JW was doing pretty well on the shuffleboard table in the lounge after a company-sponsored training event. The lounge is designed in such a way as to create a good networking environment and burn off some of the energy pent up during the day of sitting in classrooms. Her opponent was pretty good at shuffleboard also which gave way to a little professionally constructive “team building talk.”
Upon a pulling off a slim victory, one of JW’s colleagues asked her if she knew who she had just defeated. “No,” she replied. As it turns out, JW had just successfully beaten the prior family owner and largest stockholder of the company. Not a big deal per se, but something she will likely remember for her career. In comes the next challenger.
Here was the debate a couple days later. Being that the event was in this environment often attended by members of the board of directors, should JW had done research to have known the board members in advance or was it better she had not to give the encounter a far more “real” feel and result?
What side of the debate do you side with and why?
Monday, July 20, 2009
Know your surroundings
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
30 comments:
Here is the thing about hiring "A's" (especially out of college). They are not necessarily and "A" when it comes to the workplace. These A individuals are bookworms that can solve any problem that is placed in front of them. The idea of letting them spread there wings might not happen though. If they don't have a direction to go they might just sit.
Now if you look a little past the grades and maybe hire the "B" type personality. The person that held a part time job while in college, maybe played a sport. These people might need a little extra direction when they start a new job. However their multitasking skills will help them "spread there wings" down the road.
If you can find a combination of both. More power to you. Watch your back though because your job is in danger.
Not sure I see your point. Are you suggesting she should have known who she was competing against so she could decide whether she really wanted to try and win? Otherwise, what difference does it make?
While it shouldn't matter who you're playing in a company setting, the reality is that sometimes it does...and you can be "right and dumb" at the same time.
John,
As the title suggests I would certainly err on the side of knowing who I may be dealing with rather than not knowing a thing. That would hold true for any situation especially one which was made explicitly for networking.
The same sound advice can be found in practically every major publication or book on business leadership and waging war. There are few tenets that apply to every dealing on a business level. Knowing your surroundings is definitely one of them. JW was naive at best, perhaps ignorant for not taking the opportunity to sell him/herself effectively.
Cheers,
Alex Kersha
While I would expect JW to have a good grasp of the company's history to know who the board members are at least by name I would not expect them to know who they are by appearance without proper introductions. If proper introductions were made and JW did not make the connection that would be less damaging than not being able to do so at all.
I feel that it is a good idea to have a strong grasp of where a company began in order to understand where it is going and why it is going there. Knowing those who started the company and have the most stake in the company may not be entirely necessary but is a good idea if you want to have a big/bigger part in it. In addition, I would challenge that knowing would necessarily create a less "real" feel to encounter, at least not for someone who is true and has nothing to hide.
I'm not sure the issue is really about the winning of the game....
....so much as the losing of a networking opportunity!
John,
I fair on the side of research. Not to say she should have changed her competitiveness but if she would have done her research on the board she may have been able to make a long lasting impression with the former owner. I have found that networking and research go hand and hand and are very important in almost every situation as it can help you connect by way of shared interest, belief and even differences. Research works for me!
If it is understood that a person may have the opportunity of rubbing with the highest levels in the organization, advance preparation clearly doesn't hurt. From the standpoint of the competition; I believe if a person demonstrates their best at gamesmanship and competitive spirit, let it all out; provided it's done with finesse.
I think she should have familiarized herself with the board members in advance. "Doing your homework" is a long-established fact of life and being familiar with the upper levels of one's organization is just common sense. That said, I don't think she should have played the shuffleboard game any differently - unless her research also showed that her opponent was a poor loser and a vindictive one as well. If that board member is a true sportsman, he would not take kindly to someone throwing a game because of his status and he would learn something from losing.
Different approach - what if you just went there, acted like yourself and people enjoyed your company for you, not for someone you pretended to be or because you were on your best behavior. Just my two cents....
The short answer is "it depends". From a strictly mercenary perspective, absolutely she should know who she was playing, etc. On the other hand, and perhaps more important, this was play, and as you said a "chance to burn off some pent-up energy", in addition to a networking event. It sounds like this was more of a chance to relax and enjoy than a "business cards and keep moving around the room" type of event.
The advantage in this sort of quasi-social setting of not knowing is that JW can be completely authentic, rather than trying to be someone who she thinks might impress the board members. One doesn't get to be in those sorts of lofty positions without being able to recognize someone who is faking it, and by being completely herself (provided that 'being herself' doesn't involve being an ass), she has the opportunity to make a far better impression than if she was playing to the audience, as it were.
Put yourself in the position of the stockholder. Inevitably used to being treated with kid gloves, he finds himself in genuine competition with someone who only wants to win, regardless of who he is. I think I'd find that refreshing. I might even make a point of finding out who that individual was, and take an interest in their development.
Be yourself - no one else can do it for you!
Jeff Griffiths, CMC
The title of your posting implies to me that JW should have been better prepared and aware that she was playing a director, and if she did perhaps it would have affected the outcome (consciously or unconsciously) . So what, don't beat the boss at golf? ;-)
Since it was a "networking environment" why didn't they introduce themselves and their positions? Did the director in attendance research or care who THEY might be meeting? Did he take the time to introduce himself as a director and show any interest in acquainting himself with the employees? Or is that supposed to be 1-sided? And is it reasonable to expect people to be prepared for every chance encounter?
That said, it's always nice to know who you are dealing with... and treat them as you would treat anybody else, with the same respect without regard for their position anyway! And if you can beat them at their own game, that's a bonus.
Always do your homework though. Even seemingly innocent comments or actions may offend certain very influential people. It is one thing to relax in the company of well-known co-workers and/or friends, but quite another to be too casual in the presence of unknowns.
I'm not saying to be stiff and formal in all situations, just know the territory.
I believe in always doing my research. Too many times I've seen people say the wrong thing by not realizing who they're with or who's behind them.
IF she was interested in networking during this time, she should have known who would be there. Being yourself is always best if you're worth discovering, but you would need to be an extrovert in that situation. Which she was not, because if she was she have engaged her opponent in dialogue and learned who they were. That would have led to a natural communication that would have then not required the preparation. For someone lacking strong interpersonal skills they need to be more strategic. if she were an engaging personality she would have been fine just meeting people and learning about them through interaction.
I think investing the time to research and know people before socializing with them is a winning attitude, not just for sales and marketing professionals but for anyone that aspires to be a leader. Showing legitimate interest in knowing all people, not just major shareholders, is perhaps one of the critical skills that emerging leaders should take the time to cultivate.
I guess it really depends on the company or organization she works for and her position. I've seen lots of BOD's that are pretty low-key and don't expect to be recognized. I think it's equally as important for BOD's to know the people that make the companies they steer work....
That said, I suppose it wouldn't hurt to have known who they were.
And don't ever intentionally throw the game just because your opponent is a big wheel. However, don't crush your opponnet in a company lounge game either, no matter who it is (big or little wheel).
No worries. Don't over think this. Best to be respectful and natural in all things. I would not pick a side. Its the journey not the result. All should have been happy as it was a "holistic communication" event and any feelings or reactions an individual had were just their feelings/emotions and others no doubt would not care. Good post John.
My take is to always be yourself. Powerful people see through a "fake" persona quickly and are often alienated by that type of personality more so than your true self. This influenctual person probably appreciated the good game and someone who had the courage to win no matter the player.
I think board member or not there should be some research about who would be attending such events but in saying that the purpose is not to just "brown nose". I agree with Robert about how any games should be played as good sportsmanship and how the game is played can also show a lot of someone's character compared to just the winning or loosing of a game.
Very good post John!
I had read books by Stephen Covey in the past and just my opinion but I don't see any conflict with a victory over a company officer in that setting. It is team building excercises and if people on the front lines have to be concerned with should they play to their highest potential in a game against a colleague higher up the chain of command, that seems silly to me. I just think everyone should always try to acheive their best every day in everything they do. The family owner/stockholder should also know it is a game as well and any given person can learn something new each day, that is what life is about. Had the situation been something strategic to better the company and she went out on her own beliefs outside the company that would be quite different, but in that setting, no harm done whatsoever. I have been to events in the past outside of work that one game we play is called "BAGS" (you throw bean bags at a board about 20' away and pending where they land you get points, the first to 21 w/o going over wins) and I've gotten pretty good at and have scored better then my mentor and senior partner a few times, we just laugh it off and go to the next game (he's scored higher than me too a few times, so we're even). If you are always trying your best, you have nothign to worry about.
Great Thinking discussion !
John,
I've seen countless attempts at this all fail for very much the same reason. The leadership was never really interested in getting the bad news in the first place and only put the program in place as "window dressing"; to make it look like they were interested or to fulfill some audit requirement.
More often than not you can count on one thing: your employees/subordinates know far more than you think or want and will see right through this kind of subterfuge. My policy for the last few years has been to choose a subordinate that is well respected by their peers. Give them full disclosure on what the goals are and have them lead the effort to get all the feedback and ideas from the rest of the employees.
If you couple this with some creative incentives for participation and more importantly, follow through on bringing to fruition those points that are made, it's a win-win situation.
Cheers,
Alex Kersha
I think anyone who has reached the level of a CEO would recognize that it is a career limiting move to surround themselves with people who do not have diverse perspectives on topics that matter to the corporation, but yet inadvertantly surround themselves with yes-men because it is such an easy thing to do. Also, people in high positions quite often expect the bearer of bad news to have multiple attractive solutions to kill the issues. Quite often, people may not have ready solutions or the solutions that they have might be cost ineffective and hence I think they choose to bury their head in the sand and assume that fate rules. I think people at higher levels need to decouple problem identification and resolution in order to inhibit 'sugar-candy' situations.
The expression "failing to plan, is planning to fail" comes to mind. In other words, I think any planning is always beneficial and in this case it would have helped her follow protocol.
"Know your surroundings" is a good lesson in to operate in your comfort zone. Early in my career, I spent significant energy on being what I thought others wanted to see. Evaluating rooms, conversations and being on point at all times was common practice. The truth of the matter is, I became more successful when an admired mentor pulled me aside and said "lose the tie". I was shocked by the advice of the 20+ year corporate veteran with daily executive exposure.
That change allowed me to uncover my now largest, my valued customer whose management can often be found in the back wearing jeans and work boots or shorts and tennis shoes.
Let's give the executive credit. He put himself into a casual situation to find out who's really on the team and not who presents well in a structured environment. Doing business with genuine people builds stronger more successful companies and I believe that's what great leaders seek.
Sounds like the majority of comments lean toward erroring on the side of preparations.
For those that mentioned that JW should act the same independent of who she was playing against, I guess I took that as a given. Your reminders were a good clarification though. I would never purposefully throw the game to the boss. Now I might not beat him/her by some embarrassing amount though!!
John
Mr. Bishop, you present some interesting topics for discussion!
I tend to agree that when you are at a company event that you know is attended by major stockholders, it is wise to do homework. Especially if you are fortunate to run into the prior family owner of the company you work for; I've found that someone that starts a company, runs it successfully, and then sells the company and remains on as a major stockholder, deserves (and in most cases appreciates) recognition.
Competitive spirit and good sportsmanship aside, the former owner/major stockholder would (or should) appreciate that the new employees are well rounded, competitive, and most importantly invested enough in their job to know the history of the company and the major players.
She had played a whole game of shuffleboard and didn't yet know her opponent. Unlike tennis (or a myriad of other games) in which opponents are on opposite sides of a net/court shuffleboard players are RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER. If the event is structured for team building then why did she not talk with the guy? "Hi, my name is JW? What's yours?" That could be followed by "Where are you from?" and "How long have you been with the company?" and "Tell me about your family?"
In the interest of being specifically vague; neither, and both. Respect is the key R-word here. It applies in and out of the work place. If JW happened to be on holiday in Barbados and had the former PM of the UK as an opponent, and she happened not to recognise him (possible . . .), treating your opponent with competitive respect is applicable. In this instance, the impression left is good (assumption, I know). Additionally to this point, 'respect' means communication, and she would have discovered her opponents personal identity at least (if the opponent was particularly coy that day). Subsequently the rapport developed (even with maximum 'coyness') would have facilitated follow-up communication. It is better to research how to use the dewey decimal system rather than memorise where every book is.
John: after reading through all the comments I was left with two impressions. First, "know your sourroundings" as it relates to meetings, interviews, business conferences. Having intelligence prior to the event, in terms of who you are dealing with, will help stimulate discussions And make them feel more natural. It allows you time to plan and to visualize successful results. Secondly, it reminds me of an important point of "situation awareness" related to one never knowing who your talking to OR who might be listening. Next time you are in unfamiliar surroundings be mindful of those around you and how they might help you or hinder you.
Post a Comment