The people in your company who know How are, no doubt, very important.  In fact, the company can’t operate without them. They’re the people who come in every day and get things done.  Many of them are incredibly good at their jobs. They might even be some of the best at what they do, but that doesn’t mean they’re capable of moving beyond their current jobs without something more.

Then there are the people who know Why. You know who I’m talking about. The ones who just plain ol’ get it. Sure, they understand their own jobs, but they just seem to understand how all the pieces fit together. They understand why the company does what it does at a macro level. They understand what is really important to the company’s success. They’re the ones who can see the forest for the trees.

And here’s the rub, sometimes the people who know How are better at their jobs than someone who knows Why — but the ones who know Why are more valuable to the organization. It drives the people who know How crazy!

Often, when someone who knows How becomes highly proficient at a task, he begins to believe he should be promoted or be put in the position to call the shots.  The thinking goes, “I know more about what I’m doing than my boss does. Why should I have to report to her any longer?”

What they’re missing is the Why factor. They don’t know why certain things are important. They don’t understand why the company must do certain things if it is to be successful. Sure, they can perform specific tasks extremely well, but they don’t see the big picture.

Think about it. Does the best accountant in the firm always rise to the level of partner? Does the best litigator get chosen to be the managing partner of the law firm? Does the smartest engineer become CEO? In more cases that not, they don’t.

You see, it takes more than outstanding knowledge or skills related to a specific job. That accountant needs to master debits and credits to become part of the company’s leadership. That litigator needs more than courtroom skills to lead the law firm. And it takes more than brilliant engineering skills to head up a company.

Now, here’s the million dollar question: Can you teach someone to “know Why”?

My squishy answer is, “It depends.” First, it depends on whether they want to understand. Some do, some don’t. My older sister is brilliant — much smarter than I am. She’s spent her entire accounting career with the same firm and is quite content in her job. And she knows How. Boy, does she know How. But she doesn’t know Why and doesn’t care to. Her bosses love her because she does a great job, but she doesn’t aspire to more. And that’s OK. It works for her.

And, even some who want to know Why never will. Some people just aren’t capable of understanding Why. Often it’s those who lack the leadership skills to look beyond themselves who get stuck on How and can’t get to Why. And others just aren’t capable of putting all the pieces together. They understand their own piece extremely well, but they can’t see the importance of the other pieces.

But just because not everyone wants to know Why or is capable of understanding Why, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to teach them. You see, the more people in your organization who understand Why, the better it will be. You want people to look beyond their own jobs and see How the various pieces fit together. And the ones who really get it will turn into your rising stars.

I say it’s worth the time and effort to try to teach everyone in your organization Why. Don’t assume they won’t get it. Don’t discount those people who it doesn’t come to naturally. Work at it and I think you’ll be surprised at the results.

Here’s his point. Our performance evaluation system includes ratings of outstanding, exceeds expectations, meets expectations, needs improvement, and unsatisfactory. As a company, we expect the distribution of the appraisals to be somewhat of a bell curve that is SLIGHTLY skewed to the top end. That is, we expect the majority of our employees meet our expectations and we have a few more who exceed the middle rating than fall below it. The problem is that the employees see a “meets expectations” rating as a “C” or just average. If “outstanding” is an “A,” and “exceeds expectations” is a “B,” then a “meets expectations” must be a “C.” Of course, the next two ratings would be “D” and “F.” See how it all works?

But, that’s not the way this was designed. We did not intend for a “meets expectations” rating to equate to a “C.” We did not intend for any of the ratings to equate to letter grades — but then maybe we shouldn’t have the same number of categories as there are letter grades in the typical grading scale.

And, if you consider how kids are graded in school, you can see why people might be upset. That is, people don’t aspire to be “C” students.  In schools today, there are far more “A” and “B” students than there are “C” and below. A “C” student is supposed to be average, but it seems everyone is above average in today’s schools. With honors and AP classes, it’s not uncommon for kids to have a grade point above 4.0 on a 4 point system! Let me say that again, they have a grade point above 4.0 on a 4 point system. Everything in our educational grading system causes us to expect to be above average. But how can everyone be above average?

The definition of average is “a quantity, rating, or the like that represents or approximates an arithmetic mean.” Add up all the ratings and divide them by the number of people being rated and you have your mean. That’s pretty simple and being average here puts you toward the middle of the pack. Here’s the rub, average has another definition when used as an adjective. It’s definition is, “typical; common; ordinary.” Now, who wants to be common? Who wants to be ordinary? Everything in our society makes us want to be extraordinary.

Here’s my take on the ratings. As a company, we have high expectations for our people. Meeting our expectations means you’re doing well in your job. We expect you to be successful. We expect you to perform well. But not everyone can be above average. Not everyone can exceed our expectations. If they do, then our expectations must be too low!

Do I want everyone to be performing at a high level? You bet. But if everyone in our organization was doing exceedingly well by industry standards, we would have the same problem. When rated against their peers, some would be performing better than others. (Not everyone is equal despite what they tell kids in youth sports in which everyone gets a trophy, but I digress.) So even in a company in which people are performing at a very high level there will be differences in performance. And when these people are rated against their peers, even really strong performers will be average — that is, they will fall into the statistical mid-range of our rankings.

So why not rank them against an industry standard? I think there are a number of problems with that. First, there is no commonality in rating systems. And even if there was, it would be difficult to get good data. Second, everyone always has a bias toward their own people. If you didn’t think they were good, you wouldn’t have hired them. And finally, if you want your company to be better than the rest, you don’t want to settle for your people being better than some fictitious industry average.

Now let me talk about the top of the range. Our top rating is “outstanding.” The definition of which is “prominent; conspicuous; striking; marked by superiority or distinction; excellent; distinguished.” To be rated outstanding, you must do something that distinguishes you as superior to others. You must do something striking or conspicuous in your performance. If everyone were “outstanding” then those with that rating wouldn’t be conspicuous or distinct from others.

One colleague compared it to the All-Star game in Major League Baseball. There are roughly 1,500 players in the Major Leagues each year, yet only 68 are exceptional enough to be voted an All-Star. This is, they must be having an outstanding season to be an all-star. Approximately 5 percent of the best players in the world are good enough, in a given year, to be rated outstanding.

Isn’t that what we want our people to aspire to? Don’t we want our people to be the best of the best? Sure, we could rank everyone as “exceeding expectations,” but then I would tell you our expectations are too low. Sure, we could say the majority of our people are “outstanding,” but then it would lessen the honor associated with receiving our highest ranking.

I realize everyone wants to be special. I know it’s not easy to tell people their performance is not outstanding. But if everyone were outstanding then it wouldn’t be an exception, it would be the rule. Maybe our educational system has created an expectation that everyone is above average, but that’s no reason to perpetuate the myth. In what I hope is a company of strong performers, being ranked with the majority of your peers means that you’re doing pretty well. Meeting the performance expectations of a company with high standards means you’re pretty damn good. To change the rating system so that everyone could be outstanding would diminish the accomplishments of those who really performed at the highest level.

Maybe it would help morale to tell everyone they’re exceeding our expectations. Maybe people only want to hear that they’re outstanding. But to improve performance and get the most out of people you must also tell them where they can improve. For people to strive for more, they must understand there are ways they can be better. Telling everyone they’re doing better than what we expect from them only sends a message that they do not need to do anything more. In fact, they could do less and still do what we expect of them. Is that what we want? I don’t think so.

The book was a New York Times bestseller, so plenty of people have read it. I’d say it has some good lessons for everyone. But, what amazed me were some of the stories the author, Robert I. Sutton, told about assholes in the workplace.

There’s the story of Scott Rudin who the Wall Street Journal estimated went through 250 personal assistants in a five-year period. Rudin claimed only 119 during the period, but admitted that his estimate excluded assistants who lasted less than two weeks!

Sutton also relays a story taken from Brutal Bosses and Their Prey in which a boss stood in a subordinate’s doorway so that everyone in the central work area could see and hear him. He held his employee’s work in his hand and told him it was inadequate. As the boss did so, he crumpled the papers one by one dropping them on the floor. He then said loudly, “Garbage in, garbage out. You give me garbage; now you clean it up.” The employee did so, embarrassed as his coworkers watched him, a 36-year-old man, stoop before his boss to pick up the crumpled pieces of paper.

It amazes me these people really exist! A guy who, by his own admission, averages a new assistant every two weeks for five years? Really? A boss who balls up the work of his employee, tosses in on the floor, and then requires the employee to bend down at his feet to pick it up – -all while his coworkers look on?! Who are these people?

It reminds me of the line from the movie Hook in which Dustin Hoffman plays the infamous Captain Hook and Robin Williams stars as Peter “Pan” Banning. Peter’s daughter says to him about Captain Hook, “He’s just a mean old man without a mommy.” Don’t these people have mothers?

That brings me to what Sutton calls the “fundamental lesson that runs through this book.” It’s “the difference between how a person treats the powerless versus the powerful is as good a measure of human character as I know.” That works for me.

Many people are good at “kissing up” but very capable of “kicking down.” But the true leaders treat everyone the same — with respect. Here are some lessons on respect and creating a better workplace I took from the book:

1. To become a better organization, reduce the differences between the highest- and lowest-status members of your enterprise. Get rid of the executive restrooms, preferred parking places, and other status symbols that divide people into classes.
2. “Fight as if you are right; listen as if you are wrong.” It’s OK to defend your ideas, but you also need to listen to the other side. You might just find out there’s a better solution. But you’ll never know about it unless you listen.
3. At Intel, they have a motto: “Disagree and then commit.” Again, debate the ideas but once the decision has been made to move forward in a certain way, people need to get behind it. Second-guessing, complaining, and arguing dooms a decision to failure because there isn’t sufficient energy and commitment behind it.
4. Nearly all human beings have “distorted, and often inflated, beliefs about how they treat, affect, and are seen by others.” Really try to find out how others see you and contrast that with your own beliefs. Some of it might be hard to hear, but you can learn from it.

Sutton offers a self-test to help you determine whether you’re a certified asshole. It’s worth taking, but I think most of us will have a hard time self-diagnosing because of what I said above. We have distorted, often inflated, beliefs about how we affect others. We just don’t want to admit that we just might be an asshole.

I must admit, after 25 years in business, I’ve seen very few certifiable assholes. There have been people I don’t care for very much, but few that meet Sutton’s definition of offenders who consistently make people who are less powerful feel worse about themselves. And I’ve never worked with anyone who can compare to some of those represented in the book. Sure, everyone is capable of acting out from time to time, but I just haven’t seen much blatant disregard for other human beings as is portrayed in Sutton’s book. I’m thankful for that!

You see, our survey contained 27 statements about our work environment. The employees were asked whether they agreed with each statement and how strongly they agree or disagree with it. The statements covered individual, departmental, and company-wide items such as performance feedback, recognition, communication, personal development, and fairness.

The results from one of the 27 statements stood out like a sore thumb to me. To the statement, “There is adequate communication between departments regarding changes or decisions that affect employees,” only 41.6% of our employees agreed — 41.6%! That’s terrible.

In case you’re wondering, 44.1% disagreed with the statement and 14.3% were neutral. That means more people think that communication between departments is inadequate than adequate. Disappointing to say the least.

But facts are facts: Nearly 6 out of 10 employees surveyed said we’re not communicating effectively between departments. Something has to change.

I’ve always been a big believer in open and informal communication. I tell everyone in our organization that the only thing I won’t disclose is someone’s compensation. Everything else is fair game. Ask away!

I also think informal communication beats formal. That is, I prefer open dialogue over structured, top-down communication. I figure let’s get everyone talking. Who knows better what’s going on in the company than those who are doing it?

But, obviously, that’s not working. People feel uninformed. Maybe it’s a case of, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.”  What would that make this? You can encourage people to communicate, but you can’t make them talk?

Regardless, we have a problem and we need to get it fixed. My guess is that this is less a sin of commission and more one of omission. People aren’t intentionally setting out to keep information from their coworkers, they just don’t think about it. They’re so focused on their own job and what needs to get done, that they don’t think about others in the organization who need to know about it.

And, it’s one thing to consider others in your own department (nearly two-thirds of our people agree that their department communicates effectively), because you work with them daily. But those people in other departments whom you see less frequently and you have a lesser understanding of what they need to know, well, they just don’t cross your mind.

Now, am I being an optimist to believe that the lack of communication is not because of intentional stonewalling and information hoarding? Maybe, but I think it’s true.

Here’s my fear. When I ask about the lack of communication between departments (and I will ask!), I’m going to hear this common refrain, “Our department communicates with other departments, but we’re the only ones.” In other words, “It’s not us, it’s them.”

You see, no one thinks they are the cause for a lack of communication. So, like most things, it needs to start at the top. I need to make sure that I’m communicating effectively what’s going on in the company. If I see something someone in another department might need to know, it’s up to me to speak up. The same goes for our executives. It’s their departments that aren’t communicating with one another. They need to work to remedy this situation. And so forth down the line.

So how do I plan to fix this problem in our company? By communicating! Here are the steps I think we need to take to fix it:

1. Get everyone to admit we have a problem. Of course, with the data I have from our employee survey, it shouldn’t be too hard. Only 41.6% of our employees feel we have adequate communication between departments. What more do I need to say? Well, to foster good communication I’ll think of something — many things to say. We need to pay attention to this.
2. Convince everyone that all of us are contributing to this problem. This isn’t a “them” problem, it’s a “we” problem. No finger pointing, no blame game. Everyone gets to accept responsibility starting with me.
3. Develop more formal lines of communication. I said earlier that I’m a big fan of informal communication, but that’s not working right now. I need to rethink how we communicate to get people the information they need to do their jobs.
4. Measure the effectiveness of what we develop. First of all, what gets measured gets done. But, just as important, we won’t get it right the first time. To know how we’re doing, we need to measure it.
5. Tweak and repeat. With the new information in hand, we’ll need to tweak what we’ve done and then measure again. And we’ll need to keep doing this until we raise our scores to a level that meets our expectations. A perfect 10 would be nice, but probably unattainable. Whatever it is, it ought to be pretty high! I want everyone to feel like they’re informed.

It doesn’t seem all too hard, does it? Well, it will be, but we’re going to do it anyway. We can’t be successful if people in our organization don’t feel like they’re informed. It just won’t work. So I’m making it my personal mission to raise our score — and with it I hope the entire organization will improve with it.

Wish me luck!

I worked in a company where there were three of us who fit these descriptions. We had a CEO who was a creative force who brought ideas, market sense, and a passion that helped to set the tone for the company. (Yes, Mark, I’m talking about you since I know you read this from time to time.) As president, I was responsible for the day-to-day operations, people management, and business relationships. My job was to identify the ideas that had the highest potential for success and get them to fruition. Finally, our CFO was a disciplined, “by the book” guy who constantly brought standard procedures and processes to what we were doing. Our CEO dubbed him “Dr. No” for his tendency to tell us why we couldn’t do things.

But this mix of skill sets worked for us. Having a creative mind coming up with new ideas, challenging the status quo, and pushing the envelope, all with a feel for the market, drove the business’ growth. Having someone to evaluate the ideas, set priorities, and manage the business helped us to harness all that creative energy. And, someone who was disciplined enough to bring order to the chaos and ensure that everything wasn’t an exception helped to make the business profitable.

Is it possible to find all three skill sets in a single person? I believe so. Think of Steve Jobs.

Initially, Jobs was the creative force behind Apple. He had the vision for what his customers wanted and where the company should go.Yet as talented as he was, as a young entrepreneur he brought in experienced managers to run the company. This allowed him to focus on the creative aspects and it provided the company with disciplined management.  In Jobs’ case, he brought in some “grown ups” that gave the company credibility and were experienced financial managers. The combination of creativity and business acumen worked for Apple for a decade or so.

But when the board and management ultimately forced Jobs out of the company he had founded, it lost its edge. No longer did it have that intuitive market sense and creativity that Jobs provided. You had a bunch of suits running around making decisions that weren’t in tune with the wants and needs of the customers.

Re-enter Jobs. After a decade absence, Jobs rejoined the company as CEO. Now a more experienced executive after having run Pixar, Jobs actually filled the role of both creative force and businessperson. He was making both the creative and business aspects of Apple. And to say it worked pretty well would be an understatement. During the next 15 years, Apple gave us the iPod, iPhone, and iPad. Not a bad track record — to say the least.

Oh, and by the way, Job admittedly also played the role of asshole. He was extremely demanding and hard on people. He saw things in black and white. He either hated them or loved them. And while he was hard to work for and partner with, somehow he made it all work.

Jobs was that unusual individual who possessed all three skill sets — and only after he had a couple decades of experience under his belt.

So which are you? To be successful, I think it’s important for you to realize where your strengths lie. That will allow you to both work on the areas where you may be weaker, but more importantly surround yourself with people who bring those complimentary skills to the table. Your organization will be more successful if you can identify your core strength and then fill the gaps that you have as a leader with others who compliment your abilities.

And here’s the key, you need to learn to appreciate those other skill sets. It’s always easy to believe that the strengths we possess are the most important. I would maintain that they are all equally important. Creativity that is unharnessed and undisciplined often leads to business failure. And sound business principles without new ideas and creative drive that is in tune with the customer can lead to the same outcome.

It’s the mix of these three skill sets in some type of harmony that can make beautiful music. Think of a symphony where strings, brass, and percussion all have a role to play. One without the others just doesn’t have the same impact. The same is true here. Now go make beautiful music!

Shortly after Jobs’ death I wrote the following: “Steve Jobs has been called the greatest American innovator since Thomas Edison. Like Edison, his contributions have changed the lives of people worldwide and will continue to do so for generations to come. Now that’s a legacy!”

Innovator, creative genius, visionary, entrepreneur — whatever the label, it’s clear that Steve Jobs was a change agent in our world. So what set him apart? What made Jobs so different from others? I think the following story illustrates what made Steve Jobs so special.

In 1997, Jobs returned to Apple, the company he had founded, after being gone for a decade. The company was really struggling and the prospects of bankruptcy were real. Apple’s sales had fallen by more than 30 percent during the previous two years.

When Jobs returned as interim CEO, he knew he had to shake things up. From day one, Apple had appealed to a niche set of customers that Jobs believed he could clearly define. They were, in Jobs’ own words, “the creative spirits in this world, and they’re out to change the world.” Apple had lost touch with its core customers and Jobs set out to win them back. He did this by launching an ad campaign many of you might be familiar with. It was called, “Think Different.”

Jobs loved the campaign because it was simple but communicated exactly what he believed Apple and his customers shared in common. Apple executives, led by Jobs and the company’s advertising agency, went about looking for the right song to accompany the ad but couldn’t find anything that satisfied them. So instead they decided to write the words to accompany the ad and came up with this:

Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do.

It captured exactly who Apple thought its audience is, who they thought they were, and, I suspect, who Jobs thought he was. It’s a powerful message and it personalized the “Think Different” theme that the company wanted to communicate.

So my question to you as a manager is this, “Who are your crazy ones?” Look for those who think differently. Find those misfits, rebels, and troublemakers and figure out how you can best use the talents they have. So often, as managers, we want everyone to conform. We want our people to fall into line and not make waves. But often the good ones challenge the status quo and in doing so ruffle a few feathers. Your job is to figure out who they are and then provide an opportunity for them to flourish.

They might be hard to manage at times — maybe all of the time. They may be disrespectful or unorthodox, but they can and will perform. It’s your job to figure out how to best use their unique talents to the benefit of the organization. Don’t dismiss them for being different, embrace it!

Here’s to the crazy ones!

But what about at work? How good are you at your job? It’s not something that we often ask our peers. Our spouse or significant other won’t likely be able to offer much insight. There is no competition to enter to compare yourself to others.

The answer to the question, “How good am I at my job?” is one that should come from your manager. And while this is a question that shouldn’t be answered just once each year, the performance appraisal is a great time for you to get in-depth feedback on your job performance from the person who should know best how you’re doing at work.

I’d like to encourage you to approach your next evaluation with an open and inquisitive mind. I say open because we all know what we want to hear. We want our boss to tell us we’re knocking it out of the park. We want to hear how invaluable we are. We want to hear how good we are.

But hearing how good we are doesn’t make us better. In fact, one could argue that it might cause us to become complacent — to rest on our laurels. That’s where the open mind comes in. I want you to be open to constructive criticism. I want you to be open to hearing about your weaknesses. I want you to be open to hearing about how you can get better.

And I ask that you also be inquisitive in your review. Don’t accept general statements, whether they are positive or negative. Ask for specifics. To improve, you must know what you could do better. If you’re being praised for something you’ve done well, ask how you could have done it even better.  If you’re being told that you need to work on a specific area, ask what you’ve done that has demonstrated this weakness and what you can do to make improvements. Be inquisitive.

This is the one time each year you sit down with the specific purpose of talking about your job performance. You have a captive audience with your supervisor. Take advantage of it. Don’t just be a spectator in your evaluation. Come to the meeting prepared with questions. Be ready to have a conversation about your performance. Take this opportunity to really learn and get better.

As I said, we all know what we want to hear in our evaluation. But if you just accept being told that you’re wonderful, fantastic, and great, you’re missing out. I’ve seen plenty of reviews written that are loaded with praise but lacking any real feedback on what can make the person a more valuable contributor. If you’re the recipient of that type of evaluation, I encourage you strongly to demand more from your boss. Challenge your manager to give you feedback that can really make you better. Because if you already perform your work perfectly, what do you have to look forward to?

So in this year’s evaluation, don’t only ask “How good am I?” but also “How can I get better?”

So if you’re like me, you printed out a copy of the tournament brackets and assessed the teams involved in this year’s competition. With 68 teams in the tournament, there’s plenty to think about. You must consider a team’s ability to score, play defense, and rebound. It’s prudent to think about their strength of schedule, experience, the coach’s ability, and how they finished the regular season. You might want to do some research to find out what the “experts” are saying about the various teams. But with 68 of them to consider, it’s unlikely you have a lot of first-hand knowledge about most of the teams in the tournament.

But that doesn’t stop you from wading into the bracket and confidently picking the winners of each game. By my unofficial count, 67 games will be played in the tournament before a champion is crowned. That leaves you with 67 decisions to make in order to pick the winner. No simple task. In fact, I read that the odds of picking every game correctly are 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 to 1. That’s nine quintillion to one! Good luck!

But just because there’s almost no chance you’ll be perfect, doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t try. It can be fun to test your knowledge and your luck. It makes for interesting watercooler banter and, who knows, maybe you’ll win a few bucks.

Business is like the process of filling out your tournament bracket. There are many decisions you must make to be successful. You must carefully assess the choices. You should do your homework and consider carefully all your options before you make your selections. Then, with the information you have, you make your picks. If you’re good at what you do, more of your choices will work than fail, but you’ll never be perfect. In fact, your chances of being perfect at work are far less than the odds of picking the perfect bracket. But with some hard work, sound judgment and a little luck — don’t ever underestimate luck — you’ll do pretty well.

But to have a chance to win, you have to get in the game. I’ve never seen anyone win the office pool without first filling out a bracket. The same is true in business, you need to get in the game. You need to be willing to take some risks. You need to make some choices. You need to place your bets.

I heard William Shatner interviewed the other day and he was asked about a speech he gave as Captain James T. Kirk in one of the first episodes of Star Trek.  Now I must admit, I’m no Trekkie. In fact, Star Trek debuted the same year I was born. But the speech being discussed was one in which Captain Kirk was trying to convince his team of the opportunity before them as they explored another galaxy. In this speech, Kirk talks about how risk is necessary for human advancement and says to his crew “risk is our business.”

Risk is your business. It’s everyone’s business. If you work in any business, for-profit or non-profit, you take risks every day. And unless you own the place, whether it’s investors or donors, you’re placing bets with someone else’s money. And your job, ultimately, is to help make the most of the money that has been entrusted to the organization. Your job is to get a return on that investment.

You don’t get a return on investment by hiding the money under a mattress. To get a return, you must place your bets. You must get in the game. And the better you are at making bets, the better the chances of a positive outcome. You’re never going to be perfect, but that doesn’t mean you can’t win.

Do you know what the number one selling chair is in America? It’s La-Z-Boy. But it’s not just the chairs we choose to sit in. Comfort has become a critical part of our everyday life. Think about the clothes we wear. We’re looking for comfort and, therefore, sweatpants have found a place in almost every person’s wardrobe. With their elastic waistbands they are the perfect thing to wear when you’re laying back in your La-Z-Boy. And we even have words that describe our sweatpants-wearing, La-Z-Boy-lounging selves — couch potatoes. Try to tell me that comfort isn’t important to us?

So what’s wrong with comfort? Like I said, no one likes to be uncomfortable. Here’s my fear: With comfort comes complacency. “Comfort zones are plush lined coffins. When you stay in your plush lined coffins, you die.” How true is that quote from Stan Dale?

You need to move out of your comfort zone if you want to move forward. Maybe you’ve seen the CBS show Undercover Boss. Here’s how the network describes the premise of the show:

“Each week, Undercover Boss follows a different executive as they leave the COMFORT of their corner office for an undercover mission to examine the inner workings of their companies. While working alongside their employees, they see the effects that their decisions have on others, where the problems lie within their organizations and get an up-close look at both the good and the bad while discovering the unsung heroes who make their companies run.”

OK, I added the emphasis to the word “comfort,” but I didn’t add the word. The show is based on taking CEOs out of their comfort zones where their eyes are opened to what’s really going on in their companies. Why shouldn’t we all give that a try? What do we have to lose?

Get out from behind your desk and take a walk. Talk to someone in the office you’ve never spoken to before. Spend a day working on the manufacturing line. Go visit a key vendor at THEIR place of work or go to where your customers are and just observe. It’s less important what you choose, just get out there and get engaged.

Move out of your comfort zone!

So what if it makes you sweat a little bit? Maybe it makes you uncomfortable to slip on a pair of work boots and work-side-by side with someone on the line. That’s the whole point. It’s OK to be uncomfortable. In fact, it’s a good thing to be uncomfortable.

Billy Graham once said, “Comfort and prosperity have never enriched the world as much as adversity has.” I’m not sure that talking to employees, vendors, or customers can be considered “adversity,” but I’m convinced that taking the time to do so will benefit you and your organization. Try it today.

Jeremy Lin

There are a number of current situations playing themselves out that deserve some analysis and reflection by any manager. Let’s start with the Jeremy Lin phenomenon in New York. Lin was a fringe player in the NBA who had already been cut by a number of teams, before catching on with the New York Knicks. The Knicks signed Lin because of injuries to a number of its star players and, lo and behold, Lin takes the league and the country by storm. In his first four games, he scored more points than any player in league history. What’s more, his team which had been bumping along with a sub-.500 winning percentage started to string some wins together.

So why would this be interesting to a manager? Well, put yourself in the place of the Knicks’ coach or front office. You’ve signed this player to a minimum salary to fill in while your stars are injured. Much to your surprise, the player performs way above anyone’s expectations. You want to hold on to this new contributor and maximize what he can do for the team. At the same time, your proven stars are returning to work and expect their places in the line-up.
What’s the best result for the organization? How do you retain all you’ve gained from the new addition who has made significant contributions in such a short time? How do you begin to build team chemistry as the veteran players return to work? There are egos involved. There are team dynamics to consider. It’s up to the coach (read “manager”) to determine how to best use all the talent that has been assembled to advance the goals of the organization — in this case, winning a championship.

It’s fascinating stuff and I wish I could tell you I have all the answers to the questions I’m posing. I don’t. In part, that’s because I’m not smart enough to figure it out. But it’s also because every situation is different. The cast of characters is different, the organization is different, and the goals are different. The manager must be able to assess all the factors involved in each unique situation and determine the best course of action for the organization.

Peyton Manning

Here’s another situation that just played itself out that intrigues me in a similar way. The Indianapolis Colts had the option to get out of its contract with star quarterback Peyton Manning, who was drafted by the team in 1998 and has played his entire career with them. If the Colts chose to opt out of the contract with Manning, they must pay him $1 million. If they don’t, they owe him a $28 million bonus and they get to keep Manning.

It seems simple, doesn’t it? Evaluate whether or not the employee, I mean player, is worth the amount you must pay him. Is the organization better off paying him $1 million to leave or $28 million to stay?

Well, let me complicate things further. During his time in Indianapolis, Manning has been, arguably, the best quarterback in the league and one of the best of all time. He also led the team to the city’s first Super Bowl victory and is beloved by fans.

So while his performance may seem to warrant the contract extension, given what professional athletes make today, there are other factors for the organization to consider. Manning didn’t play a single game last season due to a neck injury and, at 36 years old, there’s some question about whether he will be able to play at the same level he has in the past. And without Manning, the Colts lost so many games last season they earned the top pick in the 2012 draft in which one of the top prospects happens to be a quarterback many predict will have a great professional career.

So what do you do if you’re the Indianapolis Colts? Do you show loyalty to a long-time star who has done so much for the organization? Do you gamble and extend Manning’s career with your team, despite not knowing how he will recover from injury? Do you let the face of your organization walk away and pin your hopes on a promising, yet unknown, prospect?

Again, I don’t have the answers and I’m not sure that there is a right or wrong answer. It was up to the Colts’ management and ownership to decide what is the best use of the organization’s resources, in this case salary dollars, to achieve its ultimate goal of winning another Super Bowl.  They chose, just last week, to let Manning go.

That’s not an uncommon decision for a manager to have to make. You’ve been faced with decisions on who you want to hire for specific positions. You have had to allocate salary dollars you’ve had available in an attempt to maximize the return for the organization. And, if you’re honest, you’ll admit it’s a crap shoot. Sure, you can increase your odds by doing your homework and having a thorough evaluation process, but in the end a lot of these decisions are made on instinct because people are not as predictable as we might like to think.

So next time you’re watching your favorite sport on television, think about the human dynamics that are at work in every situation. Then consider how it relates to your position as a manager in your organization. You might just learn a thing or two while sitting on the couch enjoying the game.