Appropriate

When you are taking decisions that will impact (negatively) others, it’s not a bad thing to ask yourself: Do I really have to?

Often things make a lot of sense on paper: cutting costs, increasing profits, getting some surplus to invest in expansion. But is it appropriate in the here and now? Can it be avoided? Can the policy be changed?

Of course, decisions like these are rarely taken lightly. Just make sure you are considering all perspectives, not just the one that is more common, easier, more anticipated.

Footsteps

We know, from our own experience as employees, that people perform better when they are engaged. And that engagement means different things to different people.

Yet, despite us knowing that, we keep running companies in a standardized way that kills engagement.

We ask people to do shallow work. We keep them busy with emails, internal chats, and meetings. We manage from the top down. We regard productivity and (physical) presence as the same. We do performance reviews with a checklist. We assign titles and roles, so that we can look at nice pretty boxes and feel in control. And every now and then we throw a party to cheer everybody up (better if under the influence of alcohol).

The thing that I find most perplexing, though, is how much small and medium companies (the vast majority of companies out there) adhere to the same trite script.

They are the ones that are actually better positioned to change these practices. They are the ones who could make of their differences a decisive factor when seeking and retaining talent. They are the ones who could truly have a personal approach to engagement, and be flexible enough to make it feel as if each single employee would belong.

Just because your target is to grow, it does not mean you have to follow in some other company’s footsteps.

Doing that is actually killing your chances of growth.

Real problem

The problem is not that people will stop relying on you because you rarely deliver on your promises.

The problem is not that your productivity is going to decrease because you are juggling too many things.

The problem is not that your dear ones will no longer seek out your company and your help because you are never truly there.

When you do not put boundaries, when you equate busyness with status, when you take the shortcut of being on top of it all, the real problem is that you have lost sight of what is important to you.

And if you have lost that, how are you going to achieve it?

Shared

You do not have to manage change to make it happen.

You can still make a decision and expect everyone to act accordingly.

You can drift through the days and wait for something to come your way.

You can stand on the side and take credit for whatever success will come.

You do not have to manage change, but when you manage change you make it a shared experience. A shared decision, a shared opportunity, a shared outcome. It is only by managing change that you can make a long-term impact.

Humane

If presented with the possibility, would you share the highest reward with your fiercest competitor? Would you be fine with going down in history together with them? Or would you just try a bit harder, a bit further, to be the only winner?

Too often we see competition as a zero-sum game, a clear winner and loser is a must. But what occurred in the high jump points to something far greater. As we outlined in Peak Performance*, if we can put our ego aside, we actually free ourselves up to perform to our best ability. Our ego often pushes us to perform out of a place of fear, of needing to show the world that I’m good enough. When we can let go of that noise, and realize that competition is about getting the most out of ourselves, we can fulfill our potential.

Brad Stulberg, Competing with instead of always against

* My notes on Peak Performance.