What to do?

The headline sounds like abandoning hope - but in fact it is meant as the exact opposite; a very affirmative message. It's about how we put our resources to the best use - I also got a response to the same event where I got the anecdote from yesterday. According to Mr. Farber who told the anecdote as well as the following, it is so very simple:

Do what you love in the service of people who love what you do.

Now, this is a beautiful insight to start one's day on. Now, there are only two things left to do: find out whether you love what you do, and whether the people you do it for actually love what you are doing. Well, maybe three things to do - if you cannot give a positive answer to both of the previous questions, it might be a good idea to start figuring out how to turn either of the answers into a resounding Yes!
(Translated from Hvad skal man gøre?, originally published September 30th, 2013)

More than you know of are customers

Now I wrote the other day that all people are customers, but the truth is actually even more scary (or promising, depending on how you want to see things). At some point, I heard a lecture by American management giant Steve Farber, where an interesting anecdote was told.
It was about a man who had been on a business trip in the United States. At a point, he needed to have some documents certified . He walks past a local bank able to do this, enters and tells the woman behind the counter about his need, after which he asks what it will cost him.
Then the woman behind the counter tells him:
"It's free. It's a service we do for our customers."
"But I'm not one of your customers."
"No. But maybe you'll be one day."
Why do I have the feeling that this bank has more potential customers than one who uses any opportunity to twist a little petty cash out of random people passing by?
(Translated from Mere, end man aner, er kunder, originally published September 29th, 2013)

From the chess board - and beyond

I heard a good point the other day, picking up its concepts from the world of chess - a point that was so good that I have to repeat it here. In all its simplicity, it went approximately as follows:

It makes no sense to hire chess players and treat them as chess pieces.

- so to understand that when you hire excellent people (and of course you do not want to hire people if you do not think they are excellent - then you prefer yet another job interview with yet another candidate), you should give them space to be excellent, rather than start exposing them to micromanagement. As the developer of the programming language C ++, Bjarne Stroustrup, has written in a footnote in his book on the language:

 An organization that treats its programmers as morons will soon have programmers that are willing and able to act like morons only.

And there is no reason to believe this is true for programmers only.
 Micromanagement destroys the progress of a company, one can rightly say. But on the other hand, if you absolutely insist on telling your employees that you have no confidence in them, micromanagement is a really excellent way to do it.
(Translated from Fra skakbrættet - og andre steder)

Fishing and followers

After spending some time on Twitter, I have now started to notice a regularly repeating pattern. Followers coming out of the blue - without me really understanding why I should be of interest to them - following me for a couple of days and then disappearing again.
I have gradually come to the conclusion that they just come by to fish for followers - and since I'm not interested in following them, they simply disappear again.
It is probably very good that it is this way. Because I'm not the type who mindlessly follows people because they follow me. I follow people whose tweets can inspire me when they appear in my Twitter feed. Just like I hope people follow me because I can give them inspiration when I appear in their Twitter feed.
In particular, I appreciate people with whom I can engage in two-way communication - be it on Twitter or elsewhere - so that it can provide inspiration, food for thought and value to both parties. I would rather have five such followers than I would have 5000, who just come around fishing for me to follow them.
(Translated from Fiskeri og følgere)

The only right choice

One of my favourite quotes is attributed to Churchill, eventhough no one seems to be able to find the source for it:

A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; An optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.

It however sound very good together with another quote, which can be traced back to Churchill:

For myself I am an optimist - it does not seem to be much use to be anything else.

With the definition of the pessimist and optimist from the first quote, it is obviously true. We must see the possibilities in the difficulties, not the opposite. There will undoubtedly be trouble - Churchill had his fair amount of trouble in his time; but only by taking the difficulties as challenges and doing our best to overcome them we have the chance to get something better. Pessimism and negativity merely lead to apathy, resignation and fulfillment of the apocalyptic prophecies one creates for oneself. And that will bring no joy - at least not, if one ignores the extremely poor and stupid one of the kind it is to be able to say "I told you so!"
(Translated from Det eneste rigtige valg, originally published February 24th, 2017)

A state funeral for that cat, please!

I once encountered a beautiful quote by the Canadian author Arnold Edinborough:

Curiosity is the very basis of education and if you tell me that curiosity killed the cat, I say only the cat died nobly.

But wait a second! - does it mean that it's a noble pastime to immerse oneself in gossip to discover in detail whether one's favorite actor's relationship is in crisis? I don't want to think so: rather, I think there are two kinds of curiosity. François de la Rochefoucauld tells us in this way:

There are different kinds of curiosity: one springs from interest, which makes us desire to know everything that may be profitable to us; another from pride, which springs from a desire of knowing what others are ignorant of.

Now, rather, I mean that the two kinds of curiosity can be described as constructive and destructive curiosity - or perhaps rather as craving for knowledge and prying, respectively. For there is no doubt that it is not fair to let the things that people have an interest in being secret about, which any idea of ​​privacy give them the right to keep for themselves, be the topic of one's curiosity. But the constructive curiosity; the craving for knowledge, which makes us all smarter, and which does not hurt anyone, we cannot get too much of.
On a different note, I'm not entirely aware of where that cat lived when curiosity killed it. But it was not the blacksmith's cat - an old Danish saying has that it was killed by thanks. Although it's noble enough to be thankful, you cannot live off thanks alone...
(Translated from Giv den kat en statsbegravelse, originally published November 28th, 2010.

On the topic of kicking in open doors

One thing that I find very difficult to relate to is the approach that some speakers use to open their speaches - they enter the stage with outbreaks to the audience like "Are you there?" And when the inevitable half-hearted response then comes, they add a "I can not hear you - are you there?"
It may well happen that it's a method that works if you are completely sure that you have an audience who are ardent followers, in rock concerts and similar settings. Otherwise, it is just trying to kick in a lot of open doors (for those who have the energy to yell "YEAHH!", will probably come along anyway) - but at that very point the previously doubtful are already lost in advance, and the speaker will never win them back.
(Translated from Noget om at sparke åbne døre ind, originally published October 3rd, 2013)

A little progress is progress, too

I have for some time harboured an ambition to acquire just a little Arabic to expand my horizons and understand the most basic.
Recently, I had an opportunity to visit places where Arabic can be experienced, while it was still possible to get by in English, so I was not completely lost.
And despite the fact that my efforts have been extremely limited and I have infinitely much to learn yet, I was pleased to see that where I previously heard a totally incomprehensible flow of mumbo-jumbo, I was now able to pick out small pieces like 'كيف حالك' or 'صباح الخير' and understand them (in the middle of a word stream which I still admit is mumbo-jumbo to me) - when I stand in front of 'بلوميتغديلز' I can spell my way through it and understand the company name before I doublecheck the English logo - and when flight 'واحد خمسة واحد' is announced, I can hear that it's my plane before the announcement comes in English.
That is not much. But it is important to note that a little progress is also progress.
(Translated from Små fremskridt er også fremskridt, originally published May 14th, 2017)

An (honest) appearance

We live in a culture that does not favour display of vulnerability and uncertainty - vulnerability and uncertainty are signs of weakness, and weakness is not a personal feature that has overwhelmingly positive impact on one's career prospects. Rather, it can be taken as an invitation to others that this is a person who is easily bullied.
But does it have to be that way? For is it not so that the one who tries to build up an unbreakable armour by radiating safety and invulnerability will make other people think that there must be something hidden somewhere? A weakness, which the person is overly eager not to put to display?
I think the best thing to do is simply to let other people know that I can also be vulnerable and insecure. If such cases are put on display, it becomes much more trustworthy when I appear to be robust in other situations - because I am able to show weakness.
Who knows - maybe one would even be able to hide the uncertainties that one is not interested in displaying in public?
(Translated from Et (ægte) ansigt udadtil, originally published October 12th, 2012)

On the topic of What and How

This quote comes from a source that might be unexpected; general George S. Patton, Jr., Commander of the United States' Third Army during the battles in Europe in 1944-45 - but nevertheless, it's an interesting quote:

Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do, and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.

It's interesting because it does not only have military relevance; in fact, this is the case in most situations: if you tell people how to do things; well, they might do just that - but what if they had better ideas, which they simply keep in due to reverence towards your authority or similar reasons?
Of course, you can give people your opinion if they ask how to do things done - but it would in any case be a good idea to encourage them to come up with their own ideas on how things should be done. They might actually surprise with their ingenuity, and come forward with suggestions you never imagined.
(Translated from Noget om hvad og hvordan, originally published July 25th, 2013)

Workout for a fearless muscle

Last year, I stumbled upon an interesting quote by Arianna Huffington:

Fearlessness is like a muscle. I know from my own life that the more I exercise it the more natural it becomes to not let my fears run me.

It's a beautiful quote. And there is nothing as affirming in life as when you feel that you have exercised your fearlessness and feel that after having been outside of your comfort zone, you have expanded both fearlessness and comfort zone. We should do it more often.
Obviously, it should not lead to stupidity without care. As it was said in the movie "After Earth": "Danger is very real, but fear is a choice." And there is reason to relate rationally to the specific danger and disregard the fear.
(Translated from "Workout for en frygtløs muskel", originally published February 15th, 2016)

On the topic of (not) walking the talk

One of my favourite bloggers out there recently asked the question: Why do we say a leader lacks authenticity, when what we mean is they're a hypocrite?
I think part of the reason for using “not authentic” rather than “hypocrite” is that authenticity is a positive/good character trait whereas hypocrisy is a negative/bad one. For some reason, there’s a milder tone to being “not good” than to being “bad”.
And therefore, recognizing people as lacking positive traits rather than displaying bad traits is a milder judgment – which in turn makes it easier for us not to walk the talk and in some way express that it’s impossible to work with that person, e.g. by resigning.
That, I think, is at least part of the explanation.
(Translated from Noget om at (ikke) at gå linen ud)

Property and employability

Don't worry - I will soon stop ranting about market value people being goods and customers for each other, but nevertheless, I just need to put forward a single phrase, because I think it fits so well into the context. In all its simplicity, it reads as follows:

You own your own employability.

- or in other words: you yourself are the sole responsible for making yourself interesting for an employer. We have not reached the point where I can expect my employer to find a new and interesting piece of work for me at the moment when there is no longer any need for the effort I currently provide.
I myself must control to which extent I am worth recruiting and for what - that's the freedom I have when I offer myself to the market - my market value is my property and it is my task to manage it as good as possible.
- and yes, I would like to acknowledge that this is the same as saying that one is only employed by an employer as long as the relationship between employer and employee makes sense. At the moment when this is no longer the case, the product is not good enough for the customer's needs - and then there is no longer any deal.
(Translated from Ejendom og ansættelighed, originally published September 14th, 2013)

All people are customers

In our current, highly commercialised society, with its extensive freedom of choice everywhere, we have to realise that all people are customers - in the sense that in virtually every relationship we are part of, we can consider ourselves as items that we have to make available for sale. If I want a job, I must make my skills marketable; if I want to socialise, I must make myself sufficiently interesting to be let in; if I want to enter into a relationship with a significant other, I must sell my qualities to this person.
We are however in the situation that as citizens, we do not have to sell us to the nation; just like parents in typical families have a monopoly on the product they offer to their children - and we can also be so fortunate that through an advantageous sale we have made earlier, we live on old market value - there are both employment relationships and interpersonal relationships that exist on the inertia inherent in such relationships - but basically, one can just as well come to terms with it: I am a commodity, my surroundings are my customers, and my relationships to them depend on my market value in their opinion. And, of course, the other way around - for my outside world are also goods, I am their customer, and my inclination to buy depends on their market value in my eyes.
It may be a bitter pill to swallow - and of course you can try arguments like "but my friends accept me for who I am". Of course. Because you are worth it. Or - which should be a matter of particular reflection - because you are still selling on the basis that at an earlier stage, you had a market value, which was sufficiently high for you to still enjoy its afterglow...
(Translated from Alt er kunder, originally published September 12th, 2013)

On the topic of market value

Some time ago I heard an interesting point of view on people management. In all its simplicity it was stated that a people manager's sole duty towards her employees is that she must at any time work to increase their market value - enable them to sell themselves at a higher price, so to speak. If the manager does so, the employee has every reason to be satisfied.
On the other hand, the worst accusation that you can give your manager face to face is: "You do not increase my market value" - or perhaps even "You are impairing my market value." If the employee is in that situation, it is the most important reason that she should look after something else to do.
Not least if the manager is confronted with it and no improvement can be noticed.
(Translated from Noget om markedsværdi, originally published March 5th, 2012)