At some point in there lives, almost everyone faces career reversals, and some of the most famous and successful business leaders have been fired. I’m sure that there were good reasons why it happened from the company’s perspective, and whether you thought that it was the right decision wasn’t going to change their decision; life is not always fair. Your success after a career reversal depends on your resilience and what you do after losing your job. It’s happened to me and I was devastated when it did, but I learnt a few things from it.
Forget about Shame
It’s natural to feel embarrassed when you get fired, and to withdraw and not tell people what happened. Bad move. First of all, if you don’t tell your version of what happened, others probably will – and seldom to your benefit. Second, if you feel ashamed, you are unlikely to present yourself to others with much confidence, and this absence of confidence will make landing your next position more difficult. And third, it will affect your “social influence.” People look to others to figure out how to interpret and react to ambiguous social situations. If you’re embarrassed, that feeling will emanate from you either in your voice, your language or your behaviour. People will suspect that if you’re ashamed, maybe you have something to be ashamed about, in which case they might not offer you the support that you need.
Tell Your Story
On the other hand, openly telling others what happened conveys that it is not such a big deal and that rather than being ashamed, it is the boss and organisation that fired you that maybe ought to feel badly. By admitting what happened, you can ask for help and convey that you’re going to be successful again. Others will rally to your side because people love to associate with success and they particularly enjoy associating with successful people who have surmounted adversity.
Not everyone who is fired will land a good job instantaneously. But your chances of bouncing back quickly are greatly enhanced by conveying to others that the loss of your position was the company’s mistake, not yours, and emotionally relieving yourself of guilt and shame so you can strategically and confidently go about continuing to build your career.
I was given this advice when it happened to me many many years ago and it is difficult advice to follow, but in many instances, will lead to a much better result and more importantly a boost to your own self confidence.
Thursday, 19 May 2011
Thursday, 12 May 2011
Multitasking
It’s a never ending paper trail, when a report or study comes out, somebody at a reputable publication picks it up, and the next thing you know, generalisations that were never intended by the researchers are plastered all over the internet.
That’s exactly what’s happened recently with multitasking.
Just check out some of these headlines: How and Why to Stop Multitasking, The Myth of Multitasking, The Backlash Against Multitasking, How to Kick the Multitasking Addiction, Multitasking Produces an Illusion of Competence … these are real and are everywhere!
The problem is that most of that “multitasking is evil” stuff is more or less irrelevant. Yes, you’ll perform better giving one thing your undivided attention. Sure, if you text or email during a meeting, you’ll miss some things.
The truth is that, when you define multitasking in the way virtually all professionals, managers, business leaders, and executives do it, and look at its overall effectiveness for a management system or organization as a whole - instead of at the task level - you find that it’s indeed critical to management effectiveness. It’s a no-brainer.
So, to unravel the quagmire of misconceptions, misinformation, and confusion and set the record straight, here are a few alternative thoughts:
• Yes, single task performance deteriorates when you’re distracted. People perform better doing one task at a time. Anybody who thinks that’s an epiphany shouldn’t be responsible for anything let alone managing others.
• Interrupting what you’re doing to constantly check email isn’t multitasking, it’s distraction, plain and simple. Employees or managers who call that multitasking are just trying to make themselves look better in spite of their complete lack of discipline and inability to focus.
• There is no such thing as doing more than one thing simultaneously. It can’t happen in the physical world. Nobody can do it. Not even computers. There are laws of physics that frown upon that sort of thing.
• In the real management world, the only definition of multitasking that matters is the concept of switching between tasks or interrupting one task in favour of another. It’s how we prioritise functions and tasks in real-time. It’s necessary and critical to the performance of any management or organisational system.
• Indeed, on a task by task basis, multitasking is not a benefit. And yes, it is more stressful than not multitasking. That said, it’s a daily part of business life. Things happen. Priorities change. Something crops up that is more important than what you’re working on. The task at hand will suffer, but your overall management effectiveness will benefit. Real-time flexibility - interruption and prioritisation - is critical in management systems.
• Information or communication overload and multitasking are two completely different things. McKinsey wrote a report about information overload that says, “Always-on, multitasking work environments are killing productivity, dampening creativity, and making us unhappy.” The problem is that, by lumping communication overload - a bad thing - in with management multitasking - a good thing - McKinsey is confusing people.
• If you email or text while you’re in a meeting, you can’t possibly be paying attention. Things have to be repeated and that wastes everybody’s time.
• Likewise, when you’re meeting one-on-one or in a small group, you should give them your undivided attention. Not only is that more efficient for everyone, it’s called treating people with respect.
The truth of the matter is that Doctors, chefs, engineers, project managers, marketers, salespeople, line managers, executives, small business owners - anyone with decision-making, managing, or leadership in their job description needs to multitask. It comes with the territory. It’s part of business and management life. Don’t confuse it with single-task performance, communication overload, or distraction and lack of concentration.
That’s exactly what’s happened recently with multitasking.
Just check out some of these headlines: How and Why to Stop Multitasking, The Myth of Multitasking, The Backlash Against Multitasking, How to Kick the Multitasking Addiction, Multitasking Produces an Illusion of Competence … these are real and are everywhere!
The problem is that most of that “multitasking is evil” stuff is more or less irrelevant. Yes, you’ll perform better giving one thing your undivided attention. Sure, if you text or email during a meeting, you’ll miss some things.
The truth is that, when you define multitasking in the way virtually all professionals, managers, business leaders, and executives do it, and look at its overall effectiveness for a management system or organization as a whole - instead of at the task level - you find that it’s indeed critical to management effectiveness. It’s a no-brainer.
So, to unravel the quagmire of misconceptions, misinformation, and confusion and set the record straight, here are a few alternative thoughts:
• Yes, single task performance deteriorates when you’re distracted. People perform better doing one task at a time. Anybody who thinks that’s an epiphany shouldn’t be responsible for anything let alone managing others.
• Interrupting what you’re doing to constantly check email isn’t multitasking, it’s distraction, plain and simple. Employees or managers who call that multitasking are just trying to make themselves look better in spite of their complete lack of discipline and inability to focus.
• There is no such thing as doing more than one thing simultaneously. It can’t happen in the physical world. Nobody can do it. Not even computers. There are laws of physics that frown upon that sort of thing.
• In the real management world, the only definition of multitasking that matters is the concept of switching between tasks or interrupting one task in favour of another. It’s how we prioritise functions and tasks in real-time. It’s necessary and critical to the performance of any management or organisational system.
• Indeed, on a task by task basis, multitasking is not a benefit. And yes, it is more stressful than not multitasking. That said, it’s a daily part of business life. Things happen. Priorities change. Something crops up that is more important than what you’re working on. The task at hand will suffer, but your overall management effectiveness will benefit. Real-time flexibility - interruption and prioritisation - is critical in management systems.
• Information or communication overload and multitasking are two completely different things. McKinsey wrote a report about information overload that says, “Always-on, multitasking work environments are killing productivity, dampening creativity, and making us unhappy.” The problem is that, by lumping communication overload - a bad thing - in with management multitasking - a good thing - McKinsey is confusing people.
• If you email or text while you’re in a meeting, you can’t possibly be paying attention. Things have to be repeated and that wastes everybody’s time.
• Likewise, when you’re meeting one-on-one or in a small group, you should give them your undivided attention. Not only is that more efficient for everyone, it’s called treating people with respect.
The truth of the matter is that Doctors, chefs, engineers, project managers, marketers, salespeople, line managers, executives, small business owners - anyone with decision-making, managing, or leadership in their job description needs to multitask. It comes with the territory. It’s part of business and management life. Don’t confuse it with single-task performance, communication overload, or distraction and lack of concentration.
Thursday, 28 April 2011
Why the Boss can steal paper clips, but you shouldn’t!
It always seems as though your boss spends a lot of time on email, and you know it’s not all work-related. Instead, they’re planning the kids’ birthday parties or booking the next holiday. Maybe you should try to get more of that sort of stuff done during the day, too. After all, we’re all working longer hours, and we all need a break now and then. Right?
Well, whether or not you should book that flight from your desk depends upon how high up you are within your company, according to new research from Instead. They created a variety of hypothetical situations in which someone had behaved badly, and then asked people how strongly the wrongdoers should be punished.
The results? Unless you’re pretty high up the food chain at your company, wait until you get home to book your holiday. There is a little justice in the world, though: If your boss really screws up, there’s a good chance he or she will be judged a lot more harshly than someone at a lower level would be.
Dave versus DaveThe researchers presented the test subjects with two hypothetical people. One was David Rogers, “a well-regarded senior executive with a long track record of good performance.” He was “the head of the sales department and in charge of over 100 employees,” with “great authority to make independent decisions.”
The other hypothetical person, also named David Rogers, was more of a worker bee: “a not well-known staff assistant with little track record,” who “work[ed] in the sales department [and had] no formal authority over other employees.” He was described as having “very little authority to make independent decisions.”
The test subjects were then presented with a list of possible infractions, ranging in severity from using company stamps for personal mail to verbally abusing a co-worker, and then asked how strongly each “Dave” should be sanctioned. These are the highlights of the findings:
The lower-level employee is punished much more severely for minor infractions; such as a using company stamps to mail personal letters, making personal calls and doing personal email on company time, and accepting small gifts.
The big-shot was punished more severely for more serious infractions, such as withholding important work-related information from colleagues, verbally abusing a co-worker, or taking large kickbacks.
There is more likely to be a disparity in the punishment if the offence is against the corporation versus against an individual employee. The study found people were more likely to get similar punishments, regardless of status, if the offence primarily affected an individual, such as telling a racist joke or sexually harassing a co-worker. The bigger differences in punishment were seen when the offence was something more corporate in nature, such as repeatedly being late to meetings or taking large kickbacks.
Is it fair that execs get to take liberties while everyone else has to toe the line? Or that they get punished more severely when they make big mistakes?
It’s one of those us & them arguments that will be debated endlessly over the years and I’d hazard a guess that your, and my, perception might well change as we rise up (or possibly down!) the corporate ladder.
Well, whether or not you should book that flight from your desk depends upon how high up you are within your company, according to new research from Instead. They created a variety of hypothetical situations in which someone had behaved badly, and then asked people how strongly the wrongdoers should be punished.
The results? Unless you’re pretty high up the food chain at your company, wait until you get home to book your holiday. There is a little justice in the world, though: If your boss really screws up, there’s a good chance he or she will be judged a lot more harshly than someone at a lower level would be.
Dave versus DaveThe researchers presented the test subjects with two hypothetical people. One was David Rogers, “a well-regarded senior executive with a long track record of good performance.” He was “the head of the sales department and in charge of over 100 employees,” with “great authority to make independent decisions.”
The other hypothetical person, also named David Rogers, was more of a worker bee: “a not well-known staff assistant with little track record,” who “work[ed] in the sales department [and had] no formal authority over other employees.” He was described as having “very little authority to make independent decisions.”
The test subjects were then presented with a list of possible infractions, ranging in severity from using company stamps for personal mail to verbally abusing a co-worker, and then asked how strongly each “Dave” should be sanctioned. These are the highlights of the findings:
The lower-level employee is punished much more severely for minor infractions; such as a using company stamps to mail personal letters, making personal calls and doing personal email on company time, and accepting small gifts.
The big-shot was punished more severely for more serious infractions, such as withholding important work-related information from colleagues, verbally abusing a co-worker, or taking large kickbacks.
There is more likely to be a disparity in the punishment if the offence is against the corporation versus against an individual employee. The study found people were more likely to get similar punishments, regardless of status, if the offence primarily affected an individual, such as telling a racist joke or sexually harassing a co-worker. The bigger differences in punishment were seen when the offence was something more corporate in nature, such as repeatedly being late to meetings or taking large kickbacks.
Is it fair that execs get to take liberties while everyone else has to toe the line? Or that they get punished more severely when they make big mistakes?
It’s one of those us & them arguments that will be debated endlessly over the years and I’d hazard a guess that your, and my, perception might well change as we rise up (or possibly down!) the corporate ladder.
Thursday, 7 April 2011
The things that make you go aaarrggghh!!
There are a thousand and one hurdles in business, most of which at one time or another make you want to retreat to a quiet (sound proofed) corner and scream in frustration!
I was approached earlier in the year by a client to recruit an important role for one of their global business streams which needed some specific difficult to find skills, without which the candidate would be out of their depth. The global Head Office in the States had been looking internally for a year for this person and given up, finally tasking EMEA to find this mystical candidate.
Which is where I come in!
Three weeks after being briefed I had a shortlist of five candidates from three countries, all of whom had proven track records and reputations in their field. My client and his boss started to put some diary dates together for the five candidates to be either interviewed in person or by video conference: at which point the States announced that they had transferred one of their spare Project Mangers across on a contract so that he could learn on the job!
Yup, it’s the things that make you go aaarrggghh!!
Wednesday, 5 January 2011
What’s in a name?
The eagle eyed amongst you who have struggled into work after the Christmas and New Year holiday period will have noticed that whilst this blog retains some of the traits that we’ve all come to know and love, there has been one significant change.
Yup, we’ve changed the company name. Which begs the question, why?
After eleven years as the UK partner of InterSearch we made the decision in December that it was time for a change. The boss and I have spent several weeks’ soul searching and scratching our heads whilst debating the pro’s and con’s of the change before setting up the new name, which we believe has a certain ring to it and reflects our beliefs in the way search should be delivered.
We’re not alone in leaving InterSearch, as a number of other countries have also terminated their membership and gone their separate ways. The team here remains unchanged and has proved over the last twelve months that it has the capability to successfully deliver global searches based purely on its own abilities.
Far from looking back with any form of regret, we are looking forward to a New Year with considerable hope and expectation. The vagaries of the global economy in 2011 will ensure that the year will be a challenging one, but one that with the right people in place yours and our businesses will be well positioned to take advantage of the market as it recovers.
If you’d like to discuss the name change or how we can work with you in 2011 then don’t hesitate to contact us at www.chestertongray.com
Yup, we’ve changed the company name. Which begs the question, why?
After eleven years as the UK partner of InterSearch we made the decision in December that it was time for a change. The boss and I have spent several weeks’ soul searching and scratching our heads whilst debating the pro’s and con’s of the change before setting up the new name, which we believe has a certain ring to it and reflects our beliefs in the way search should be delivered.
We’re not alone in leaving InterSearch, as a number of other countries have also terminated their membership and gone their separate ways. The team here remains unchanged and has proved over the last twelve months that it has the capability to successfully deliver global searches based purely on its own abilities.
Far from looking back with any form of regret, we are looking forward to a New Year with considerable hope and expectation. The vagaries of the global economy in 2011 will ensure that the year will be a challenging one, but one that with the right people in place yours and our businesses will be well positioned to take advantage of the market as it recovers.
If you’d like to discuss the name change or how we can work with you in 2011 then don’t hesitate to contact us at www.chestertongray.com
Friday, 26 November 2010
Can problem leaders ever change?
Being a relatively sporty person I don’t watch very much TV, but one Saturday morning I found myself channel-surfing for about 15 minutes. I was amazed at how many of the ads were about getting in shape. Some of the “promises” they made were:
“Six-second abs.” “Easy shaper.” “Incredible — a miracle!”
“Quickly turn your flabby abs into that sexy six-pack!”
My favourite was one that claimed that “visible results” could be achieved in two three-minute sessions. Excuse the language, but a phrase from my childhood captures my feeling for these claims: “What a load of c**p!”
If you want to know why so many goal setters don’t become goal achievers, you can pore over a bunch of enlightening academic studies about goals, or you can watch webinars for hours on end. Where did we ever get the crazy idea that getting in shape is supposed to be quick and easy? Why do we think that there will be almost no cost and why are we surprised when working out turns out to be arduous?
In the search industry we see the impact of this kind of thinking all the time. We recently received a call from a HR Director who was dealing with the integration of people and systems after their company had made a large acquisition. They had concerns over one of the senior Directors and his management style and the CEO had suggested they get an executive coach to work with the Director. They hoped to see a dramatic change in him within a couple of months. Could we help us and when could we start?
Like anybody who buys miracle products to help them get in shape, they wanted a miracle coach to immediately change the Director.
It was pointed out that he was a 56-year-old executive and just as with diet and exercise, his behavioural habits took years to develop and wouldn’t go away overnight. We all set goals to get some aspect of our lives in shape. All too often, we fail to meet them. Why? There are five major challenges that we usually underestimate:
Time: “This is taking a lot longer than I thought it would. I don’t have time for this.”
Effort: “This is a lot harder than I thought it would be. I’m tired. It’s just not worth it.”
Distracting events: “I had no idea I would be so busy this year. I’ll just have to worry about this later.”
Maintenance: “After I got in shape, I celebrated by drinking beer and eating curry. Now, for some unexplained reason, I’m back to where I started. What am I supposed to do? Go on some kind of diet for the rest of my life?”
Rewards: “After I lost weight, I thought that everyone would fall in love with me. I still can’t seem to get a date, so why bother?”
We often confuse the words “simple” and “easy.” The changes we help people make are generally very simple. However, they are never easy. Just as with diet and exercise, changing behaviour involves hard work and takes time.
During the next year, he will be barraged with distracting events that will take him away from his efforts to change. He needs to realise that lasting leadership development is a lifelong process. A temporary change in behaviour to “look good” in the short term will only create cynicism if he doesn’t stick with it. We can help if he is willing to put in the time and effort. If not, hiring us would probably be a waste of everyone’s time.
Look in the mirror. Not just at how you look, but at who you are. If you want to be a better leader, a better professional, or just a better person, don’t kid yourself. To achieve meaningful goals, you’ll have to pay the price. There’s no product, no diet, no exercise program, and (I hate to admit it) no executive coach who can make you better. Only you can do it. If your source of motivation doesn’t come from inside, you won’t stick with it. This may not be good material for a Saturday morning infomercial, but its great advice for any real achievement.
“Six-second abs.” “Easy shaper.” “Incredible — a miracle!”
“Quickly turn your flabby abs into that sexy six-pack!”
My favourite was one that claimed that “visible results” could be achieved in two three-minute sessions. Excuse the language, but a phrase from my childhood captures my feeling for these claims: “What a load of c**p!”
If you want to know why so many goal setters don’t become goal achievers, you can pore over a bunch of enlightening academic studies about goals, or you can watch webinars for hours on end. Where did we ever get the crazy idea that getting in shape is supposed to be quick and easy? Why do we think that there will be almost no cost and why are we surprised when working out turns out to be arduous?
In the search industry we see the impact of this kind of thinking all the time. We recently received a call from a HR Director who was dealing with the integration of people and systems after their company had made a large acquisition. They had concerns over one of the senior Directors and his management style and the CEO had suggested they get an executive coach to work with the Director. They hoped to see a dramatic change in him within a couple of months. Could we help us and when could we start?
Like anybody who buys miracle products to help them get in shape, they wanted a miracle coach to immediately change the Director.
It was pointed out that he was a 56-year-old executive and just as with diet and exercise, his behavioural habits took years to develop and wouldn’t go away overnight. We all set goals to get some aspect of our lives in shape. All too often, we fail to meet them. Why? There are five major challenges that we usually underestimate:
Time: “This is taking a lot longer than I thought it would. I don’t have time for this.”
Effort: “This is a lot harder than I thought it would be. I’m tired. It’s just not worth it.”
Distracting events: “I had no idea I would be so busy this year. I’ll just have to worry about this later.”
Maintenance: “After I got in shape, I celebrated by drinking beer and eating curry. Now, for some unexplained reason, I’m back to where I started. What am I supposed to do? Go on some kind of diet for the rest of my life?”
Rewards: “After I lost weight, I thought that everyone would fall in love with me. I still can’t seem to get a date, so why bother?”
We often confuse the words “simple” and “easy.” The changes we help people make are generally very simple. However, they are never easy. Just as with diet and exercise, changing behaviour involves hard work and takes time.
During the next year, he will be barraged with distracting events that will take him away from his efforts to change. He needs to realise that lasting leadership development is a lifelong process. A temporary change in behaviour to “look good” in the short term will only create cynicism if he doesn’t stick with it. We can help if he is willing to put in the time and effort. If not, hiring us would probably be a waste of everyone’s time.
Look in the mirror. Not just at how you look, but at who you are. If you want to be a better leader, a better professional, or just a better person, don’t kid yourself. To achieve meaningful goals, you’ll have to pay the price. There’s no product, no diet, no exercise program, and (I hate to admit it) no executive coach who can make you better. Only you can do it. If your source of motivation doesn’t come from inside, you won’t stick with it. This may not be good material for a Saturday morning infomercial, but its great advice for any real achievement.
Tuesday, 16 November 2010
Life on the roller coaster!
In a market that can’t seem to work up whether it’s shackled down by lead weights and sinking to the bottom of the ocean or bobbling along on the surface; everyday seems to bring a new discussion.
For much of the early part of the year our clients put us on pause until we had had the election, and finally once that was out of the way we saw a distinct upturn across all of our market sectors. However, like a candle with a damp wick, the announcements of the budget cuts and the Spending Review soon snuffed out that initial post election optimism.
Fortunately for us, we have little exposure to the public sector and now that the business world has finally digested what it believes the full impact of the spending review to be, we have again seem a shimmer of cautious optimism from clients.
Why cautious? The VAT rise in the New Year will again hit much of the construction and retails sectors although many expect the rise to be spread across the supply chain before reaching consumers. Talking with my colleagues across Europe has shown that many of the CEE states, Germany and Scandinavia are bucking the trend and performing well, giving rise to business opportunities for UK companies in those markets, whilst Ireland’s problems are well documented.
Putting a wet finger up in the cold early winter air to offer you a prediction for 2011 is a mugs game and one which for the moment I will pass on, but many clients feel that the UK has many of the fundamentals in place to deliver a slow growth economy and improve upon previous year’s performances.
If you would like to talk with one of the Directors about how InterSearch in the UK can work with you then please contact us at www.intersearchuk.com
For much of the early part of the year our clients put us on pause until we had had the election, and finally once that was out of the way we saw a distinct upturn across all of our market sectors. However, like a candle with a damp wick, the announcements of the budget cuts and the Spending Review soon snuffed out that initial post election optimism.
Fortunately for us, we have little exposure to the public sector and now that the business world has finally digested what it believes the full impact of the spending review to be, we have again seem a shimmer of cautious optimism from clients.
Why cautious? The VAT rise in the New Year will again hit much of the construction and retails sectors although many expect the rise to be spread across the supply chain before reaching consumers. Talking with my colleagues across Europe has shown that many of the CEE states, Germany and Scandinavia are bucking the trend and performing well, giving rise to business opportunities for UK companies in those markets, whilst Ireland’s problems are well documented.
Putting a wet finger up in the cold early winter air to offer you a prediction for 2011 is a mugs game and one which for the moment I will pass on, but many clients feel that the UK has many of the fundamentals in place to deliver a slow growth economy and improve upon previous year’s performances.
If you would like to talk with one of the Directors about how InterSearch in the UK can work with you then please contact us at www.intersearchuk.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
