Forces at Work – Part III

The prior two articles outlined several typical scenarios at work that can be explained by looking at hidden forces (social dynamics). They are described by liken them to common games we all know: Blocks, Chess and Monopoly. The typical players with blocks are teams of engineers, working together to build something new. They want to be left alone to build the biggest tower they can imagine. Chess players are middle management, all fighting over a common set of resources, trying to outsmart each other. Monopoly is played by executives and senior management. They don’t like rules, they just want to win. And they do that by any means available. In this article we will start with examining how to play with blocks.

Playing with Blocks

Playing with blocks or bricks is what the majority of employees are doing. They design, develop, and support products and services, either in project- development teams comprised of employees from many different specialties or from functional groups such as customer support or finance. They are focused on getting their job done and moving on to the next challenge. This is where value creation takes place.

How do you win playing with blocks at work? There are many ways. You can be recognized for delivering a project according to plan. Or perhaps you had an idea for a new feature that was implemented in a product. As a result, you may get a raise and be allowed to work from home. Fundamentally, winning is being part of the team and permission to continue to play with blocks. Losing is not being allowed to play. There are many ways to win, but only one way to lose, namely, you are no longer allowed to play and must leave the company. In this chapter, we will first look at the rules and then discuss options for how to win.

Core Rules

There are universal rules that everyone has to abide by when playing with blocks or bricks. There is simply no way around them. These rules are deeply rooted in how the world works. For instance, you cannot put a two- by-four LEGO brick on top of a column of ten one-by-one LEGO bricks and expect the whole structure to be stable. A small bump will make it fall over. You simply cannot build a one-foot LEGO bridge without long supporting bricks, either.

In the real world, the universal rules are similar, except they are built on the core of human behavior. We all know what good behavior looks like. It may vary from place to place, but it normally includes respect, integrity, honesty, and accountability, to name a few. Most companies declare some of these to be part of their core values. In addition, they may add company values, such as customer focus, community, fearless innovation, and teamwork. By combining people and company values, you get a set of rules that outline the behavior that is expected at work. These are the core rules of playing with bricks on the job. You can try to ignore them, but people will notice and remember your omissions.

Problems arise when employees take liberties with core rules, such as honesty and respect. This puts everyone in a bind, particularly if the person in question is doing great work. Now management and its teams are forced to make a decision: accept the lack of honesty for the sake of great work or value honesty over great work? Often these choices are not that clear-cut. But they need to be resolved, because in the long term, breaking the rules will ruin teamwork and eventually destroy teams and, potentially, the whole company.

Unfortunately, for some managers, breaking rules is acceptable. They plan to exit the company by the time of reckoning. All they need in the short term is to show results and use them as a springboard for their next steps.

Adhering to the core rules is not enough to be rewarded, but it is required for long-term success. Playing with blocks as long as you like is part of that success. Therefore, sticking to the basic rules is a must and, frankly, one of the simpler requirements.

Team Rules

We all like rules that support how we want to get things done. For example, we expect peers to do what is needed without too much debate. We like to assume it is enough to give a team directions once and then check back when all the work is done. But that is not how the world works.

The problem is that when we, as people, think about desired rules, they often conflict with the real world. If I had a choice, I would prefer a team with no conflicts, and every time I speak, the team stops what they are doing, listens, and then applauds. Of course, I have not found this team or place yet. Instead, I always seem to find teams with a set of rules that are created in an imperfect world, resulting in rules that are not ideal. At least, that is my experience.

We all can feel frustrated by events at work. But if you can’t overcome feelings of hopelessness, it may lead you to seek greener pastures in different team or company. Or, said in a different way, you are looking for a team with rules that you like better.

But we have choices. Leaving can be one way of finding success. Sometimes, that is the best decision. But before making that choice, think about the costs. It takes time to get in the door, to find a new team, to become accepted, and then achieve success. So before leaving, make sure you have exhausted every opportunity at your current place of work.

Another path to success is to learn and accept the team rules. Ponder what they will allow you to do and what opportunities they can provide. Be aware of placing limits on yourself, such as, I am not experienced enough or there are other people who can do the job better. It is critical to not mingle these self-imposed limits with the core block rules. These rules are enforced by others, while your one personal limits should not be holding you back.

Back to the team rules: Each set of rules, or accepted behaviors, exist as a result of one or more leaders practicing their management philosophies. Rules also change over time, but they never disappear. The rules may vary across teams, or they may be fairly consistent throughout the company. Regardless, the better you understand them, the easier it will be for you to play with blocks or bricks.

Team rules drive team behavior in every way. Understanding them gives you the insight into why these rules are in place and which ones are more important than others. A team with a specific set of rules is bound to operate in a certain way, and this behavior tends to repeat. That is your opportunity: understand the rules, and let them work in your favor. That will allow you a better chance at predicting the future, to foresee and rank possible outcomes.

You may challenge some of the rules, and you may choose to accept others. It all depends upon what will provide better results for a given situation and for your long-term success. Regardless, it is important to recognize that what happens at work is not about you. We often interpret events as if they were designed to cause us harm. They are not. Playing with blocks or bricks at work is not about any one person. It is about the bigger picture—and what you can contribute to the system.

Categories of Team Rules

There are many types of rules at work. I have encountered a broad range of them. For the longest time, I have been trying to understand the different sets of rules and which approach could provide the best results.

While working for Apple, my role was to help teams that had gotten themselves into trouble or faced a challenge. I quickly had to understand a team’s dynamics in order to provide the appropriate level of support or, in some cases, suggest changes. If I approached every team as a totally unique system, it would take a long time to address the situation. So I started to look for commonalties and patterns, then link them to proven approaches. Eventually, I learned to quickly identify patterns, and my ability to help teams improved. But it was not until recently that I was able to organize the rules of playing with blocks into four distinct categories.

I first read about these categories in an article by Gibson Burrell and Gareth Morgan called “Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis,” published in 1979. It tries to make sense out of behaviors, particularly what motives are behind behaviors. I have taken inspiration from these categories and provided my own interpretation. I have done this to make it easy to understand what motivates certain teams and how to achieve success in a given situation. Thank you Burrell and Morgan for a great inspiration! The reason these categories resonated so well is that they perfectly describe my own observations and encounters.

The first category I call the Dolphins. These mammals have adapted to life in the ocean over millions of years. They are fast swimmers and effective hunters, use biological sonar for orientation, and communicate frequently using sound (clicks). They are described as very intelligent and curious. But most of all they are social beings. They swim in pods that loosely belong to a larger group. As male dolphins mature they may move into other pods. They form bonds, they squabble and fight. Dolphins may all look the same, but they are really individuals, some even have a signature whistle. Dolphins live within their social boundaries, but everyone takes part in everything the pod does. They hunt together, they play together, and they relax together. There is no larger purpose in life than simply living in the moment.

The second category is best described as Aristotle. He was a Greek philosopher and scientist (384–322 BC). He was one of the earliest contributors to logic theory. Aristotle believed that the greatest human endeavor was to use reason and avoid extremes. This concept is called “The Golden Mean.” In other words, apply moderation in all things. Aristotle looked at the world as a logical place where everyone and everything has its place. Therefore (my interpretation), everyone should work well together as a team with common goals.

The third category is Captain Nemo, from the book Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea by Jules Verne, published in 1870. In this fictional story, we find a person who has abandoned humankind, society, and any organization. Captain Nemo and his small crew have left society behind to travel the oceans of the globe in an electric submarine called Nautilus, which is a hundred years ahead of its time. Captain Nemo’s many brilliant inventions could have changed the world for the better, but he kept them all to himself.

The Joker is the fourth category. Every deck of cards comes with two Jokers. These wildcards, or shape-shifters, take on whatever value and suite the holder wants them to have. These cards bring unpredictability. Any card game with Jokers puts pressure on the established rules. As a result, everywhere a Joker goes, there is conflict and struggle.

To summarize, here are the four categories and their view of the world.

• The Dolphins: The world is observed from an individual point of view within a social structure.
• Aristotle: People are rational. Therefore, groups are meant to work well together.
• Captain Nemo: Organizations are bad. Structure prevents human potential; therefore, we must abandon it.
• The Joker: Everything is a crisis. Imminent change is needed because of inherent structural conflicts between groups.

The Dolphins

They live in the moment. Everything is about the here and now. They support the pod because it provides security, better hunting, and someone to play with. They may form strong bonds with other dolphins. Or they might find reasons to fight. Their curiosity drives them to explore and may lead them to friendly encounters with humans, But is does not mean that everything is perfect.

Dolphins are like any group of people you would find in any small town. They experience life through their own points of view and approach challenges in different ways. But none of them is driven by any underlying motive that opposes other teams or people. They don’t think about creating a project plan for approaching something new. Instead, they stay true to themselves and power on. At the same time, they tolerate one another and participate in joint activities.

This is the most common type of team, where everybody operates in his or her own world, struggling with daily challenges. If you encounter this kind of team, the behaviors, or rules, are all about proving oneself and showing success. Some may have their own personal goals, while others are just dedicated to being themselves. In this group, it is about overcoming adversity regardless of challenges and doing the right thing. Rarely is there any deep-seated hostility or ill will. It may surface, but it is not what makes this team unique. This team is filled with personalities that respond to their own needs first and others’ next.

The one situation, hands down, that really reveals the Dolphin dynamic at work is the office move, when a group is relocated to a new environment. In no other situation have I seen individuals being forced so far out of their shells. What on the surface is a rather dull event can turn into turmoil that lingers for years. I remember that while I was at Apple we moved from the open-cube environment in the Mariani 1 building into headquarters at 1 Infinite Loop, which at the time contained a brand-new research and development campus with offices and some cubes here and there. Each group was assigned a section of the building. The new campus had offices that lined a hallway. In a few places, cubicles lined the outer wall, against tall windows facing a calm, park-like setting. Employees had to choose among an office with a window, a cube with a window, or an office with a window facing the hallway. Productivity in the group probably dropped by half for three months prior to the move and two months after it was completed. For years afterward, unhappy employees steamed about their new office location.

Here are some of the rules you can find in this team. I am not implying that they are all present in every team, but some of them are typically present and some are dominant. Those are the ones that drive the behaviors of the team.

• We must all prove ourselves, so take no prisoners. Building is done primarily to show that we know how to solve tough problems.
• We are the only ones who truly know how to build something. We know what we are doing, so we build big and only test in production. We don’t have to ask for input.
• Building is all about having fun. We are great—so build anything.
• Sorry, I cannot help you, as I am busy rebuilding what broke yesterday.
• There are only a few people in our group who can decide how to build something. Everyone else must follow their lead.
• We build separately and hopefully never have to combine what we build into one thing.
• We will never stop adding blocks to our structure, regardless of how big it gets, because this is a great work of art.

The effectiveness of such teams varies widely. You may end up with chaos, or you may be lucky to have experience in the team that can help point the way to success. The team’s focus is on the personal interests and what each individual can do right now. Any kind of organized approach is not valued. Management is seen as overhead. What drives the world forward is the fuel from energized individuals. Anything in their way must be removed. Anything that delays immediate action is seen as bad, so sidestep the negative and focus on the positive mood of the day.

These teams do not fight against organizational structure, goals, and plans. They simply ignore them. These teams focus on what they like to do right now. They feel fully justified in this approach, because after all, the world is built by and for individuals.

Aristotle

You will know when you encounter teams influenced by Aristotle. They are very focused on following agreed-upon norms, sometimes to a fault. They have learned to appreciate that using tools and processes will make life easier and have replaced many time-consuming decisions by rules. They have defined a set of guidelines for how to get things done. In other words, they have replaced emotional situations with logical rules. The personalities of team members are not suppressed, but the collective behavior is logical and follows normative rules that are focused on team goals. Why do they do this? Because, it produces better results. Less time spent arguing is more time available for getting things done.

No, wait a minute. Is this true? Does a logical team produce better results than other? Is oppressing disagreement a path toward innovation? It depends. It can be. In other cases, it may not produce new product ideas. Regardless of the effectiveness, what I am describing is a belief, a worldview, a set of assumptions that guides behavior.

Logical teams are found in many places. You often see them in industries where the work is very well defined and repeatable. In these cases, the winning teams are those who get the job done the fastest, so why spend time investigating options? It is similar to flying an airplane. Yes, critical judgments and skills are needed, but the pilots and ground crew follow a very scripted play. In fact, the airlines look at each pilot as interchangeable: one pilot is the same as another, within the same rank. If this was not the case, we would all inquire about who is flying the plane and make our vacation plans when the better pilots are in the air. Our lives hinge upon every pilot being qualified to do their job.

Another place where we find logic leading the way is in manufacturing, where the idea is to do the same thing every day, but improve along the way. These teams are following a template to get work done and often have to adhere to industry standards to prove they deliver products meeting defined quality standards. The last thing you want in these environments are individual-focused teams, the Dolphins, changing manufacturing based upon their own untested view of the world.

Interestingly, logical teams also work well when they face really tough challenges, such as developing a new computer operating system. An operating system like Mac OS, Windows, or Linux is one of the world’s most complicated and sophisticated creations. A vast number of functions need to be defined, developed, and tested under a prescriptive timeline. It requires a large number of highly educated people communicating openly and clearly at all times. It may take years to complete. The more these teams can remove noncritical decisions from the process, the more time they can devote to tougher challenges. Noncritical decisions are things such as schedules, roles, decision-makers, what tools to use, what processes to follow, and when to get together for meetings.

My experience is that teams taking on complicated efforts don’t start out as a logical team. They evolve over time to behave in more deterministic or logical ways. Some see this as bureaucracy, as something that slows everything down, resulting in mediocre outcomes. However, the other way of looking at this is freedom. Once you have applied logic and rules for most common decisions, the more time and effort you can devote to innovation and important challenges. However, this is not the prevailing view when it comes to innovation.

Can you imagine a world without traffic rules? What if people had to make their own judgments? Someone would surely argue that their way of looking at traffic is the best one. If rules were optimized to their liking, they would be able to get to and from work in half the time it takes them today. But that is not the goal of traffic rules. The most important purpose of these rules is everyone’s safety. It is crucial that everyone knows them since this knowledge provides a platform for wise decision-making. Without mutual assurance and acceptance of the rules, we would risk our lives every time we drove through an intersection. Drivers who do not obey traffic lights can cause everyone on the road great harm. Following the rules improves the chances for safe travel, which again allows each driver to optimize their experience within the rules. So it is with logical teams. They have accepted a set of rules that allows them to focus on optimizing results.

When Apple developed the first iMac, the project team was led by a program manager who was experienced in rapidly delivering new products. She accepted and followed every development milestone that was already in place. The team did not spend time reinventing what was not important. Instead, they focused all their energy on developing the iMac, and they did it at half the time and with a quality level double that of all other Apple computers available at that time. The iMac became the product that led Apple away from the brink of disaster. The team stayed focused on the real goal and would not allow members to spend time changing defined and functional processes.

The opposite happened a few years earlier when a new project team was created to move the aging Macintosh operating system to a newer platform. All the initial efforts were focused on creating a new way of managing development. For example, every communication was to be done using a central documentation system. No one could send an e-mail to ask a question—everything was to be posted on the documentation system. The idea was to provide everyone insight into everything that was happening across the project. Moving away from emails was therefore important. Close to thirty program managers were moved or hired to help coordinate and facilitate communication. In no time, the project failed.

This is not to say that you should not improve processes. But be mindful of how to approach them. You should carefully assess the cost of changing a system that is in place and how these potential improvements will impact project success. If there is hope for significant improvement, then go for it. But if it is only about getting things aligned with how you would like it, forget it. Logic in this case dictates a focus on optimizing product success. Sometimes that means changing the system; sometimes it means following its rules. Sometimes you are successful, and sometimes not. Logic does not assure success; it just means teams make decisions based upon the best available information rather than allowing the Dolphins to swim wild.

In all these teams, individual behaviors are still present. That is fine. The best use of different points of view is when making decisions, such as what feature to develop and what market to approach. Aristotle-influenced teams typically display a strong sense of reason and purpose that keeps the inner Dolphin members in their pods. Collectively, they operate for the most part according to their logical set of rules. Here are some examples of their rules, which simply boil down to “The Golden Mean.”

• A project follows a very well-defined process where information is made widely available. There is very little outside interference, as everybody knows who is in charge and how decisions are made.
• We build as a team.
• A product can ship only when every criteria is met. No exceptions.
• Team members are allowed to fill their roles as best as they can.
• Very little bickering among employees is tolerated.
• The focus is on customer problems and a reasonable solution, given time and cost parameters.
• There are clear rules for how a team is awarded.
• There is a wide understanding of why the team exists and how it relates to other teams. Each team may have different goals, which is OK, but collectively, they all support the bigger goal.
• Building is about solving customer problems, so let’s at least talk to some of them.

In summary, what drives Aristotle teams are facts, purpose, reason, and logic. This behavior limits wide swings in individual behavior. It is expected that everyone works as part of a team and focuses on their role and end goals.

Captain Nemo

The Aristotle team is in stark contrast to the next group of teams characterized by Captain Nemo. Although his country of origin was never revealed, Captain Nemo spoke many languages. After some unexplained altercations with society, he quietly escaped into the world’s oceans with a small and very dedicated crew. Captain Nemo traversed the globe exploring and capturing data to better understand the oceans he lived in. Along the way, he had encounters with ships that created a worldwide stir and led many nations to hunt his Nautilus with the intent to destroy it, believing the submarine was a large beast that posed a threat to humankind.

Captain Nemo’s many inventions, such as the oxygen tank and diving suit, made it possible for him to reach places no other human could go. As a result, he found riches beyond his needs. His view of the world was a mix of superiority and disdain for nations, organizations, and other groups. He was not against humans, but rather how they collectively had offended him. He did not want to play by anyone else’s rules and instead created his own. Captain Nemo was an explorer and scientist, constantly seeking new knowledge. In the face of danger, he was brave and looked out for his crew.

If you encounter a team with the Captain Nemo spirit, you will know immediately. This is a team that sets its own rules and its members think of themselves as invincible. It will be full of bright individuals who have been successful in the past. They receive the respect of other teams and senior leaders. There will be one strong leader that the team fiercely supports. This kind of team is willing to take chances and break new ground. They are also willing to leave other organizations behind in their quest for new ideas and better solutions. They are typically close-knit and do not like intruders.

What sets this team apart from others is its total abandonment of organizational rules and the distance it keeps from other teams. A Captain- Nemo team separates itself from the larger organization and does not seek acceptance from others. This team’s members will fiercely defend against any attempt to limit their abilities to do what they decide is the best course of action. In short, they have left dry land and are cruising the oceans in their own invincible submarine.

The rules these teams follow may vary, as each submarine crew will be different, but here are some that are common.

• Through suffering, we arrived at a view of the world that will allow us to create technologies and solutions far beyond anybody else’s capabilities.
• We don’t owe anybody anything.
• We are capable of doing whatever we want.
• Rules are for everyone else. Our own abilities will not be restricted by following the larger group’s methodologies.
• Build small, then validate. Learn. Then build bigger. How big can we build?
• The best product wins. Everyone is encouraged to experiment with any type of blocks or bricks and build any structure.
• Do not touch our blocks!

These fiercely independent teams will shield their members from the rest of the company. Loyalty is critical. If you belong to this team, you are given a wide range of options to do great things. It is a supportive environment, because it is the success of the group that allows it to remain independent. That is a powerful motivator that drives the team forward.

The drawback of these teams is first the inability to direct their efforts, and as such, they may run counter to the organization’s goals. The other is that the rest of the organization feels punished for following the rules while the Captain Nemo team gets away with anything. Because of this, the most common use is to create these teams for a shorter period of time with very specific goals. Words used to describe them could be Tiger or SWAT teams.

The Joker

The need for excitement drives the Joker. Excitement is found in chaos, and that is easily created when something breaks or groups collide. When different ideas compete, chaos can easily ensue. The Joker is unstable, but he is also a genius. He looks at the world as a place that must change, must be destroyed to meet his desire for making an impact. As such, he has difficulties working with anyone for a long period of time. Therefore, his team members change frequently.

Like the Captain Nemo team, a Joker team also distances itself from the larger organization, but is actively out to destroy the current world order instead of avoiding it. The Joker does not seek to improve himself or discover new knowledge. That is in stark contrast to Captain Nemo, who wants to escape from society and any organized group, but at the same time is a scientist endeavoring to expand his realm of knowledge.

A team with the Joker spirit lives in constant change. Each day is a new day, with yesterday forgotten. They look to seize any opportunity to get things done. These teams are not afraid to make changes or create conflict to get what they want. For them, other teams do not matter. They are there as a backdrop. If needed, they can be sacrificed for the fun of it.

A Joker team is not content to play within its own borders. Team members are always craving opportunities to engage. A typical example is when the larger group identifies a problem. Perhaps there is a spike in customer complaints, a project missed its delivery date, or a new initiative is proposed. A Joker team quickly jumps into the action by offering to solve the problem. Within days, its leader will define a solution and send out a meeting invite to a larger number of people. The team will not spend much time investigating the options to select the best path forward or reaching out to all involved parties to gather information. Instead, in the meeting it will declare that the organization has a problem and inform everyone that they are all responsible, therefore they should fix it. They will set a short deadline for the other teams and then leave the meeting. They will follow up with an e-mail to executives that the problem has been solved. All that is needed now is that the other teams deliver. And if they fail, that is not the Joker team’s problem.

What happened here? The Joker team introduced chaos into the organization and handed over accountability to everyone. At this point, the number of questions left unanswered and the level of confusion makes progress close to impossible. Most often than not, new problems arise in other areas as a result. This shifts the focus away from the original problem, allowing the Joker team to claim that they solved it and should be rewarded. Not only that, their efficient way of solving the problem also revealed new problems and incompetence in other teams. Naturally, this means that the Joker team should be given an even broader set of responsibilities than before. In short, they are out to undermine other groups and break down an organization’s current structure.

If you work on a team like this, here is what you can expect to see.

• Ship on time. Regardless of what is built, it must ship on time. It doesn’t matter if anybody wants it or if it works. It just needs to ship on time.
• I will not tell you what to build, but I expect it to be delivered on time.
• Change will happen, so get used to it.
• Every day is a new challenge. Expect a constant string of changes and surprises every day you go to work.
• Planning ahead is not important, as plans will change. Instead, we will react quickly when change happens.
• Build the product and show me. Then I will decide if it is good.
• We will never be given enough time or resources to do what we want, so we have to step up our efforts. New challenges bring out the best in people and show others what we are made of.

If you thrive upon action, then the Joker will provide all the excitement you can handle. These teams offer growth opportunities and new challenges. They also demand that you buy into a worldview that is about operating inside a storm, where the purpose is to survive, not build structures that will weather future storms and benefit other citizens in town. Surprisingly, this is a path that many people prefer to take, as it can bring about instant success with little effort. That is the essence of creating chaos.

Success Is Built upon Core Values and Team Rules

To summarize, there are two sets of rules that you need to be aware of when playing with blocks or bricks. The first is the core value set (human and company values), and the second is a set of rules imposed by a specific team or group. Each set is different, but success requires full awareness of all rules that are being enforced at any given time.

Once you have obtained the list of rules, you have choices. The first choice is to accept the rules and play within their boundaries. If you do this, the next question is whether you can be successful in that environment. If you are good at creating new processes but the team hates process, what do you do? Do you have other skills that can make you successful? If not, then success may not be possible, and it may be time to leave. That is, in essence, your second choice.

If you do decide to stay, you can challenge the status quo by breaking or redefining a few rules. You may find that these changes will benefit the team and give you success. Or you can operate within the rules and focus your efforts on what is possible to achieve. If the team allows individuals to drive change and you have many new ideas, then look for the Dolphins. If you are more comfortable with a strong team with a rational approach, join an Aristotle team.

Success Behaviors

Rules and awards aside, in addition to the core societal and company values, there are some behaviors that I have found to be universally fundamental for success in every organization I have come in contact with. If you consistently practice them, you will be successful at playing with blocks or bricks. At the same time, remember that you also have to do your best in your current role. You don’t have to be the best at it; you just have to do your best.

Of all the key success behaviors, there are two I have found to be lynchpins for success. They are easy to comprehend and if you focus on them, you can quickly learn to skillfully apply them. You don’t have to be the best at adhering to them; you just have to consistently apply them. I determined what these two assets were after ten years of being a team manager. I was constantly looking for a simple and concise way of assessing a person’s impact on product development. In the end, it was clear that long-term success is not primarily about someone’s interpersonal skills or knowledge, but rather about how they interact with other team members. That is shown primarily through two behaviors.

1. Creating win-win scenarios whenever you can.
2. Building and maintaining good personal relationships.

The great thing about these two behaviors is that there are many books written about how to build relationships and make a difference at work by becoming a problem-solver. You may have your own list of skills that you have validated through the years. If so, apply them as well. However, before doing so, be sure that they are not focused on you as the only benefactor. These behaviors must benefit the world around you in order for you to leave a lasting impression and create new opportunities for you and others. If all you do is take from the teams, your luck will quickly run out.

Here are my views of the two success behaviors and how you can implement them to pave the way for your success.

Win-Win

It is easy to be lazy. It is a trap to assume that you can be yourself and the work will just get done. Being yourself is not sufficient. The problem is that at work, nobody should be him- or herself.

Let me explain. At work, I don’t want to be myself. Instead, I want to be someone who does his best within my given role. If I wanted to be myself, I would stay home, go fishing, and have long lunches. At work, I have a job to do.

I am not advocating that you not be true to yourself and your values. I am simply stating that work is not the same as personal time. Work is defined as using your skills and time to create value in exchange for money. That leaves you with one big decision to make: does this job matter to you? If no, then leave. Otherwise, do your best. That does not mean you put forth effort now and then. It means you put forth effort all the time. Every time you engage with someone, you look for a way to create a win for him or her. The great thing is that if they associate you with a win for them, that is also a win for you.

It is easy to create wins. They require almost no extra effort. All they take is a mind-set of looking for them. Don’t forget that even the smallest effort can result in a big win. Let’s explore a few examples.

Take notes: If you attend a meeting with many people and nobody seems to take notes or create a short list of key action items, then volunteer. You are there anyway. Why not control history by holding the pen? Do not let such an opportunity go to waste. Everyone will thank you. Having something to show for spending an hour in another meeting has value for most people.

Follow up: If you say you will do something, then do it. Never let light come between your words and your actions. You are your actions, not your words. If you keep the shadows away, you will build a reputation as a solid and reliable person who can always be trusted.

Make a decision: How much time have we spent debating topics without making any progress because we did not have all the right information? Teams can take forever looking for perfect data to make perfect decisions. Most consider not making decisions a waste of time. Therefore, make one. It does not have to be a big decision. It can be as simple as deciding who will take the next step by when. The fact that there is a concrete plan (even if it is simple) is always appreciated. Therefore, do not add noise to an issue. Instead, show the team a way out.

Offer to help: Sometimes that is all it takes. Someone is stuck or running out of time. Perhaps something as small as sending an e-mail to follow up on a question is all that’s needed. Sometimes all you have to do is listen. If you have a choice, extend a hand.

Take the lead: Don’t look around for new opportunities on the other side of the company. Look first at your own group. There is always something that is missing or can be improved. Propose that you lead change. It can be anything. Start small by offering to send out a group newsletter once per quarter. Be the one who organizes the next fun group event. Come up with something new that people will remember. Put some effort behind it to make it great. Prove your abilities on something small. The next time a bigger opportunity comes around, management will look your way.

All these behaviors will make you appear as someone who solves problems, someone who can help and get results. The more success you are connected with, the more layoff-proof you will be. But, more importantly, the easier it will be for your managers to recommend you for bigger and better things.

Relationships

Relationships are easier if your mind-set is win-win. People gravitate toward those who can help them and make them successful. But you can’t create wins that leave people around you exhausted or feeling like they just stepped into a hurricane.

First, make your presence a personal statement. Show that you value other people, that you care, that you are willing to help, and that you’re fun to be around. There is only so much criticism and negativity a person can take.

Here are some typical work behaviors that foster relationships.

Be on time: It is easy to slip into a state where time does not have value. So whenever possible, show that you value other people’s time by thanking them for starting and ending meetings punctually. Even better, run your meetings so they finish before the scheduled end time. Some meetings are set up at thirty-minute intervals. Most meetings are close to an hour. Make it your goal to end early. Let participants know that you value their time and that you are doing your best to minimize your demand for their presence.

Respond to every e-mail you receive: Yes, we all get inundated with e-mail and requests for our time. It is easy to get bogged down in it; however, it is also easy to find a system to manage your time spent on e-mail and the tasks it produces. You have to use your e-mail software’s features and a disciplined approach to solve this challenge. In a world where we rely upon e-mail so much, it is not acceptable to let your reputation be sullied by e-mail chaos. There is nothing more telling about a person’s lack of willingness to work with others than failure to reply to critical or time-sensitive e-mail. Of course, I am not referring to marketing or unsolicited emails.

Be present: Pay attention to people when they speak. Make eye contact and engage. Minimize e-mail and phone tasks while in meetings. People will not tell you directly, but when you are on your phone, you are showing that you care less about what is taking place in the meeting compared with your own priorities. When you attend a meeting, that is your priority. If not, don’t attend. And most of all, don’t drown out the conversation with your tapping keyboard noises.

Be positive: Don’t complain. It is easy to point out what is not working and what other people are doing wrong. That is basic human nature. It is also a great bonding experience with like-minded people, for it can be fun to poke at a world that is not perfect. However, at work you have a role, and I am certain nobody hired you to spread misery. If you don’t like something, either get over it or suggest corrections. After all, a job is not about you as a person: it is about how you fill your role. Become a problem-solver, a person who brings value to others.

Support the team: Don’t allow others to fail. This is similar to not complaining. The only difference is that sometimes you have to listen to what other people have to say about their challenges. That tells them that you care and will help them overcome their current crisis. Sometimes this may not directly benefit you, but in the long run you will be seen as invaluable.

Ask others for help: People like to help. Being asked for assistance puts them in a position to extend their range of influence or knowledge, and that is something that makes people feel good. If they have helped you once, they are more likely to help you again. However, do not ask for help so much that they start seeing you as incompetent.

In the end, relationships are about choices. You can decide to build relationships that will help either everyone or only yourself. The latter choice is a sure way of not getting what you need. So the choice is really easy: build and maintain great relationships at work.

Playing to Win

Winning at playing with blocks is to be able to keep playing, having fun, solving problems, and changing the world. Winning is playing with blocks at any level you want for as long as you want. Everyone who plays is a winner as long as they can contribute at their own levels of ability. So the main question is, at what level do you want to play? Being aware of the rules at work will make this easier. Knowing what drives teams and people around you will enable you to play a better game: you will have a better understanding of how to approach the game, what options to pursue, and which ones to drop. The more time you spend fighting the rules, the less chance you have for success. If you can, play within the rules. Only break them if it is worth it.

Block Forces at Work

I will end this chapter by reexamining three of the forces that were described in the first article. These situations are typical for block or brick players.

The promotion: The best programmer and engineer is promoted into management. This often happens in high-tech or creative organizations where the value of management is low and managers are expected to be working managers (building products and solutions in addition to managing teams). Unfortunately, if the new manager ends up being your manager, your job is now turned into a competition. Your manager is constantly showing you that he or she still has it. In the process, your boss forgets to manage the team, and you suffer.

In this very typical case, a great block player has been promoted. When this occurs due to the person’s ability to work well with others and influence outcomes, all is well. That is what a manger should do. The problems pile up when the person’s main skill set is building new things. That ability may not translate into being a great manager. A new manager often remains very involved in building with blocks, sometimes to the point of making all building decisions, because now that manager has all the power. Some companies expect a first-level manager to be a “working manager,” someone who is also building products or playing with blocks. This makes the distinction between being a manager versus being part of the team even more challenging and confusing. Think about kids. A parent is first a parent, then a friend. So it should be at work, a manager’s job is to first and foremost make the team and team members successful.

If the new manager is the Joker or Captain Nemo, get ready for a wild ride. Both have demonstrated that changes can be made, but in a way that most people avoid. When working for Aristotle, you know the rules will be simple and clear. Roll the dice if you end up working for any representative from the Dolphins. The clicking sounds may drive you crazy or you may love surfing the waves.

The main challenge in this particular situation is that the new manager still plays with blocks. Why does that happen? And why do you have to suffer, in the sense that you don’t get a manager who will help you and the team be successful? The main reason is that the person behind the promotion decision did not fully understand, or appreciate, that the new manager was moving from playing with blocks to playing chess. Playing chess is very different than playing with blocks. And to make it worse, most likely the new manager was not informed about the rules for chess. So it takes trial and error before the new manager starts to understand the new rules and how to play the game.

The desperate team: Your development team is frustrated that product management is constantly changing priorities. You can’t understand why making decisions is so difficult. Nothing gets done. No success is in sight. Before long, the whole team is doing nothing but complaining about everything. How did it come to this?

If you have been part of developing new products, you may have been on a desperate team—a place full of complaints and where everything is wrong, particularly management and other groups. The team’s mood may be pleasant enough, but nothing seems to ever get done. Instead, there is endless discussion about why things do not work. How can this be?

This is primarily a team that builds products or plays with blocks. They enjoy clear direction, accept tough challenges, and are fine with doing hard work. But they shy away from indecision and lack of success. In some sense, we all probably do. But this situation is not good when it impacts the team’s ability to engage in meaningful work. The problem here is that someone is using the team as a pawn in their own chess game, likely the first- or second-level managers. They are hoping the team will create more value than it currently has. They are looking for better assignments or perhaps more resources. Meanwhile, the team has no direction and support, and without them, success cannot be achieved.

I see this as a management failure. A manager always knows what to do. They are paid to make decisions, even if they do not get clear instructions from executives. They always have to keep in mind that a team playing with blocks must always play with blocks. Preventing them from playing is failure. So regardless of uncertainties, management must give clear instructions to their team. It can be as simple as deciding that in the next two weeks, the team will do task A and then review its progress. It cannot be left as management having no idea what to do and planning to change direction every week. Yes, the team may face real challenges outside their control, but this is where management muscles are built. If the team is not engaged, it will remain desperate and eventually cannot recover. The only remediation then is to disband the team and have the members start anew with other teams.

The troubled employee: An employee who is unable to find the right team reaches out to executives to ask them to fix his problems. They offer support and decide to move the employee into a new role. But after a while, the problem-employee returns to them, saying he still feels that nothing has changed. According to him, the executives do not know how to run the company. What is going on here?

In every company, there are always employees who see the sky as falling. They have great ideas about how the company should operate and will boldly exclaim how everybody around them is doing everything wrong. They may have ended up in this position after years of suffering defeats or lack of success. Or it can simply be that their glass is half-empty. Either way, they will gladly talk to anyone who is willing to listen.

Their stories are normally put together well. They will spend all their time creating a future version of the world that will never materialize. Mostly, these futures center on the assumption that everybody else will be following their lead. They conveniently step over facts, such as the one that leading positions are earned, not granted. Being a leader is something you grow into, unless your mother owns the company. But then, that person is probably not reading this book, so they are doomed to perpetually seek something that will never materialize. Hence, they move around and engage every team in how the world should work versus what is being done today. In other words, they are totally unaware of the block rules. In order to become successful, they have to be aware of them and either follow them or combat them with a purpose. Rewriting the fundamentals of block rules is not easy, as they are cemented in human nature.

Next Steps

By now, I hope that the insight into the block rules has given you a different way of looking at the forces at work that gives meaning to seemingly unexplainable events. With this view you can now start engaging more effectively with other block or brick players. With this mind-set, in the next article, we will take a look at chess, a game about outmaneuvering other players.