johnmaconline

If we are slow to judge and quick to embrace.

If we examine our closely held beliefs.

If we focus on what we can control.

If we acknowledge personal history.

If we try to walk in another’s shoes.

If we are afraid and do it anyway.

If we take personal responsibility.

If we find the lesson in failure.

If we listen before we speak.

If we throw away the labels.

If we respect differences.

If we recognize the grey.

If we value other voices.

If we embrace change.

If we are present.

If we try harder.

If we look up.

If we love.

We all hire for the exact same reason — we have a problem to solve.

It might be a personal problem, such as cutting the grass, getting faster on the track, or fixing the car.

Or you might be hiring in a professional setting to solve a problem such as tracking orders, developing an application, or replacing a lost worker.

Hiring the right person is easier than you might think.

Step one is to weed out anybody without the basic skill set. Never hire a clown to perform brain surgery.

Then, of that group, hire the person that scores the best in just two areas: a) integrity and b) curiosity and excitement about the mission.

Integrity because showing up, being a responsible adult, and trustworthiness are irreplaceable human qualities for someone on your team. You can always count on a person with high integrity.

Curiosity and excitement because you’re hiring someone for what they can do in the future, not what they’ve done in the past. Those who deeply care about what you’re hiring them to do will rise to the occasion and outperform those with more impressive credentials and experience but don’t really care.

Sometimes you’ll swing and miss, and that’s OK. But your odds are better if you hire based on integrity and curiosity.

Risky means the possibility of misfortune or losing something valuable to you.

Exercise is risky. Sedentary is risky.
The city is risky. The country is risky.
Commitment is risky. Separation is risky.
Going outside is risky. Staying inside is risky.
Travel is risky. Never leaving your town is risky.
Publishing your thoughts is risky. Silence is risky.
Driving your car is risky. Public transportation is risky.
Starting a business is risky. Being an employee is risky.
Trying something new is risky. Sticking with the old is risky.
Investing in the market is risky. Putting it in the mattress is risky.

We spend a fair amount of our time and effort managing risk. It seems to me, though, that just waking up is risky.

Socialism — You have two cows. You give one to your neighbor.

Communism — You have two cows. You give both to the state, and the state gives you milk and beef.

Capitalism — You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.  

The problem with socialism, communism, and capitalism isn’t the ideology. Each system can work to the benefit of the people. 

Almost equally, each system can work to the detriment of the people.  

But the problem isn’t the -ism. The problem is the real world.

Maybe it’s human greed, power hunger, or racism. Or maybe it’s systemic incentives, privilege, or culture.

Or maybe it’s all of those things. But all those things are real-world problems, not fundamental to the academic ism.

The debate about the ism must take place in the real world.

KPI’s — key performance indicators. Also called metrics. Also called data.

We constantly hear about KPI’s and data-driven decisions, especially when measuring the peformance of teams and individuals. We should be using data to make decisions (business, personal, national, etc.). Data provides valuable insight.

But there is a downside.

Let’s consider a help desk. Common KPI’s for help desk workers and organizations is the number of tickets closed and the time to closure. That seems reasonable, right? More tickets closed faster seems like a great method to measure performance.

However, in practice, the individuals and the team begin to operate in ways that artificially skew the results — convert single customer tickets into multiple tickets, artificially close tickets early and open new ones, etc.

The problem isn’t the metric itself. The problem is the team’s knowledge of the metric.

As such, these KPI’s are only useful in hindsight to measure past performance. Once the team knows, those metrics cease to be as useful.

With good intentions, we’ve incentivized bad behavior. Not intentionally. Nor are the people bad actors or bad people. They are simply acting according to the systemic incentives.

We usually get what we incentivize. But are we sure the indicator measures the true performance?

“Fools are blind to their own foolishness”

Unknown

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people wrongly overestimate their knowledge or ability in a specific area.

We all know people who suffer from Dunning-Kruger and have watched them burn. They’re self-unaware braggarts with both feet firmly planted in mid-air — misplaced confidence on full display. 

An irate colleague who didn’t get promoted. The neighbor who takes on the roofing project but eventually hire’s the pro. Heck, the entire twitter-verse in epidemiology, politics, and NFL defensive schemes. 

We always use the label “Dunning-Kruger” pejoratively, usually accompanied by an eye roll or a knowing wink. 

But hold the phone a sec. There’s an upside to it.

Dunning-Kruger describes a condition of unjustified confidence, but confidence, justified or unjustified, is a critical enabler allowing one to take on new things and forge new paths. Confidence allows one to overcome fear, develop resilience, and stay motivated to continue. 

If we all sat around in our little protective shells, never reaching or expanding beyond what we correctly know or are good at, how would we make any progress (personal or collective)?

Sometimes it’s the self-unaware yet confident ones that crash and burn. Sometimes they’re the ones who move the entire universe forward. 

I am a fan of both Rick Rubin’s and Quentin Tarantino’s work. 

Both are regarded as geniuses and have enjoyed tremendous commercial and critical success in their respective arts. 

As someone interested in both the creative process and success principles, I’ve listened to many interviews with each. Each comes across very different from the other. 

I heard Rubin on a podcast with clairvoyant self-awareness say (paraphrased), 

“I’m very lucky. I’ve learned that when I like something, the public will also, and it will sell. When I’m brought into a project, it’s for my taste. My job is to help the artist make something that I like.”

I’ve listened to many interviews with Tarantino. Never have I heard him say anything like this. Most of the time, he seems pretty excited about himself and how good he is. 

I don’t know if he’s aware that his magic dust is the same as Rubin’s — the luck of the public liking what he likes. 

There’s a lesson for me here. A million success coaches talk about purpose, hard work, and perseverance. All of these are necessary, of course. You’ll need these to be successful. 

You can’t, however, ultimately control success that depends on others. you can only control what you do — your effort, your skill development, etc.

Sometimes, it’s better to be lucky than good. 

One of the most-used parental phrases in our culture is, “I can’t afford that.”

As a child, you probably heard this a thousand times. As a parent, you probably used it a thousand times.

But is it true?

Is the issue really a lack of funds, or is it priority of funds?

Shouldn’t the statement be, “We won’t prioritize that.”

Are there other areas in your life besides money where you use the same phrase?

“I can’t afford the time/effort/empathy/self-reflection/discipline.”

Sometimes it’s not about being able to afford it. It’s about prioritization. 

It goes viral because we want to believe it. 

“Why Too Much Running Is Bad for Your Health”
“10 Reasons Why Smoking Weed Is Actually Really Good For You”
“Proof that COVID Vaccines Cause Prion Disease”

(Each is a published headline, but I’ve not linked to the articles because, well, what are we talking about here?)

A scientific study produces a paper with a conclusion that interprets the data from that study. 

The researchers published the paper for a specific and knowledgeable audience, not the general public. Therefore, the public reads the interpretation of the paper by professional communicators.

If the conclusion in the scientific paper appears to either a) reinforce an already-held belief or b) refute an already-held belief, the interpreter (or interpreter’s editor) has hit click-traffic gold. 

The conclusion, which is likely nuanced and very specific, transforms into a toggle-switch, generalized, clickbait headline.

Since the headline matches what we already want to believe or comes from a person or institution in our tribe, we assume it’s true. Since it’s true, we start liking, retweeting, and sending around the article as a link-bludgeon — “I told you so!” 

Hence, viral misinformation.

The problem of misinformation is really just confirmation bias on full display, which is a human problem, not a system problem.

Whenever we try to fix a human problem with the system rather than through personal empathy, we run the risk of artificial amplification or minimization. 

The solution is not curation, but a willingness to examine one’s beliefs.

“What controls your attention controls your life”

Darren Hardy

The World is a merchant.  

The World is the greatest and most prolific merchant that has ever existed, and it’s constantly hocking its wares. The problem with transactions with The World is that the costs are hidden and malevolent. 

The World sells attention, and the cost is your physical, emotional, intellectual, professional, financial, and spiritual well-being. The collateral damage is your life.

The World doesn’t care about you, but it cares about your attention.

You have no control over The World.

You do have control over what lies within Your World. 

Your World is:

• Your Circle — These are the people in all parts of your life.
• Your Work — Your profession, yes, but also the other productive and connective things you do in your life.
• Yourself — Of course, you have the most influence over yourself. 

Once you are able to discern between The World and Your World, you will recognize what you can or can’t control in any situation. 

• You can’t control how others feel about you, but you can control your feelings.
• You can’t control what others say about you, but you can control what you tell yourself.
• You can’t control what someone else does, but you can control what you do.

The key to success, happiness, and whatever else you want in your life is to shift your focus away from The World and into Your World.