“The purchase order is on the computer, why do we still need to distribute four hard copies?”

“You have to get these two approvals before I can look at your request.”

Some policies and procedures served a specific and necessary purpose when they were first implemented, but they make absolutely no sense now.

The boss is hesitant to make any changes, because since those policies or procedures were put into place for a reason there will be some unforeseen disaster if they are no longer present.

Maybe an efficient streamlining initiative would result in less control for a key decision-maker which they don’t want to give up.

In this week’s show, Claudia and I look at the cost of playing favorites with certain policies and procedures.

Could you be holding on to methods and practices that no longer serve their intended purpose?

What might enforcing the status quo be costing you?

Listen in.

Just now joining the conversation? Catch up on the entire series here.

Every technology has its loyal fans. I’ve never worked on any computer but a Mac.

I believe my bias is based in fact. I want my employees doing their jobs not learning how to use their tools.

But what if I were spending a premium on computers because they were cool?

Some of us feel locked into our technology choices because of the magnitude of the initial investment. We let better solutions and technologies that come along pass us by because we can’t deal with the awkward reality that the world changed before we got our money’s worth.

In this week’s show, Claudia and I explore how we play favorites when it comes to the technologies we choose.

When does our loyalty to a brand exceed its merits in comparison to another?

Are we making the best leadership decisions on these huge investments if we’re playing favorites without even knowing it?

Listen in.

Just now joining the conversation? Catch up on the entire series here.

You think a certain employee performs amazingly. Everyone else seems to hate them. What gives?

You may be guilty of playing favorites, and that without even knowing it!

In this week’s show, Claudia and I take a look at what happens when we play favorites among our team members.

While rewarding excellence, performance and results is important, some times we favor certain people for their charisma, because we like them, or because we work well together.

Of course there’s no crime in enjoying working with one person more than another, but what about the unintended consequences to the morale of everyone else?

Once people form the perception that you are playing favorites, they will begin interpreting your every decision through that lens. And who can blame them?

It is difficult enough to hear criticism of one’s work when it’s completely warranted, but when we feel that someone else isn’t being held to the same standard, our willingness to improve can evaporate pretty quickly.

Could you inadvertently be playing favorites?

Listen in.

Just now joining the conversation? Catch up on the entire series here.

“Play favorites? Who, me?! Not a chance!”

Famous last words. How many leaders do you know who admit to playing favorites?

It’s like a secret shame. Except the only person the secret is fooling is the leader playing favorites, who remains blindly adamant that there is no favoritism in anything they do.

We launch a new podcast discussion series this week, “Playing Favorites.”

Leaders assume they make the best objective decisions possible. But certain patterns and tendencies give away that they might have slipped into playing favorites.

Playing favorites can erode trust, credibility and motivation.

Can you tell the difference?

Playing Favorites
Week #1: The Office “Romances” that Backfire
Week #2: Favoring Certain People
Week #3: Favoring Certain Technologies
Week #4: Favoring Certain Policies and Procedures
Week #5: Favoring Certain Workplace Cultures

Listen in.

Is it dangerous to make mistakes where you work?

Many leaders wish their employees would take the initiative more often, contribute new ideas, point out what’s not working well, and go the extra mile for a customer.

Everyone is happy as long as everything works out.

BUT

When a mistake is made, things don’t work out, the customer gets upset, or the idea flops, there is hell to pay.

All of a sudden, all initiative disappears, no new ideas ever get presented, no critiques are offered, and everyone provides simply the bare bones minimum for customers.

What happened?

You punished risk-taking.

In this week’s episode, Claudia and I discuss building an environment that encourages risk without fear of repercussions. An environment safe enough to put new ideas out on the table without being penalized if they don’t work out.

If taking the initiative or suggesting an improvement feels like putting one’s neck on the line, then people will keep their ideas to themselves.

Far from being a disaster, failure can lead to great innovation. Failure, more commonly, leads to learning.

What about where you work?

Listen in.

Just now joining the conversation? Catch up on the entire series here.

While some people prefer to work alone than in a group, all people need to be a part of a working community of other people.

The rare bird who is a true loner would most likely not work for a company, opting instead for some sort of independent structure.

This week’s show is about the hard fact that people need to connect and belong.

We need to belong to a community with a mission that is larger than ourselves. We need to be an integral part of making that mission succeed. (Remember the hard fact about making a difference?)

There is simply no escaping the reality that this process includes working with others. But working with others runs deeper than the functional necessity of most tasks requiring more than one person to complete them.

Working together involves a process of connecting and belonging that is core to being human.

Keep roles and responsibilities anonymous and impersonal at your own risk. Want to know why?

Listen in.

Just now joining the conversation? Catch up on the entire series here.

People change. Fact.

People are maturing, changing, developing beings. How ironic that we fashion static job descriptions and rigid organizational charts for these dynamic, ever-becoming beings.

This week’s “hard fact” to face about working with people is that people need to grow and develop in their jobs and their responsibilities.

What is boredom at work but the need for something more challenging?

What is criticism but the developing ability to see what’s not working and come up with alternatives?

If positions could grow and develop as the person holding the position grows and develops, we would find ourselves with with more motivated, more invested and more loyal employees.

What opportunities to learn and develop have you incorporated into your company? What opportunities to learn and develop can you find or create for yourself?

Listen in.

Just now joining the conversation? Catch up on the entire series here.

Many of us, if we were honest, would prefer not to have other people on the team. But we need more arms and legs than we have ourselves!

So we hire beings to function as utilities, which by their nature are anything but utilities. That is, we hire human beings.

Hard fact to face about these creatures known as human beings is that they need to contribute and make a difference.

Take this fact into account as you shape their job descriptions, responsibilities, communication patterns, and performance evaluations, and you will discover the most amazing source of energy, ideas, production and effectiveness imaginable.

Ignore this fact and you will spend a fortune on high turnover, stagnant careers, negative attitudes, and a bare bones work ethic.

You can crack the whip all you like. Yell and scream. Threaten and punish. Nothing will elicit anything more than the absolute minimum in effort.

It’s your choice. Face this hard fact of working with people or not.

Listen in.

Just now joining the conversation? Catch up on the entire series here.

“If I had a nickel for every time someone referred to working with people as “the soft side of business” I’d be a millionaire.”

What I said several years ago when this podcast first aired still holds today.

It is precisely because of this disastrous fallacy about working with people that we are replaying this important series during our vacation season at Bold Enterprises.

Far from being the soft side of business, working with people is filled with hard realities that, unless faced, will undermine even the best laid plans.

Just because the human element is difficult to quantify and doesn’t show up neat and tidy in the financial reports, doesn’t mean that it isn’t one of the central keys to success in your workplace.

You invest in state of the art technology. You conduct thorough and ambitious strategic planning. You invest in the best in marketing and sales. You keep a lid on unnecessary costs.

But too many of us are dismissing, ignoring or overlooking the highest impact investment of all… our people.

The Hard Facts of Working with People
Week #1: Facing the Facts about a Timely and Practical Reality
Week #2: People Need to Contribute and Make a Difference
Week #3: People Need to Learn and Develop
Week #4: People Need to Connect and Belong

Listen in.

Just now joining the conversation? Catch up on the entire series here.

Some people are so nice that no difficult decisions ever get made.

Instead of focusing on the issue at hand, these people are concerned that everyone involved is happy. Nice but ineffective. Safe but exasperating.

There are important advantages to having strong diplomatic skills. One can communicate difficult news more effectively. One can keep dialogue going with impossible personalities. The list goes on.

There comes a point, though, when the diplomat’s need for smooth waters and happy people supercedes actual effectiveness.

For example, when it comes time to make an important decision that is going to upset some people, the diplomat will postpone the decision in hopes of creating an alternative with which everyone will beg happy. For time or opportunity sensitive decisions, such prevarication can be costly.

Is there a way to weigh the costs and benefits of choosing to be the diplomat? Are you diplomatic out of a professional conviction that such a course is the most constructive or out of a need to avoid conflict, disagreements and bargaining?

Listen in.

Just now joining the conversation? Catch up on the entire series here.