If you aren’t feeling authentic at work, not being completely honest with yourself could sacrifice your biggest chances for a better career. You may well believe that if you honestly presented who you truly are at your job, there could be negative repercussions: people wouldn’t like you, you might be less effective at your responsibilities, your true talents and strengths wouldn’t be a good fit. In any demanding career, you will reach burnout more quickly if your purpose is out of alignment; a high degree of excellence will seem hollow, and achievements will not be fulfilling. Your morale and motivation will be low, and career solutions will be difficult to make.

Jon Snodgrass, the author of Follow Your Career Star: A Career Quest Based on Inner Values,  stresses that work which is not personally satisfying “reflects a basic conflict you have with yourself.” Many people function for lengthy periods of time in this condition. But why? What is keeping people from having a better career, and a better life?

Sociological experts (harkening back to Miller and Form’s Industrial Sociology, ) note that Google era ideas about work are still rooted in a belief structure that developed out of Puritanism. The Puritans valued and believed God bestowed favor via success (money and property) from hard work. The way to God’s favor, therefore, was through industrious labor and thrift with financial assets. The worker acted, in the Puritanical mind, as a fiduciary of God’s grace through deeds, secondary to strong faith.

There was very little room for self-actualization in the Puritans’ duty-based value system. Instead, disciplined conformance was exacted with public, criminal punishments when these expectations were not met. If you were a vagrant, or a shirker, or disregarded the ethical standard in some other way, you could expect swift consequences, including dunking, placement in stocks, whipping, and banishment. Such strict edicts would have a lasting effect on society, creating entire communities of individuals who outwardly conformed, and repressed their personal feelings in favor of those that were more acceptable.

From Balancing Your Life – Executive Lessons for Work, Family and Self, we learn that the main repercussion a repressive environment can have on an individual’s autonomy is a sense of guilt when expectations are not met. If left unresolved, this conflict between “what I am, who I want to be, can leave one well into adulthood with a sense of guilt over having inclinations that differ” which pervades in every milieu. Self-censorship then becomes the fallback position. We present a false façade in order to minimize the disapproval (punishment) we anticipate because of the differences we perceive in ourselves when compared with expectations.

The author of Balancing Your Life points out the differences between living inside-out, where a person can confidently express who they are, and outside-in, where a person hesitates to do so:

In my experience, people vastly underestimate the degree to which they live outside-in. This is good in part, since we need a willingness to conform to create a viable society. But if we live too much outside-in, we lose our individuality and our capacity not only to lead but to live our own lives and to manage our careers. If you began life with a basic distrust or were unable to develop a sense of initiative, you are probably living largely outside-in — and living with large doses of guilt and self-absorption. If you can resolve those issues and realize that only you can really take control of your life, perhaps you can increase the degree to which you live inside-out and learn to live less in the shadow of issues unsatisfactorily resolved when you were younger.

When seeking career solutions, this hesitation and repression manifests into more longer term indecision. Dependency upon others to decide for us, whether it be other persons or the expectations of a society as a whole such as the one the Puritans developed, can inflate anxiety and low self-confidence. This perfect storm can so repetitively derail one’s career that it may seem safer to leave it permanently in the station.

In Indecisiveness and High School Students’ Career Decision-Making Process: Longitudinal Associations and the Mediational Role of Anxiety (Journal of Counseling Psychology Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association 2006, Vol. 53, No. 4, 397– 410), the authors found that the inability to make a decision is a risk factor for future coping. Even when indecisive people make a choice, they are less committed to it. This, the authors believe, is because they are “overly concerned with making mistakes.” Instead, indecisives doubt they have enough information, and will delay a decision while they explore and seek more. Career progress past a certain point is doomed: transition into a leadership role may occur, but performance will be sub-par. You cannot lead if you cannot decide.

Seth Godin elaborates on this need to be mistake-free in a post entitled Self-Truth and the Best Violinist in the World :

The quest for technical best is a form of hiding. You can hide from the marketplace because you’re still practicing your technique. And you can hide from the hard work of real art and real connection because you decide that success lies in being the best technically, at getting a 99 instead of a 98 on an exam. . . Until we’re honest with ourselves about what we’re going to master, there’s no chance we’ll accomplish it.

Michelle Phillips, in the Beauty Blueprint, as quoted in Eliza Fayle’s review, defines being honest with yourself as “an invitation to be authentic,” as opposed to being overly critical. Indeed, beating yourself up over past mistakes or character flaws does nothing to begin the process of applying career solutions. Instead, the more practical approach is to evaluate the current circumstances by getting real with an assessment of how they align with one’s true self. Other observers have characterized the mid-life crisis as inevitable. It’s the culmination of the disparity between the authentic self and the conventional pathway followed since youth.

This disparity doesn’t need to exist, much less continue. A reality check is the first step.

A simple process by which you might focus on the things which mean the most to you is recommended by Marelisa Fabrega of the Abundance Blog: “Identify those five things which will allow you to say on your deathbed, ‘I’ve lived a successful life.’ ” Matching up those values with creative enthusiasm will lead you to the most meaningful characteristic people who find their true vocations have in common: “Fit.”

When work fits with interests and temperament, as well as values, work product reaches a higher quality, and a better career ensues. We access more dedication and commitment when things feel right at work. We’re more enthusiastic and tenacious, and, generally, the paycheck’s importance wanes in the face of these more intangible compensations. Marrying an ethic of service to the ability to transform a creative thought into an enterprise creates a magical sweet spot for successful entrepreneurs and higher level employees.

Tuning into a value structure is the first key element in getting real. Your values will provide the inspiration to begin a new venture and stick with it for more meaningful growth and career solutions. All of this requires an honest reality check:

Who are you? What is important to you? What are your strengths and personal challenges? How would changing what you do impact your life and your career growth? Is there room for greater business focus? At the end of your life, would you regret not being able to make that change?

Where do you see yourself on the need for money spectrum? Can you get by on less? Would you be able to exchange emotional gratification for financial compensation? J.D. Roth of Get Rich Slowly recommends you “set goals that help you reach your dreams, use methods that draw on your strengths, and define success in a way that reflects your values.”

What commercial form does your passion take? Can you turn it into paying work? Will this require you to seek employment, or are you compelled to start your own business?

Have you shared these thoughts with those who are important to you? If not, why not?

These can be tough questions for anyone to answer. But they’re imperative if you’re going to be getting real by defining your true avocation and matching it to career solutions. Choosing to include your strengths and personal passions into forming a meaningful, better career will be one of the most rewarding decisions you will make. If you’re not on this path, you can take the first step now to bridging the distance between your current work and a transformative decision that will reap higher rewards.

Related articles

• Getting Real: How an Honest Reality Check will Improve Your Life (passingthru.com)
• History too kind to Puritans’ brutal intolerance (alwaysquestionauthority.wordpress.com)
• Through a Glass, Grimly Part 5 (passingthru.com)

A Reality Check Delivers Career Solutions is a post from: Passing Thru

Adventures in Customer Service with City Employees

To the City of St. Louis Park, MN:  Nice save by one of your field representatives after I called to report discolored water that trickled down into no water.  With the ultra below-freezing temperatures we’ve had recently (and windchills in excess of -40F), Pete thought our problem might be due to a frozen water main.

So I called the City Utilities division.  I barely was able to explain what was happening when, without so much as a single syllable acknowledgement, the administrative assistant dumped me into a voicemail pool.  Rude! I was disconnected twice prior to being able to leave a message.  If I’d had the water to boil, it would have been steaming!

Seriously, with all the self-congratulatory mentions of “Minnesota nice” going around, would it have been too much for her to have said something like, “Oh, sorry you’re having a problem.  We do have some issues with water mains and the frozen temperatures.  Please let me transfer you to the correct line where you can leave your details.  Someone will call you back just as soon as possible to help.” Grrr.

The good news: the field rep who called back was extremely helpful, staying on the line with me while troubleshooting our symptoms, and then recommending a D-I-Y fix that had us back in action relatively quickly.  But still…St. Louis Park?  Your opportunity to make a positive impression is compromised by employees who either aren’t properly trained or don’t care to extend simple courtesy.  Other professionals employed by the City have to make up their slack. Just sayin’.

Adventures in Customer Service – Home Depot

Pete and I shop frequently at the Home Depot near our house.  When we’re there on a mission for a specific item, I really miss the local hardware store where I used to live.  Sometimes our experience is good with Home Depot – mainly when we’re browsing or in the garden center.  Other times our experience is – well, not so much.  Like Thursday night.

I have mixed feelings about self-check-outs to begin with.  This would be why stores have employees, no?  Thursday, it really chapped our long-underwear’d derrieres to see four – count ‘em, four – employees having a gab fest at the end of our check-out lane while we’re struggling.  What were we struggling with, you ask?  We were struggling to scan, bag and pay for our purchases.  Ourselves.  Because there were no check-out lanes open other than the self-operated ones.

Even though there were enough staff to open every single one of them standing right in front of us.  But they were preoccupied.  With socializing, not serving the customer.  Huh.

When we suggested to the group of orange-aprons on our way out that there might be something wrong with this picture, we got the deer in the headlights look.  As if we were being unreasonable presuming that the employees might lift a finger to help us with heavy items and reluctant bar code scanners.

Home Depot?  There’s a reason your stock is in the tank.  This type of experience could be related.  Ya think?

Adventures in Customer Service – Web Hosting

Has anyone missed Cath Lawson for the past couple of weeks?  We certainly have.  Seems as though her blog is too successful – i.e. generating too much traffic – for her hosting company, Bluehost, to bother with her any more.  So instead of using the situation as an opportunity to create a positive experience – which they might have wanted to do seeing as how she could be a good business referral source and all – Bluehost shut her website down.  With no warning.

Just like that, Cath’s site is snuffed out, and she can’t get an answer as to why.  Cath has had a very frustrating time of it, but all is well now.  She tells the story, with lots of good advice new and established bloggers and anyone with a website should heed.  Cath, what a way to start out the new year!

John Hoff of E-Venture Biz, who helped Cath out of her jam with a nifty fix of services, warns:  “You know, Bluehost really did put you in a tough spot. Not only did they take down your site, but they also locked you out. Luckily, you were able to gain access finally and we could move you over….@Everyone – Speaking of backup, if you want a full backup of your blog, make sure you have both a database backup and download all the files in your blog’s directory to your hard drive.” Yes, sir.

Fortunately, not everyone who is confronted with a challenge or an opportunity disregards it:

Becky Blanton wins the Johnny Bunko Challenge

Earlier in the week, we asked you to vote for Becky Blanton in the Johnny Bunko Challenge.  Becky’s entry for Lesson Seven, “Stay Hungry,” was one of three finalists in the challenge.  With a little help from her friends, and a lot of help via Seth Godin, Becky pulled away and snagged the win!  Becky will be on her way to the TED conference in London, as we mentioned in our post.

But there’s more to this story:  one of Becky’s competitors was Ed Brenegar, with another great Lesson about “Saying Thanks” every day.  Cultivating the “attitude of gratitude” is a sure-fire way to keep things in perspective for us, when we remember to do it.  If you read one thing in its entirety this weekend, read Ed Brenegar’s inspiring post congratulating Becky on her win.  It’s the epitome of sportsmanship and grace.  There truly were no losers in this challenge.  Congratulations, Becky and Ed, for presenting us with remarkability!

Barbara Swafford Does More with Less

The New Year often finds us with additional responsibilities after the holiday break.  Sometimes our workload seems even more overwhelming and stressful, especially if we’re being asked to do more because of an unexpected change.  Barbara Swafford, of Blogging Without A Blog, recently found herself with a busier time of it at her non-blog job – the nerve of them!  So, she proactively modified her posting schedule by arranging for guest posters, reducing frequency from daily to 3x per week, and combining activities.

These changes leave Barbara with enough time for growing non-blog commitments, and the ability to continue to visit and comment on the blogs she cares about.  It’s easy to let things go until they get far out of hand, thinking somehow we’ll make it all work.  Changing her schedule is in keeping with Barbara’s disciplined and professional approach to the business of blogging, while maintaining the strong community she founded.  Congratulations, Barbara!

Related articles by Zemanta

• Telephone firms teach manners to hospital workers
• UK CMO takes a stand on ‘customer service” in healthcare
• Sometimes the simplest things . . .
• Vodafone perhaps need to rethink their customer service function…
• How to change someone’s view with customer service
• Spotted! Amazing Customer Service at the Apple Store
• Vonage Says “If You Hang Up We’ll Cancel Your Account” [Vonage]
• Customer Service Is A Choice…
• Home Depot Sells You A Used Battery Pack, Manages Not To Accuse You Of Fraud [Happy Endings]

CATCHING UP is a post from: Passing Thru

I had an intriguing interchange with Derek Rey on his blog, Beyond Banner, here .  Derek paraphrased an interview on NPR’s Talk of the Nation Science Friday with Tim O’Reilly. Tim is known for coining “Web 2.0,” when referring to the second coming of the web after the dot-com bust. The discussion looked back on social media in 2008, and Tim shared some predictions.  Tim describes Web 2.0 as “designing systems that get better with the more people who use them.”

The underlying premise behind the interview, Derek’s post, and our interchange, is that second-wave companies are all about human connection. They provide and derive value out of that connectivity. YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, even Wikipedia all provide value implicitly or explicitly. Data is compiled from what users specifically share, or implicit data is mined through studying behavior such as link history. Example: “other Amazon users who purchased this book also purchased . . .

In the interview, O’Reilly also emphasized “ambient intimacy” via Twitter and Flickr use, citing how he can be up to date on virtually anyone via their posts.  He therefore can maintain connection with them without traditional forms of interaction.   O’Reilly doesn’t feel obligated to keep up with his thousands of followers, though. He sees Twitter as a “river flowing by and you can dip in when you want.”

O’Reilly predicts the future of the web rests in collaboration and platform. The One platform will be the platform, and, according to O’Reilly, the mobile device will sense and drive application development. This happened on Twitter during the Mumbai hostage incident, and with the Motrin mommy kerfluffle. This spells the end of the personal computer.

Derek wanted feedback:

• Do we see Twitter as a “river” to dip in and out at will?
• What did we think about The ONE network, and
• How would mobile devices evolve to replace the computer?
• What did we think about implicit equity?
• How did we see this transition playing out?

My thoughts:

Twitter is to the surface as The ONE would be the depth, or layers, perhaps. The space limitation on Twitter confines, and breaking out via links is necessary to get more information. So, if Twitter is a river, then The ONE would be an ocean. A user could feasibly play in bays, inlets and harbors (much as we self-group now) or choose to dive more deeply. The vastness of The ONE network could be intimidating, inaccessible, or self-limiting. The breadth of knowledge and accessibility could be exhilarating, foster commonalities, and remove barriers.

If The ONE is the ocean, then what about The Cloud? Will we jump out of the ocean like porpoises or breaching whales to bite off or park our personal data in The Cloud, and then resume our swim? Are we already doing this with multiple platforms? Would you want to be a storage drive manufacturer with this looming? If you are providing archive storage and retrieval services, what does The One mean to your business model?

Does ambient intimacy preclude real intimacy within nuclear relationships? Could it actually improve relationships by providing insight? Just think, as a mom, I wouldn’t have been bothered by hearing “Nothing” in response to my asking what happened at school today! When I look at my kids’ Facebook pages, am I really making an ambient intimacy deposit in our relationship instead of spying?  On the other hand, I want to tell Pete my thoughts, and I don’t want to have to look for his reactions in a tweet. The cliché is about partners instant messaging or emailing each other when they’re sitting right next to each other, right?

What kinds of capitalization are going to occur with this value? There is already considerable discussion at stops like HarvardBusiness.org about valuing things that are currently non-products and capitalizing on their exchange. Will our society and economy continue to move along the continuum of product – information – relationship?

Derek pointed out that ambient intimacy might be a good way to share a massive amount of information with a large group, and then create more nuclear relationships from that group. How many nuclear relationships can an individual have? He’s thinking about connecting brands and the relationships around brands, forming new communities and conversations. Is this redefining macro relationships into a more micro perception, or the reverse? I don’t want someone appropriating my ambient intimacy for evil purpose (like subliminal advertising, etc). So, how do we layer permission into ambient intimacy?  What protective measures are necessary?

Improved and optimized mobile devices fit in with Pete’s and my goal to be able to work from anywhere even better than notebook computers and smartphones. I reminded Derek that we old folks would like bigger screens on our phones, if you please. Already, the desktop computer is a dinosaur, no?

I also think that we can look to history to confirm Tim O’Reilly’s predictions. Historically, humans have “circled the wagons” in times of economic threat (the Great Depression), climate change (post-Renaissance, the 19th century cold wave), or conflict to retreat to their familiars. The craving for “small’ is already manifesting itself in micro-economic solutions. (Seth Godin, Small is the New Big).

We mistrust complicated organizations and bemoan the problems encountered in dealing with “too big” corporations. We’d rather go to the neighborhood hardware store than Home Depot. We want our entrepreneurial endeavors to be impervious to failure by operating lean and unencumbered with layers of management. (Howard Lindzon, Too Small to Fail). Underground economies in barter and cash payments under the table are on the rise.  Society and the economy is re-forming.

The paradigm evolves when we think of the connectivity and intimacy we crave unrestrained by physical proximity.  No longer may someone be “geographically undesirable.”  Commenters on this blog are from all parts of the globe, yet our connections are real and satisfying.

What if The ONE blows the possibilities of even more satisfying collaboration and relationship-building right out of the analogical water? We think it’s already happening. What say you?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Media Literacy: Making Sense Of New Technologies And Media by George Siemens – Jan 3 09
• Power Twitter For Firefox: Inline Media, Integrated Search And A Lot More

THE ONE is a post from: Passing Thru

Grand Portage Dancer by Pete Wuebker

We’ve been thinking about leaders and followers.  With the recent American election came the oft-repeated mantra of hope and change.  This was articulated by some as the promise of a reunification of polarized elements within American society.  Worthy objectives included a better relationship with other countries, and a collectivization of spirit that could be marshaled to do good in the world.  In order for this all to occur, leaders will need to bridge and encourage connectivity.  Good leaders will work well within their respective tribes, but we’ve seen that truly great leaders are those who are able to consort with disparate groups in order to achieve.  They need to be thinking outside the tribe.

There has been a wealth of information and theory put forth recently on the universality of tribal characteristics.  Seth Godin has written a powerful book, Tribes – We Need You to Lead Us, that addresses the dynamics of leadership in the context of tribalism.  Members of the related Triiibes network (of which I am one) recently put together an E-book that explained what we have learned about all things tribal (you can download it for free here).

Great leaders are emerging now who have passion and the skills needed to make a difference.  Bold, somewhat heretical moves will ensure not only a following, but innovative solutions.  While we all can’t be President of the United States (and who really would want to?), we can use the characteristics of a good tribal leader to make a difference in our own sphere of influence.  We can make better families, better companies, better communities, and better selves.  What do we need to consider?

Tribal instincts are strong.  Everyone wants to be part of something.  It’s in our genetic make-up.  People have tribed since they’ve walked the earth.  The affiliation with a tribe serves to appropriate the attributes of the tribe and use them to extend our own influence.  We take on tribal beliefs because they strengthen our own beliefs and address our fears by reducing them.

Tribal benefits are powerful. The benefit from tribes is that non-tribal members associate us with tribal characteristics and assign credibility to us.  The feeling of belonging has deep psychological benefits.  Belonging fosters fulfillment, stability, satisfaction, unity, and a sense of contribution.  We need to feel valued and important to others.

While anonymity is appealing in some ways, to be constantly anonymous devalues our self-worth. When someone acknowledges our humanity, even by something as simple as knowing what drink we like, it reinforces … our sense of belonging. – Melinda Messineo

Tribes can splinter when priorities compete. In humanity’s earliest days, we hunted for food.  Successful tribes had strong hunters, and non-hunting members sought the tribe with the most food.  Well-fed non-hunters drew pictures on the cave walls.  And, as a friend of ours recently put, “Then someone decided the pictures should hold the same value as the meat someone dragged home, and you had two extremely pissed off factions, because neither felt appreciated.”

Rival tribes co-exist in parallel. For three years within every U.S. election cycle, liberals and conservatives manage to cohabit within the country’s borders.  Then, just prior to the election, as the campaigns ramp up the intensity, an eruptive catalyst sparks a series of skirmishes.  Recently, the cease-fire has barely held post-election.  Political leaders within each tribe connect intermittently with the rival tribe, but a divide is in place.

Strong leaders appeal to more than one tribe. Webs of tribes coalesce and unite, then disassociate again.  Even when unification has occurred the need to separate and identify differences will still surface.  Like individual Protestant denominations that meet to make doctrinal decisions and define policy, individual tribes will insist on a degree of autonomy within a coalition.  We need to constantly know what we control and who the other is.

E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. - U.S. motto.

A greater, universal need has to emerge. Most of us were one after 9/11.  Many of us wistfully reference that unity of spirit during the weeks after the tragedy.  We united against a common threat, to right a wrong, to be part of something greater than ourselves.  The civil rights movement was born out of similar elements and took on a life of its own.

External pressure to unify will meet resistance. The movement toward unification must appear to come from within.  Pete and I learned this first-hand when we attempted to blend our families.  Our teens and other family members were heavily vested in the status quo.  Our wants did not translate into their needs.  Obama will exhort and cajole his skeptics, but unless they decide themselves that the affiliation is of benefit to them and their tribe, nothing will happen.  Should a unified effort be necessary to save the economy from more dire circumstances, or if there is a physical threat from outside our tribes, we’ll be all in.  Dwight D. Eisenhower knew that good leadership “is the art of getting someone to do something you want done because he wants to do it.”

Successful tribal blending will acknowledge differences and identify commonalities. What can Obama, or any other leader, do to unite different tribes?  A good leader will recognize that eliminating or minimizing tribal autonomy will not coerce cooperation.  The difference in political success between the two super-powers – the United States and the Soviet Union – couldn’t be more stark.  The Soviet Union failed because it held its consortium together by force, not by choice.  Our teenagers didn’t feel they had sufficient choices, and so they resisted blending.

What is universally held? Our Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident,”  and goes on to list them.  Good leaders identify what is held in common, and speak to those precepts.  Great leaders also realize individual needs and validate contributions with attention and rewards.  They know that playing it safe is often the greatest risk of all in a changing world.

What needs to happen? Bold, dynamic moves framed within the context of common precepts will ensure progress, and might spark greatness.  Abandon fear of failure and replace it with commitment.  Embrace risk as a positive factor.  Connections and ways of connecting need to be easy.  Faith and passion, with tenacity, will make progress.  Transparency will provide information and knowledge, and maintain authenticity.  Choose progress and do what’s right.

THINKING OUTSIDE THE TRIBE is a post from: Passing Thru