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!

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.)

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?

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?

3 ways to avoid success

How can you tell if someone wants to be successful? Perhaps they arrive at the office earlier than others, tackle challenging work, or propose innovative ideas toward progress. There are some obvious signs of success.

How can you tell if someone is a failure? Perhaps they sleep in until 8am, passively market their ideas, or do not have any ideas. There are some obvious signs of failure. There are some less obvious signs too, and three are listed below.

Three routes to avoid success and find failure:

1. Coattail Riding: Success does not come to those who ride the coattails of others. If you do not work hard yourself, you will not experience the same level of success as others, even if a little of their light shines on you.
2. Copying: Success does not come to copycats. Be original. Have something new to say. If you do not work hard to be a leader in your field of expertise, you will not be an expert. Reading someone else's work can be helpful and interesting, but copying it as your own will not make you successful. 
3. Crying: There's no crying over errors. Successful people keep moving forward, as it says in Put Your Whole Self In! Crying, wallowing, and whining are guaranteed routes to failure.

Those three routes to failure seem like they would be obvious too. Yet, many people ride coattails, copy, and cry rather than do the work required to be at the top of the heap.

Heineken nailed it

Heineken nailed it: You are who you are when no one is looking. As much as I dislike that trite phrase, it becomes more relevant every day as more and more people don't seem to realize its truth.

Whatever act you put on for peers, bosses, the media, clients, acquaintances, you are who you are. You are what you do. You are not who you say you are or who you think you are. You are who you are.

There are so many examples in the news right now, it is surprising to me how many people have not learned the truth. Or, perhaps they do not want to admit the truth about who they are--even to themselves.

One example is Penn State's legendary football coach, Joe Paterno. As you may have heard, one of Joe Pa's long-time coaches was arrested Saturday and arraigned on 40 criminal counts related to decades of sexual abuse of young boys. A 28-year-old graduate assistant witnessed the retired coach in the shower with a 10-year old boy in 2002. The assistant told Paterno, who reportedly told the Athletic Director, who apparently did nothing. Paterno did nothing else either.

The investigation and fallout from it continue, and I bring it up here because Paterno and his followers have upheld him as a beacon of greatness for decades. While Paterno has not been arrested, the fact is, he knew about the abuse and continued to allow the abuser to use the facilities at Penn State. So, whether he is legally responsible, he is morally responsible because he knew (he admits to knowing). He can think of himself as a beacon of greatness, his followers can continue to talk him up, ESPN can slop sugar all over him, but he is who he is. Paterno is someone who did not prevent gross sexual perversion of children from occurring in his facility, yet, he could have. Whatever his legal obligation, the bottom line is he knew about it and did not prevent it from continuing. He is who he is.

The Penn State situation is disgusting, and all details are not public yet.

Other less disgusting but just as obvious examples of people in denial of "you are what you are" are evident in workplaces every day:

• The manager or board member who takes credit for someone else's idea. 
• The business leader who promotes herself as a role model, yet is not successful in that business. 
• The salesperson who tells customers to buy more than they need, just so he can get commission on it.
• The employee who takes two-hour lunches, pads expense accounts, and takes office supplies.
• The entrepreneur who keeps long lists of things to do to improve his business, yet never does anything on the lists.

However you justify your behavior, however you position it to the media, coworkers, or your own mind, you are who you are. 

Live and work as though the truth of who you are is important. Whether you want to believe it or not, others can tell who you are and will treat you according to who you are, not who you think you are, not who you wish you were, and not who you say you are. The truth is evident to others. See yourself for what you are. If you do not like the results you are getting, look in the mirror.

As we talk about in The All-In Way sessions and the book Put Your Whole Self In, pass the Mirror Test every day. See yourself. See the truth about yourself. 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.

First impressions and basic economics

They say you never get a second chance to make a good first impression. True. But, isn't it the second impressions which matter most?

People size each other up quickly. In about seven seconds, we decide if someone looks like a worthy business adviser, expert, friend, technician, employee...the list goes on and on. How often do you judge someone unworthy, based on first impressions alone (looks, voice, written, comments), yet give them another chance anyway? Frequently, right?

It is common to give second chances. Everything today is about relationships, so we can't write people off for what bothers us in less than a minute. For one thing, we have to work with people who don't impress us right away. We also serve them as customers, live next door, work on church committees, plan school events, and dine with them as friends of friends.

If a dear friend introduces you to her favorite coworker, who is drinking her third martini at Happy Hour Friday night, you're likely to forgive her coworker's bad karaoke rendition of Sweet Caroline. Or, if you get assigned to a project team with the office gossip, you'll keep your guard up rather than complain to the boss about expecting to be assigned to teams full of people you love dearly.

We adapt. We deal with people we don't click with. We give second chances. Most of the time it is smart to do so, and it often works out well for both sides.

The one time second chances are hard to get and give is basic economics: when supply is greater than demand.

For example, when interviewing for a new position and there are dozens, or thousands, of competing applicants, first impressions separate the interviewees. Typos on resumes ruin first impressions and knock candidates out of the running.

In today's competitive marketplace, first impressions count because supply exceeds demand. For example, I recently purchased a washer and dryer at Lowes. The experience was unpleasant from start to finish, so the next time I need something, Lowes will not be considered. In my one experience, it seems Lowes employees have poor eye sight. There's a direct competitor next door. Can they see it? Supply exceeds demand in their industry.

What about in your industry? Does supply exceed demand? If so, first impressions count. As do second, third, fourth...EVERY impression counts today. Use basic economics to your advantage by paying attention to every impression and by selling when a competitor missteps. Distinguish yourself and your business by considering every impression essential.

Is there an industry today where supply exceeds demand? What do you think about first impressions in your line of work?

Twitter is making me skeptical of thought leaders

I love Twitter. I love connecting with people all over the world--most are interesting and generous with their knowledge. At least the people I follow are that way--interesting and generous.

I have chosen each "follow" carefully upon quick reviews of each profile. While I may have missed a few here or there, for the most part, I review profiles before re-following and prior to initiating a Twitter relationship.

Upon reviewing about a dozen profiles this morning, I noticed about half called themselves "thought leaders." Their use of the word startled me because it seems like something others should say rather than something one should say about oneself.

The word prompted me to dig a little deeper to see if they were indeed "thought leaders."

Not that I am in charge of assigning such a label as "thought leader" for everyone else, I can do so for myself. So, I assigned the label to just two of the people whose profiles and web sites I viewed. I am glad to know about those two folks and anticipate learning from them in future tweets.

What made them thought leaders? Their posts, profiles, and web sites showed them to be original (not one Zig Ziglar motivational quote among them), thought-provoking, fresh thinkers.

Surely, we all can agree that those who only post quotes from others, whether they are business experts, self-help gurus, or musical artists, are not "thought leaders."

What do you think: is it appropriate to label oneself a "thought leader"? Or, is that label better left for others to use?

Perhaps the term implies different things to different people--what does it imply to you? Your input could help reduce my skepticism of thought leaders in the future.