t trade places with him, because his quality of life was quite low by the standard you enjoy.

However, he lived a much better life than the people around him, and everyone knew it.

That’s how the king won.

Imagine that you live in a mansion, and that you have a million dollars. It sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? Again, the life of a winner.

But now imagine that everyone you know has 5 million dollars and a much bigger mansion than yours.

Suddenly, you’re not the winner anymore.

Comparing ourselves and our fortunes to the character and lives of others leads inexorably to a world of winners and losers.

The winner finishes first and takes the prize. Everyone else is a loser.

If the world is really about winning and losing in this simplistic way, the truth is that most of us are losers.

And, yet, the lives of the “losers” today are objectively better than the life of a Medieval king. And the king was a winner.

Today’s winner will be tomorrow’s loser, because even if he doesn’t change the world around him will.

Winning like a king is arbitrary, not absolute. It’s a made-up thing.

To win at baseball, you must score more runs than your opponent. Baseball is a made-up game with made-up rules.

Life is not baseball.

If you compare yourself to others, you’re not living your life—you’re living theirs. Or, rather, you’re trying to live their lives, but in a bigger, better way.

Winning is important. No one wants to be a loser. The question “What does it mean to live a ‘winning’ life?” is a good question.

Unfortunately, the world gives us many bad answers.

Winning at life begins with asking good questions and finding good answers.

Today is the luckiest day of the year

Go ahead, make your day. ✎ By Wayne K. Spear

Astrology
Graphic courtesy of zeevveez on Flickr

Yesterday my mother sent me an email with the subject heading “tomorrow is the luckiest day of the year….” That means today is your lucky day.

The question is: what are you going to do to take advantage?

I don’t understand how the motions of planets have anything more to do with my fortunes than, say, the ocean currents or the flights of birds or the placement of the stones on the sidewalk. Or anything else that exists in nature.

But if you treat every day as the luckiest day of the year, there is a 100% chance that one day you’ll be right.

If you treat today as the luckiest day of the year, you’ll likely be a little more bold, and a little more intentional, because you are preparing yourself for something good to happen.

Maybe it will, maybe it won’t. The only certainty is that when you’re not prepared, and not preparing, opportunity passes by.

Taking control

You are the boss of this. ✎ By Wayne K. Spear

No one can control the weather. We can only control how we dress for it.

Sometimes the things we can’t control are life-and-death things. We can’t ignore life-and-death matters, nor should we. All we can control is our response to, and our management of, them.

You can’t make someone be nice to you. You can’t make someone else care. Whether or not you are nice, and whether or not you care, is within your control.

Maybe you will win the lottery. Maybe not.

Lotteries are random. But even random acts, such as random acts of kindness, are within your control—if they are your acts.

Sometimes, when I’m about to check my email, I’ve found myself wondering whether today is a day there will be something exciting, special, and memorable in my inbox.

Then I realize that I can control exciting, special, and memorable email—by sending it to someone.

Draw up a list of things you control. It can be anything: what you have for breakfast, what route you take to work, what you say today to colleagues, how you react to stressful things, what you choose to think about yourself.

Is there any way you can change, improve, or nourish the things you control.

Cultivate these things. Enjoy being in control of them.

Food for thought

You think what you eat. ✎ By Wayne K. Spear

The brain is a hungry organ. In a human being, it makes up only 2% of total body mass but consumes 20% of available energy.

Input and output: these exist in balance.

The best way to be more creative, more thoughtful, and more productive is to feed your brain.

Better outputs begin with better inputs.

Read books, listen to podcasts, observe the world. Go for a walk. Notice what is going on in your environment. Take an interest in what you see, hear, feel, touch, smell. Be curious.

Feed your brain a healthy diet.

Be Preposterous

Forward-thinkers have it all backwards. ✎ By Wayne K. Spear

preposterous, a. (prɪˈpɒstərəs) [f. L. præposter, reversed]
1. Having or placing last that which should be first; inverted in position or order.

“Life can only be understood backwards,” wrote Soren Kierkegaard.

Michael Gerber, author of The E-Myth Revisited, advises us to imagine what we want people to say of us at our funerals, and to live accordingly.

It’s called reverse engineering. Start at the end, work your way backward.

Put the cart before the horse. Read the last page first. The answers really are at the back.

“In my end is my beginning” – T.S. Eliot

Here is a great idea from the writer James Altucher: Take a sheet of paper and a pen. In the middle of the sheet, write THAT’S CRAZY. Now work backwards, figuring out all the pathways to THAT’S CRAZY.

James Altucher is crazy, because he doesn’t let THAT’S CRAZY get in his way, ever.

THAT’S CRAZY is where you want to end up in your life. It’s your wildest dreams, your fantasies, the things you tell yourself you can never have, or do, or be.

Why? Because that’s crazy.

So be crazy, and be preposterous.

What is communication?

Communication breakdown is not always the same. ✎ By Wayne K. Spear

It is the hardest simple thing you will ever do.

That is why communication failure is at the root of many ills.

And, yet, in our hearts and minds we human beings believe that communication is an ordinary, ever-day act—as natural to us as breathing.

Well, what if your communication strategy has emphysema?

Think about this: homo sapiens is older than words, by many thousands of years. We evolved to communicate without a verbal language.

Emotion, gesture, posture, and facial expression trump verbal communication. We need these so much that in the age of social media we have found ways to interpolate them.

Every face is an open book.

Our communication styles vary. We each have a language of our own. Asperger syndrome is a communication style. The language of poetry is another.

Understand, and be understood. This, in a phrase, is the goal of all communication.

Relationships, marriages, and politics all depend upon effective communication.

Businesses fail when their internal and external communications are shoddy.

The work of managing internal communication is Organizational Development.

The work of managing the effective, bi-directional flow of information is Public Relations.

The work of understanding your audience’s needs and perceptions is Marketing.

Figure 1: the three modes of communication

Figure 1

Do you understand yourself and your communication style? Do you understand the audience? Are you a seller speaking the language of sellers, when you should be speaking the language of buyers? Do you have the right message for the wrong audience, or the wrong message for the right audience?

What does communication mean to you, and to your business?

Authenticity

“I am, sincerely.” ✎ By Wayne K. Spear

Babe Ruth

Here is something that has happened to every parent:

Child: “Look, mommy. That person is fat!”
Parent: “We don’t say fat, dear.”

The child is authentic. Over time, she is socialized. She learns to be something that is socially acceptable. She simulates, equivocates, euphemizes, gets along.

This is called Being Polite.

An adult does not say, “That person is fat.” Unless he is running in the GOP primary.

Straight-talk, candor, directness, honesty—we value them so much that the simulation of authenticity has become a political art.

We call this hypocrisy.

To paraphrase Captain Pierce, of M*A*S*H: “Authenticity? I could fake that.”

An authentic Babe Ruth signature is extremely valuable. A fake one is worthless.

Give us the authentic goods, not the knock-offs; the original, not the derivatives; the Real Deal, not the imitations.

We cast our contempt upon lies. We want an honest opinion. We applaud sincerity. We are wounded by deception, white lies, double-talk, lack of candor.

“I’m looking through you. Where did you go?” sang Paul McCartney. “I thought I knew you, what did I know?”

What is real? What is authentic?

Deception is undertaken for gain. When authenticity is a valuable currency, expect counterfeit.

Authenticity is never for gain: it always costs something. It is risky.

To be authentic is to follow your conscience, not the consensus. It is to be true to oneself, even if it hurts.

And it will hurt.

That is because authenticity requires that we be open and vulnerable.

It is not enough to say “I am great,” even if that is objectively true. To speak only of your triumphs, strengths, virtues, and accomplishments is to fall short of the standard of real authenticity.

Authenticity demands that we be honest about our fears, doubts, failures, weaknesses, hopes, and loves.

The authentic person is exposed. His humanity is there for all to see in its glorious imperfection.

An authentic dollar is what it is. We accept it as legal tender, even when the bill is wrinkled and soiled.

Likewise we reject the counterfeit, no matter how shiny it may be.

Warning: this is bad for your health!

Warning: this article contains healthy subject matter ✎ By Wayne K. Spear

Warning
Photo courtesy of Thomas Leth-Olsen, Flickr

Some things are so bad for you, they come with warning labels.

WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy.

Many things that are bad for you don’t come with a warning label. Yet you know they are bad, because you can feel the badness.

Some things that are bad for you may be good for someone else. Health is complicated. It is individual. It comes in various forms.

Mental health, physical health, emotional health.

It is up to you to make your own labels.

WARNING: Reading The Comment Section Only Makes You Angry.

WARNING: You Are Getting Nothing Of Value From Social Media, And You Know It.

WARNING: You Are Surrounding Yourself With Toxic Relationships.

What do you love? What makes you feel good? What nourishes your body, soul, and mind? Make a health label for this, too.

WARNING: You have let your love of nature fall by the wayside. Put down the smart phone right now and go for a walk in the woods.

Write a list of ten things that make you feel good. A favorite song, a movie, a friend, a place, a meal, a book that changed your life, a vacation, a hobby. Whatever it may be, write it down.

When was the last time you enjoyed these pleasures? Days ago? Months? Years?

WARNING: Life is busy. We are all surrounded by distractions. It is easy to lose sight of the things that make you healthy, and to fill your life instead with unhealthy substitutes.

Put your list of loves where you are most assailed by distractions and toxicity. It is your personal warning label.

On knowing your limits

Everything is impossible, until it isn’t. ✎ By Wayne K. Spear

Weightlifter
Photo courtesy of Peter Reid, Flickr

What would it be like to live in another era, or another country? What would it be like to live your life as a king, as a slave, or as the opposite sex?

What would it be like?

The many answers to the many forms of this question may be less interesting, and less useful, than the observation that most of us never bother to answer it.

One of the most powerful insights into our human condition is the tendency of our species to live within the limits.

– the limits of our physical endurance and strength
– the limits of our understanding
– the limits of our beliefs
– the limits of our intelligence
– the limits of our will, knowledge, and comfort

There are names for those who test limits.

The weightlifter who can comfortably lift x pounds sets a goal to lift x+10 pounds.

The runner who can complete 3 miles in 25 minutes determines to run 3 miles in 20 minutes.

These people are called athletes.

The person who imagines what it would be like to wake up as a giant cockroach, and who writes a book about it, is called an artist.

The athlete wages a battle against physical and mental limits. The artist confronts the limits of imagination.

There is no name for the people who never test their limits, because they are simply ordinary human beings.

Limits show us where the possibility of growth exists.

The limits of political will define the status quo. Will is the wall that encircles every social order.

The politician says “that’s impossible,” when what he really means is, “I lack the will to do it.”

Don’t accept the world as it is, because it will be that and nothing more.

Questions push up against the limits of what is known. The answers lie beyond. Don’t ask questions, and you will forever live within the limits of your current knowledge.

There are emotional limits, mental limits, physical limits, psychological limits.

Fear, lack of confidence, comfort, doubt, resignation.

Everything has an absolute limit: but since we so often accept the given limits as if they were absolute, we don’t explore the realm of the possible.

What is impossible? Airplanes, medicine, going to the moon. A 2-hour marathon. Time travel. The line between what is and what could be is a line we are re-drawing every day.

Artists, athletes, explorers, innovators, and philosophers do not accept limits. They identify that which is unknowable, undiscovered, unseen, unthinkable. They know, discover, see, and think.

Find a limit and push against it. Accept nothing as it is, and it will soon be something else.

Time to trick your brain

Think outside the watts. ✎ By Wayne K. Spear

Brain

Your brain is lazy. Here is the proof.

Take a piece of paper and a pen. Make two dots. Below the dots, draw a line. Like this:

Smile

Your brain decides immediately that this is a face and files the information accordingly. But two dots and a line could be any number of things, or nothing.

We know it’s not a face, but we can’t not see a face. The brain is a tyrant.

Your brain, the lazy tyrant, takes the easiest route.

Every piece of information that the brain receives is treated in the same way, usually without your awareness. It organizes the world into boxes, whether you like it or not.

In a perfect world, from your brain’s point-of-view, nothing new or strange ever happens. Dots and lines are forever going to be faces. Your brain is not interested in whether or not it’s really a face. It’s interested in putting the information into a box, already.

Everything is assigned by the brain to pre-fabricated categories determined by assumption, prejudice, routine, familiarity, and efficiency.

To do this, your brain needs less than 20 watts of electricity.

According to Moore’s Law, the power of computers will double every two years. A computer as powerful as the brain would consume 10,000,000 watts of energy, about the amount required by a small city.

Your brain is more interested in efficiency than it is in insight or innovation. It has evolved to make quick decisions in potentially life-threatening situations, with minimal expenditure of energy.

The brain thrives on routine.

And so, we are creatures of habit, set in our ways.

The script in our head keeps us from considering new ways of seeing and being. The brain is happy to remain set in its ways. This is efficiency.

To change your life, you first have to overcome the lazy tyrant that is your brain.

Go somewhere you have never been before—a country, a neighborhood, a part of town. Surround yourself with unfamiliar people and languages. Eat new foods, redecorate your office, shake up your routine. Make your brain think new, more healthy thoughts.

Reinvent yourself and reinvigorate your life by making your brain do something it doesn’t like to do—break out of the routine.

Right Brain. Left Brain.

Today the technocrat, tomorrow the artist. ✎ By Wayne K. Spear

The historian looks backward in time to understand the present.

The lawyer argues from precedent.

Technocrats study the world as it is and apply rational, systems thinking to their endeavors.

Interpretation, argumentation, and rational systems thinking.

Artists create something from nothing. They see the world that does not yet exist, the world that may never exist, the world that the powerful do not want to exist.

Creation.

Imagination is an act of will. To create something from nothing is to choose a radical form of human freedom.

Rational thought is also an act of will. To understand the world as it is, and to apply this knowledge to human society, is to choose the freedom of living according to natural law.

The world was created perfect. We shall create the perfect world.

Human nature is fixed and eternal. Human nature is a creation of human beings.

The laws of the natural order must prevail. Human freedom must prevail.

Progress is an illusion. Progress is the human story.

We must look to the past for our answers. The answers will be found in the future.

Conserve. Progress.

Right. Left.

The will to imagine the world in radical new ways versus the will to conserve and manage it as it is: this is human politics.

This is why you hate politics

I’m the King of the Castle; you’re a dirty rascal. ✎ By Wayne K. Spear

politics

A zero-sum-game is a game of winners and losers. For every winner, a loser; for every loser, a winner.

A zero-sum-game is a game of gains against losses, of distribution, of competition, of conflict.

I gain X at your expense. My gain of X is balanced exactly by your loss of X.

By necessity, a zero-sum-game is an attempt to gain advantage over others, employing tactics and power.

In a zero-sum-game, we are not all in this together. We are divided. Our interests are not the same.

The reality is that most people live their day-to-day lives playing a non-zero-game. We seek win-wins. We are not in conflict with our friends, our families, our neighbors.

We prefer harmony over conflict, co-operation over competition. We negotiate and share and look for the greater good.

Life in a healthy human community is not a zero-sum-game, but politics is a zero-sum-game.

You belong to Party X. I belong to Party Y. One of us must defeat the other.

A vote is a unit of marginal utility. We compete for votes.

My 51% of the votes does not give me 51% of the power, or the authority, or the right to govern and to legislate. I get it all. Your 49% of the vote gives you 0% of the power.

In everything other than politics, we seek to make the pie bigger. We want to ensure everyone gets a slice, and that we deal with others as much as possible in a spirit of fairness, respect, and co-operation.

In politics, I must win and you must lose. We cannot share. We are in conflict. We can not cooperate. The values and morals of ordinary human life do not apply, and must not apply.

A zero-sum.

Money, politics, and marketing research

Money and politics. ✎ By Wayne K. Spear

In the 2011 federal general election, 61.1 percent of the 23,971,740 eligible voters of Canada voted.

A majority government was formed by 39.62 percent of this 61.1 percent.

Here is a graph of the historical trajectory of voter engagement.

Voter Turnout

39.62 percent of 61.1 percent is 23.79 percent. Under ¼ of eligible voters in Canada elected a majority government in 2011.

As voter engagement declines, mobilizing voter engagement becomes an increasingly valuable commodity.

1,323,927 votes separated the majority party and the official opposition—or 9% of the actual vote and 5.5% of the eligible vote.

In markets where small margins determine big outcomes, targeted campaigns are required. Targeted marketing campaigns require enormous market research.

Market research is expensive.

When you realize that everything depends upon mobilizing the 5.5% to capture an elusive 9%, the value proposition becomes clear. The rules governing money and campaigning noticeably change.

For example:

Table

What is the value of a vote? This is the $125-million dollar question, and it has an answer.

The value of a vote depends upon the likelihood of someone voting for you.

Those who will never vote for you, no matter what, have low value—because they cannot be bought.

Those who will always vote for you, no matter what, have low value—because they don’t need to be bought. Money spent on either of these categories is wasted.

The most valuable voters are undecided. They are disengaged, low information voters. They are swing voters. They are waiting to be persuaded. They can be bought. In all likelihood, they must be.

They are the elusive 9% who determine everything. They are all that matter.

Money, marketing, and modern politics.

An interview with Justice Murray Sinclair

Wayne K. Spear in conversation with Justice Murray Sinclair | August 1, 2015
Murray Sinclair
Photo by Fred Cattroll

The reality is that until we have fundamental change about the way we see things and think about things, there’s not going to be effective change

WKS: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada released an Executive Summary this June, and in December you’ll be releasing the full TRC report. What can we expect from that?

JMS: Many people are still looking for the basis for why we said what we said. The full report will reveal all of that. We have to produce that report in French and English, so that takes time.

WKS: At the final TRC event in Ottawa, the media seized on the phrase “cultural genocide.” Do you think this was a good place to start the conversation about the meaning of residential schools and reconciliation? Or would you have preferred the focus to have been elsewhere?

JMS: I was quite fine with it. We knew when we were writing the report that it was going to be the big question. It’s not only important to Survivors, but I think Canada and the political leadership of the country needed to know what we were going to say about it. It’s an important part of the foundation for the conversation going forward. It puts all of this experience into a proper perspective. This was not simply nice people who made a mistake. This was a truly unacceptable intention to wipe out Aboriginal people through the elimination of their cultures.

WKS: During the TRC you had occasion to comment on murdered and missing indigenous women in Canada. Your comments made me think of the death of Helen Betty Osborne and your work with the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba. It seems that little has changed. Looking back over you long career, do you feel there’s been much positive progress?

JMS: I’ve always maintained that the kind of change we need—the change I’ve been talking about since the AJI [Aboriginal Justice Inquiry] days, which is really systemic change—is going to take a long time to achieve. It’s going to take several generations before we can realistically say that we are on our way to a decent end. Changing systems requires changing the way people believe about the law, they way they believe about their political systems, the way they believe about their institutions, and the way they believe about how they’ve been educated themselves. Those challenges are hard for people to come to terms with.

I think we expect that there will be some conscious, and unconscious push-back even, on the part of the people who are going to wonder if there’s not a different way of doing it. The reality is that until we have fundamental change about the way we see things and think about things, there’s not going to be effective change.

WKS: How do we even have a conversation about systemic change when we are on the margins—of the media, of the institutions which will necessarily provide a space for conversations to happen? Aboriginal people have to be invited into these spaces, at someone’s good grace. It sounds to me like we may need to envision and create new institutions, new spaces to host the discussion about the change we need.

JMS: If we start thinking about things that way, we will immediately reject any solutions, because the idea of building from scratch is too overwhelming for most people. But what we’ve said in our report is that you can take what we now have, and you can build on that. This came out of the past. This will soon be our past. We need to figure out how do we take what we now have and change it enough that we can be assured that, in the future, we will have a better relationship, starting with a vision of what the future is going to look like. We have to ask ourselves “Is what we are doing each step of the way going to get us to that vision?” It’s feasible. Highly possible.

WKS: Thank-you, Justice Sinclair.

JMS: Thank-you.

External links: TRC | Murray Sinclair Biography | Settlement Agreement