Flashing alarm lights in management

Not so long ago, I had a new job - changing from a larger workplace to a smaller one, where the development department I ended up in is the size of the HR department alone in my former workplace.
Not that I have ever doubted that I chose correctly by saying yes to my new job. I can certainly find things I miss - especially many excellent, now former colleagues - but if I will ever be really in doubt, I just have to look at the post-it note that I have placed in the front of my notebook - from a meeting at my old workplace where we discussed processes and improvements to them.
In all simplicity, it says:
Which part of my overhead is necessary - and which is just to please HR?
Now, when a company's employees seriously start asking themselves such questions, all warning lights should start flashing. In management - and especially in HR ...
Translated from Blinkende lygter på ledelsesgangen)

Why? No - Why not?!

One of the most terrible phrases I know is "toxic relationships". The worst thing about it is that the phrase covers something that is at least as terrible as the expression itself. That is, people involved in relationships with other people without any positive contribution. Rather, it is the opposite; they only drain each other for energy in a non-constructive way. At worst, it is directly harmful to those involved because it harms their mental well-being.
Ideally, when we relate to other people, we do it to make a contribution to each other. To make each other better, as they say in the world of sports. We bring our diversity, enjoy the fact that others are not identical to ourselves, and together we form a unity larger than the parts that it consists of. As in the world of sports, thus also in workplaces and in relationships.
But sometimes things go wrong. Typically, it is in relationships that were originally good, but where the parties forgot what it was that back in the day made their relationship better than the parts it consisted of. Where people have found (as we say in Danish) the holes in the cheese, focused on them and let them grow so big that it is impossible to see what one once saw. Colleagues, who once worked well together, are now stuck in a psychologically bad work environment that they basically created together. Married couples who promised each other to love and to cherish each other until death did them part, but now live together as cat and dog, where people around them hardly remember when the fighting parties recently exchanged a loving word.
And you can ask yourself: why? Why do colleagues insist on ignoring that the salary they earn is expensive money to pay for the lack of psychological welfare that the get in return? Why do couples stay together for the sake of their children, but do the children no good by letting them experience Mum and Dad treat each other in a way that has nothing to do with loving relationships?
But maybe you should rather ask yourself: why not? Why do they not get together, look at each other and one self and consider what in the world they are doing? And start getting back to what initially made them know the other party as someone who could contribute to a relationship that was larger than its individual parts?
See, "why not" is probably the better question. And it should not be harder to ask yourself or others than "why?"
(Translated from Hvorfor? Nej, hvorfor ikke?!, originally published February 22nd, 2018)

Anxiety at arm's length

A couple of years ago, I attended some lectures - including a lecture by a psychologist, who uses some time telling about, how he during his work life had done quite a lot of things due to chance; things that might not have been the obvious, and for sure not the secure, choice. But as he said:

If we can just keep anxiety at arm's length, we can move.

Even though I heard a lot of interesting stuff during a week of lectures at the time, it might be the above sentence that I have brought with me clearest in memory. Because if we make a habit of thinking like that, when we conjure up wild plans - and make certain to reassure ourselves, when there's nothing to be afraid of (and in most cases, there is nothing to be afraid of) - then it becomes so much easier to have a plan B at hand. And a plan C. And maybe actually work a bit on all of these plans while we are busy with whatever we are doing. Because there's nothing to be afraid of.
(Translated from Angst og armslængder, originally published October 2, 2012)

In praise of good colleagues

In previous blog posts, I have written about how important elements like good leadership, good corporate culture and corporate values ​​are as means to retain people in a workplace - but when discussing with Janice Kobelsky in continuation of my post about the tower that did not lean, it dawned on me that to my experience, one factor is even more significant. Good colleagues. Well, it does not have to be much more than just a single good colleague.
Now I have never been cast in such a way (or rather, my eyesight is not sufficiently good) allow me to spend time on any kind of military service, so I can not comment on the relationships that are formed among brothers in arms - but on a slightly less serious level, among people who remain my very close friends, I count a handful of excellent people who are all former colleagues of a quite exceptional nature.
They are the kind of people that I have always been able to get along with, without any of us having any kind of hidden agendas; where we have never been in doubt that no matter how dire straits we would end up in, we could trust that we would always have each other's back - this even went so far that when some of these people became former colleagues, they told me about their considerations long before they left their position.
Such people are rare. But there is no doubt that when you meet them you should stick to them. Also long after you are no longer colleagues - because they are not only unusually good colleagues; they also have the potential to form unusually good, lifelong friendships.
(Translated from Til den gode kollegas pris, originally published February 14th, 2018)

Vacationing with a clean conscience

In some circles, it seems that managers consider it a good idea to be a role model, spending time working during vacation periods like the upcoming Christmas holidays. Apparently with the purpose to give the people they manage a good example to follow, spending some time themselves, thus increasing the overall productivity.
However, I'm afraid it's just not a good idea at all - on the contrary, it might rather be a bad idea. Vacations are not intended for work. Vacations are meant to be days off for the vacationing person. Time to spend to recover - recharge oneself physically and mentally to be able to once again perform optimally when returning to work and the daily life. And often, it will prove to be a better investment to let employees keep a clean conscience while doing nothing productive at all during vacations, rather than pushing them to squeeze some extra hours out of them, thereby only achieving a lower overall performance.
But this of course demands the ability to see the bigger picture.
(Translated from: Ferie med ren samvittighed)

On the topic of saying no

I used to be exceptionally bad at saying "no" to people, when they came to me for help - not least in the workplace. As a misunderstood attempt to be friendly, I would like to help anyone who contacted me with something that I could help them with.
And, as such, it was very good. Apart from the fact that I rarely had the resources to help all those who wanted help. Time used to run short.
And then suddenly it dawned on me: the fact that I cannot say "no", does not enable me to help everyone. It does not mean that I will not have to say "no" anyway. It just makes those who ask for help prioritize for me - after a first-come, first-served principle, resources are used, and when there are no more, the only possibility is to say "no, unfortunately". Or, what's even worse, return to some of those I have already promised to help and say that unfortunately, it cannot be done anyway. Hence, I basically reduce my own reliability.
So now I work with myself and do my best to get better, not saying "yes" to everything. In particular, if someone is better at helping than I - and that often happens - then less time is wasted. But also when there has to be room for something that's more important. Because I have learned that the only thing that happens when I cannot say no is that I exhibit unusually bad ability to prioritise.
(Translated from Noget om at sige nej, originally published October 19th, 2017)

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)

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)

On the topic of answering honestly

At work, I'm blessed with a small tool that will ask me once a week how I am at work - how my energy level is; do I get good feedback; do I appreciate my boss; would I recommend my workplace to others. If there are any points where I think there is room for improvement, I will be asked anonymously to put an idea forward on how the improvement could take place.
That way, my boss gets a snapshot of the satisfaction level in the department, and an insight into whether there may be points where something should be done.
It is all very well.
Apparently.
Because I've discovered that unconciously, I will start thinking: if I answer this question in this way - will the tool come forward and ask me why? And would I have the energy, the space, the time or the ability to explain why?
Once you have this kind of thoughts, it suddenly becomes all to easy to jump to the conclusion: I just answer a little more positively than what I really feel - then I will not be asked.
The problem is: if I do, I simply undermine the whole process.
So, therefore, I've made a virtue out of - especially when I get that kind of thought - answering as honestly as possible. In the anonymous answer to the question that will follow, I will always be able reflect my thoughts as well as possible. Including whether I have to refrain from answering because I do not have the energy, the space, the time or the ability to explain adequately.
In that way, we maintain at least one figment of justification for spending time on such things.
(Translated from Noget om at svare ærligt, originally published March 18th, 2017)

The Most Important Task

Not many days ago, I used almost one and a half minutes on Daniel Pink and his Pinkcast - now I did it again. This time his talked over a topic he picked up from the writer Leo Babauta - a topic, abbreviated into MIT (no, not that MIT, but rather): the Most Important Task: if you want to get the right things done, start the day by picking out the Most Important Task of the day, and without hesitation get on with it: allowing no outside disturbance such as e-mail, Twitter or other procrastination to get in the way until the MIT is completed.
It is, as Pink also indicates, somewhat of a revelation, because it is so obvious, when you think about it. Just get on with it.
And, well, just hope for the stakeholders of your Second-most Important Task being unable to physically place themselves between you and your MIT...
(Translated from Den mest betydningsfulde arbejdsopgave)