Nerds need charm too

When I saw the recent report (posted below) about the start of MIT's 19th annual Charm School, the first thought I had was, "If the A+ kids get charm and social skills, what jobs will be left for the C students?" Typically, the top 1% of the class, the brainiest students, become scientists, researchers, professors, while the middle of the class becomes sales people, team leaders, and customer service associates.

What happens if the smarties acquire the social skills--what happens to the middle students?

I am glad the engineers and other brilliant nerds, as they call themselves in the clip, from MIT get access to basic social and etiquette skills. They need it. But, they don't need it more than B and C students and I hope all universities and corporations are paying attention.

B and C students may possess social skills naturally, but they need to hone business etiquette in order to represent themselves and their companies well internally and externally. My first book, Secrets of Seasoned Professionals, captures basics and beyond because damaging a reputation over offenses that could be avoided is unnecessary. (Book on Amazon)

As MIT figured out when it began its Charm School 19 years ago, how you act is as important as what you know. That's true for nerds and C students alike.

After pondering this for a few days, and catching a few episodes of Big Bang Theory, I've concluded that the nerds an be charming, but there will always be a need for the B and C students--there's only so much charm a person can learn.

Bazinga!

Watch out for happiness pushers

Watch out! They are lurking on every corner: they are happiness pushers. You probably know some, but here are a few signs just in case you need help recognizing them:

• They post "high on life" quotations on Facebook and Twitter every day...several times a day.
• They quote success gurus, even in live conversations, as if they are dear friends.
• They tell you to look on the bright side, no matter what the situation is as if how you look solves everything.
• They say they know how you feel, then they one-up whatever your situation is.
• They are less than successful in their business, relationships, life in general. You can tell this by what they complain about and how they respond to changes in their lives.

So, what's the problem with these people? Isn't it great to see only the bright side of life every day? What's wrong with "don't worry, be happy" as a life motto?

The problem is denial.

The fact is: life is not all sunshine, rainbows, and bunnies every minute every day. When people deny that, they don't really experience everything of life and they deny themselves something great.

When you don't face life's challenges head-on, but rather sweep them aside with a smile, you deny yourself a tremendous sense of accomplishment. Greatness is built by handling adversity, not by pretending it isn't there. Challenges are life's way of revealing who you really are, so if you put on a brave face and fake happiness, you miss out on that revelation.

We do not have to be happy every minute of every day. People who push happiness as if it is a character flaw when you don't feel happy are phony, oblivious, or dumb.

It is okay to be upset, to worry, to be afraid. Admit how you feel and handle the issue. You will feel much better once the challenge is resolved than if you just pretended to be happy that whole time.

Give yourself the opportunity to overcome obstacles by not being happy every minute. When it comes to happiness pushers, just say, "No".

Another reputation ruined by stupidity

Yesterday, Montana’s chief federal judge, Richard Cebull, admitted forwarding a racist email to six "old buddies" about President Obama. He sent the email from his court account, not from home or even a personal account.

The email included several racist jokes along with the judge's personal message to his buddies. “Normally I don’t send or forward a lot of these, but even by my standards, it was a bit touching. I want all of my friends to feel what I felt when I read this. Hope it touches your heart like it did mine,” Chief U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull wrote before forwarding the email. (SOURCE: Los Angeles Times)

The judge admits the jokes are racists but claims he sent them not as a racist but because he dislikes Obama.

Politics aside...racism aside...just how stupid is that judge to think it is prudent to send an email like that? Just how stupid is he to attach his name to that kind of email, especially since he admitted knowing it could offend people. Sure, he never intended the email to become public, but that's the point: you should ALWAYS assume emails could become public.

Email has been around for 20 years! Warnings about emails being forwarded to recipients beyond those you intend have been around 20 years! How many more reputations will be ruined by the stupid assumption that no one else will see one?

Being stupid enough to assume emails are private is one thing, but perhaps it just reveals the real issue: poor character.

My question for you to ponder: if a top judge is stupid enough to assume emails are private, are you? Or, are the top leaders of your company? Judge Cebull's stupidity serves as a good reminder to us all, which might prevent another reputation from being ruined by stupidity.

(Information for this post was taken from the Los Angeles Times article, Montana judge admits sending racist email about Obama, posted by Kim Murphy February 29, 2012, 9:06 p.m.)

Proof that good things happen to good people

Marine Cpl. Alexander Degenhardt attributes his luck to karma. 

Five years ago Marine Cpl. Alexander Degenhardt registered to be a bone marrow donation, and he was identified as a match just prior to going to Las Vegas last week. While he was in Vegas for the first time, Cpl. Degenhardt hit a $2.8 million jackpot at the Belagio.

When asked what he will do now, Cpl. Degenhardt said he will stay in the military, live off his paycheck, and invest the jackpot winnings. He also said he will donate the bone marrow, as planned. Karma, indeed.

Value-Added is Over-Rated

At some point, you have to commit to a standard of excellence. Whether it is high or low, if you are a business owner, leader, or developer, you must pick a level. Proclaiming high quality standards when price and execution reveal the opposite confuses customers and will inhibit sales.

Some business owners try to get around the common incongruence by offering basic services with value-added options; however, that's confusing too. It's like those old infomercials when the pitchman would add in all kinds of items just to make a sale. Can't you hear it now? "For $19.95 a set of Ginsu knives!"

Value-added has become trite and meaningless.

It would be better to do what you do, obviously assuming you know your clients well enough to know what they need, and offer options without claiming some have more value than others. If the base package meets a basic need, fine. Set a price for it. If base plus additional services meets a greater need, find. Set a price for that too.

For example, as a professional speaker, there is a rate to book me for a keynote or general session. If the conference attendees would benefit from a keynote and a breakout, or a keynote and an emcee, or a keynote, breakout, and follow-up series, there are prices for those. However, the services beyond the keynote are not value-added. They are customized to meet the clients' needs, not an indication of value. If a conference simply needs a keynote, they get a high-value keynote.

 Adding for the sake of trying to hit on something that attracts clients diminishes the value of the service offered. Value-added lost its luster within the last few years. Just provide high value and whatever you do, and you won't have to sound like the infomercial pitchman screeching, "But wait! There's more!"

Talent > Flash at the Grammys and in Workplaces

Talent is more important than flash. That was one of the messages delivered loud and clear at this year's Grammy Awards.

It was delivered by six-time winner Adele, who wore a simple black dress as she accepted three awards in which Lady Gaga was a competitor. Lady Gaga wore a dominatrix costume and carried a scepter.  Adele was queen of the night and wore a simple black dress. Talent won over flash.

A second example was Foo Fighters front man Dave Grohl, who said the following when speaking on behalf of the band who won for Best Rock Album:  “For me this award means a lot because it shows that the human element of making rock is the most important. Singing into a microphone and learning to play an instrument and learning your craft is the most important thing for people to do...It’s not about what goes on in a computer. It’s about what goes on in (your heart) and what goes on in (your head.)” It is not about a computer altering your voice so it sounds perfect, it is about having enough talent without the voice needing alterations. Talent wins over computer-generated perfection.

A third example is the singer who wore a red devilish cape while walking the red carpet with a fake "pope". Putting aside how offensive that is to Catholics, the fact is, she was a joke. No one talked about her the next day as cutting-edge or a great artist. The same person performed, and her performance was considered droll. Obviously, she set out to be the most flamboyant person at the Grammys and to steal the show. But, no one was talking about her the next day. In fact, no one will be talking about her in a year or two, unless she becomes a criminal of some kind. The next day, that singer was a barely mentioned joke, while Adele was celebrated for her voice. Adele's performance won rave reviews.

Talent wins again.

In the workplace, it can be tempting to put on airs, but, remember, talent is more important. Walk is more important than talk in workplaces today.

You can carry a proverbial scepter around the office and act like you are more important than everyone else, but  if you have real talent, you won't need to. You won't need to put others down, copy someone else's act, or ride someone else's coattails. Work hard, work smart, and work well with others, and your talent will enable you to rise above the flashier people who simply talk about work. Talent wins over flash in the long run. As you build your reputation, keep Adele in mind. She didn't carry a scepter, attempt to offend millions of people, or fake her way to the top. When you are truly talented, you won't need to either.

------------------------
UPDATE 2/15/12

The singer described in the third example above was on one of the morning shows today. She was on the show to promote a charitable campaign of some kind (I didn't get the name of it), and she was friendly, well-spoken, and informed about the issue. She also was very sweet to a young singer who was on the show after her segment. She made me wish she had not made a joke of herself at the Grammys because she has a perspective worth sharing but ruined her chances (with some people, not all) by making her talent secondary.

Now, this question: when people resort to flash over talent (fluff over stuff), is that a form of self-sabotage? What do you think?

Teleflora shows what it thinks of women and it's not good

The New England Patriots receivers may have dropped some passes in last night’s Super Bowl, but the worst offense of the Super Bowl was Teleflora. In their television commercial, the florist blatantly implied that men who give a $70 vase of flowers will be repaid with sex.

Pundits are using that ad, along with a few others, to prove the old adage that sex sells. Other ads showed scantily clad women and one showed nearly all of David Beckham. Those ads are saying, “You can look sexy by wearing/driving/using this.” That is much different than what Teleflora’s ad said.

The florist’s ad said, “If you give this to your woman, she will have sex with you.” Said another way:  for a $70 bouquet, women will have sex.

Clearly, the florist thinks women are prostitutes. For a cheap $70 bouquet?!

I have three issues with the ad.

First, Teleflora is insulting women. Teleflora is telling men to send a vase of flowers that says, "I'm paying $70 for you to get naked." What self-respecting woman would fall for that cheap gimmick? Ladies, how impressed will you be if your man's Valentine's flowers are from that company?

Teleflora thinks women have low expectations, low morals, and low standards. Contrary to what that company thinks, women do not want flowers that say, "Get naked for this cheap bouquet." 

Second, the company is insulting men. Most men are not so stupid to send an overt demand of sex to a woman they care about. While men may have thought the model and ad were sexy (heck, women probably thought so too), smart ones will know they would be sending the wrong message if that gaudy red vase were delivered to a woman who saw that ad.

Third, I wonder how the company treats its female employees. It is obvious that the company does not hold women in high regard. How does that show up in department meetings? How do male managers speak to women there? Are women compelled to downplay their intelligence to get by in an antiquated culture? What were the meetings with the ad agency like—did the good old boys who revere the agency in Mad Men listen to any real women in 2012?

I say women should make sure that old sex sells adage is proven UN-true!

Ladies, tell your men you do not want flowers from that company. Men, you know your woman better than the florist does—if you know her expectations, morals, and standards are high, don't send her a cheap, gaudy vase that sends the message you think she is cheap and gaudy.

Don’t let the florist ruin your message by sending the wrong one on Valentine’s Day.


What do you think?
Leave a comment or answer the survey question above.

Paterno's greatest lesson

Penn State's head football coach Joe Paterno died today. He died just two months since the revelation that he did not prevent a child molester, one of his assistant coaches, from abusing young boys on the part of the campus he was responsible for the last 45+ years.

Paterno was fired in disgrace after reports came out about him ignoring witness reports of sexually abusive behavior taking place in the football team's locker room. Paterno himself admitted to not doing enough to prevent further abuse. The university fired him and severed all media and marketing ties with him. Some are saying he died of a broken heart after being so humiliated by the disgrace of his firing from his beloved university.

Since the child molestation crimes of Penn State's former assistant coach and Paterno's knowledge and acceptance of the molestation have become public knowledge, millions of people are angry at Paterno, but he still has some supporters. There are some people who have said today that "we should let the man rest in peace." Others have said they "will show Paterno the kind of peace he showed the children victimized on his watch: none!"

Within the Penn State family, Paterno was treated as a saint and revered as a man of remarkable character. Outside of Penn State, however, stories about his poor character, rudely offensive behavior, and lack of discipline among his teams are common, if not well known. Paterno's reputation within Penn State and outside of it have always been very different. The difference is even more evident since his lack of action to prevent child molestation became public.

In November, just after the assistant coach was arrested, I blogged about Paterno and others being true to who they are. (blog post) I wrote: Live All-In so when you are treated the way you deserve to be, you are treated very well. You are who you are when no one is looking. But, you should look. See yourself.

Now that Paterno has died, I wonder if he ever saw himself for who he really was.

I wonder what went through Paterno's mind during the last few hours of consciousness of his life. I wonder if he prayed and sought forgiveness for allowing the abuse to continue for so many years. I wonder if he hoped his legacy would be the good things he did during his life instead of the revelations of the last two months. I wonder if he was mad at Penn State for severing ties, thinking he didn't deserve it. I wonder if he was at peace with the legacy he leaves behind.

The lesson we can all take from Paterno's death and the recent months is that we should live so the answer about our legacy is clear. And, is desirable.

Whether we're thinking about the legacy of our lives or our departures from our jobs, volunteer leadership positions, or social events, we should live deliberately so there is no doubt about our legacy.

What do you want people to say about you after you leave your current company? Or, department, neighborhood, school, client, networking group, association chapter, or church? If you do not want people cheering your departure, choose your actions accordingly. If you do want people to miss you, remember you fondly, and appreciate your work, choose your actions accordingly.

So, whether you are on a big stage like Paterno was, people in your life will remember you one way or another.

You decide.

Speakers: we've got to do better!

Some young business colleagues posted this video with the caption "this is why we all hate speakers!" Oh, sure, a few bad lecturers give all speakers a bad name. The only way to change that reputation is by being interesting and impactful--not like this video!



What do you think: are the thoughts conveyed here realistic or way off base?

Papa John's culture of crass

Have you seen this Papa John's receipt posted by a customer last weekend?

Note the third line from the bottom where next to "Name" an employee entered "lady chinky eyes". The customer tweeted the picture of her receipt along with "Hey @PapaJohns just FYI my name isn't "lady chinky eyes".

The receipt is from Friday (January 6th), it was tweeted Saturday, and Sunday Papa John's issued an apology on its Facebook page.

"This act goes against our company values, and we've confirmed with the franchisee that this matter was addressed immediately and that the employee is being terminated," the pizza company said on its Facebook page. "We are truly sorry for this customer's experience."

Hey @PapaJohns, firing someone does not address the matter.

Why would an employee think that description was acceptable? 

Clearly there is a culture at Papa John's that enabled that employee to think it was acceptable to post such a crass description of the customer.

Do you think that was the only time such a description was used? And, do you think there was just one employee in the entire Papa John's organization speaking about people that way? Do you think firing that employee means the culture is fixed?

I do not. Firing someone does not align the culture with their values.

I'd like to know what Papa John's is doing, if anything, beyond firing someone. Are they doing anything to retrain customer service people? If so, is the training anything beyond admonishments such as, "Do not type physical descriptions on receipts"? The culture issue extends beyond what the employee typed on the receipt. Hopefully, Papa John's knows that and takes steps to fix it.

What do you think: did Papa John's do enough to address the matter by firing the employee?