Always Add Another Bullet

I’m a list guy – to-do lists, procedure lists, material lists, lists of ideas. You get the idea. I can get so hung up about making lists, that one time my spouse wrote “kiss wife passionately’ on my daily list when I wasn’t looking, jokingly, I think.

Lists help me be more productive. They help me organize my thoughts. They help me be more creative. They help me be a better delegator by providing more thorough instructions. While you may not be as left-brained as I am, I challenge you to consider the benefits.

But here’s a secret I learned a long time ago – Always add another bullet. When you think you have compiled every element, issue, component, or person needing to be considered, add another bullet at the end of the list. Why? Because the brain hates incompletes. Incompletes create uncertainty and uncertainty creates discomfort. The brain hates discomfort because its first job is to keep you safe. That’s why you can fill ill at ease when you feel like something’s missing.

Using its pattern recognition, the brain will bring to your attention other tasks, ideas or people it associates with the list you are making. It may not happen immediately. But adding that extra bullet gets the brain working toward resolution, even if it wakes you up in the middle of the night with a new idea or missing element.

A corollary to this is numbering the list you are making from one to ten, especially when brainstorming. The first five or six ideas may come easily. It’s those last four that can get you. But once again, the brain will work to complete those thoughts. When you do get to ten, add another bullet. If you’re building a bubble chart, add another line.

This is one of the reasons why the best thinkers are the best thinkers. They make a habit of always adding another bullet.

Are You Burning Yourself Out Accidentally?

Who on earth would want to become a victim of burnout? I know, it sounds silly. But many of us do it because of one of three somewhat twisted beliefs. Stay with me here and I’ll explain:

Reason #1 – We have a desire for success. Shouldn’t everyone have a desire for success? Of course. But not to the point that we sacrifice our physical and emotional health. When we develop a passion for what we’re doing, it is easy to become all-consumed. We think about it all the time. We spend all our extra time honing our understanding and skills. It’s all we talk about to others. When someone asks about balance or other endeavors, we look at them as if they have two heads. I know. I’ve been there.

The problem, of course, is that this total absorption can impact our diet, our sleep, our relationships and our overall health. We wake up in the middle of the night with inspirations or, perhaps, fears of what we’re missing. Over time, this passion begins to drain us to the point of exhaustion. We wonder what happened to our energy. We don’t feel the fulfillment or passion we once did. Sometimes this is compounded by the fact that we try to do it all ourselves. After all, nobody can do it as well as we can. Right? We might even feel resentful if our grand plan does not work out the way we expect. All this results in a feeling of burnout. You know, all that work for nothing.

Reason #2 – We are seeking validation. Jack Canfield, the co-author of Chicken Soup for the Soul, used to ask his audiences, “Have you ever compared yourself to someone else and come out exactly even?” It is only natural to compare ourselves with everyone with whom we come in contact. In most cases, we come out feeling “less than” in these comparisons. That’s to be expected. We feel like we’re not keeping up. We feel like we’re disappointing others. We might even develop an, “I’ll show them,” attitude to compensate for these feelings of inadequacy.

As a result, we work harder. We put in more hours. We work more furiously to impress others, even though we’ve never truly established what they think of us or even care. These long hours and expended energy begin to drain our reserves. We keep looking for some sign of validation from those around us which, in many cases, is not forthcoming. Over time, we become both frustrated and physically exhausted. This has an impact on our health, sleep, relationships and still does not result in the sense of validation we have been seeking all along.

Reason #3 – We use our work as an escape. Everyone goes through a number of significant challenges over a lifetime. Whether these challenges are physical, financial or emotional, we can find ourselves spending time at work as means to avoid dealing with these discomforts. We always seemed to be committed to something at work. The job has become all consuming. “My boss expects me to be on call at all times.” While some of this may be true for a period of time, using these explanations as a crutch leads to burnout. As with the previous two reasons, it impacts health, sleep, relationships and our ability to think rationally.

By the way, this escape does not have to be work-related. A colleague I know threw himself into weightlifting as an escape from his marital problems. He became consumed with working out seven days a week. It was all he talked about. You know, “Here, feel my biceps.” But over time, two things happened, the marital problems got worse, and he injured himself trying to lift more and more weight. Bottom line? Emotionally-related escapes result in burnout.

“So,” you might ask, “what’s the solution?” Here’s what I’ve seen the best decision makers do when they begin to feel burned out. First, they take a step back when they recognize the symptoms. The best thinkers are also the most self-aware people I know.

Second, they ask close friends and loved ones to speak up when they begin to see the symptoms of burnout. When you’re all consumed, it is easy to rationalize away irrational behaviors. Having a trusted friend call you on your excessiveness may be the intervention necessary. But most people won’t do it unless you have opened the door.

Third, they give themselves permission to accept that they are fallible just like everyone else. Top thinkers are grounded. They laugh at themselves. They are generally self-effacing. When they get too full of themselves, as many of us do occasionally, they accept the correction with grace.

Fourth, they make the tough choices. As I have said endlessly, the best decision makers have become comfortable with being uncomfortable. How? Read the post linked here.

Are you burning yourself out accidently on purpose? Embrace these four steps and recapture your energy, focus and health. Let me know what you think about this by writing something in the comments. I’m Bob Wendover

Could the Zeigarnik Effect Be Sapping Your Energy?

I’ve always been fascinated with the expeditors in busy restaurants. When I worked in commercial kitchens 40 years ago, we called them wheel men. They stood at a wheel with clips on it. A server would clip the dining party’s order to the wheel on his or her side of the counter and spin it around so the wheel man could reach it. This individual would then order the food. When the dishes came up, they would be placed on the counter and the server would be called. Software has now replaced the wheel, of course. Instead, a machine spits out a ticket onto the counter. But the rest of the principle is the same.

If you take a step back, though, you’ll realize that the entire job consists of one incomplete task after another. The expeditor orders food and then puts that ticket in the back of his or her mind until the food comes up. At that point, it has to be recalled and assembled accurately, all within a minute or two. It can be overwhelming. I’ve been there. That said, I’ve watched seasoned expeditors manage as many as 15 orders at the same time during a dinner rush. Eventually, all the tasks are completed and everyone receives their food.

All of this takes us to the Zeigarnik Effect. Named after researcher Bluma Zeigarnik, the theory holds that an interrupted activity may be more readily recalled. As a result, people remember unfinished or interrupted tasks better than completed tasks. For positions such as expeditor and air traffic controller, the brain’s ability to do this is an advantage.

But most of us don’t run a kitchen or direct air traffic. As a result, the Zeigarnik Effect can sap our energy and focus. Why? Because the brain keeps reminding us of tasks we have not completed. This adds to the cognitive load we are already managing and depletes the blood glucose our brain needs to focus.

Imagine working on a project and continually being reminded of other little tasks that still need to be done. You may be living this every day. Most of us do. Every time the thought of one of these tasks is triggered by something in the environment, we waste some of the sugar energy we could have used for focusing on present activities. On a hectic day, with lots of these distractions, this can leave us exhausted, but without a sense of completion. Maddening isn’t it?

So how can you manage this effect and conserve your energy? The easiest thing to do is compartmentalize these tasks by recording them on a separate list. This could be something as easy as maintaining a pad and pen next to your focused work. When one of these distractions comes to mind, jot it down and then forget it. The brain perceives that as a signal of completion and will stop reminding you to do it. When you reach a point where you can complete the tasks on this list, take a few minutes and punch them out. I have been doing this for years and this one little practice measurably improves my productivity and focus.

This is not rocket science, but it’s how top ten thinkers are able to remain focused on important activities. How about you?

Do Bureaucracies Create Burnout?

I have been a fan of economist Thomas Sowell’s writings for years. He has an amazing ability to condense the complex into the concise. Years ago, he observed, “You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing.” This is not a shot at individual bureaucrats, but the systems they create or were created before them.

I’ll be the first person to agree that bureaucracies are essential to the function of any organization or society. Without process, we would be reinventing the wheel over and over. That said, bureaucracies also foster complexity, caution, and a tremendous amount of “cover-your-butt behavior.” The classic division of motor vehicles scene from the movie Zootopia proves the point. Otherwise, why would it have received 2.6 million views on YouTube?

One of consequences of today’s bureaucracies is burnout. Humans work to earn a living. But they also work to acquire meaning. If you don’t believe me, ask the next random person you meet, “What do you do?” Chances are they will respond with a job title. Since most of us spend eight or more hours a day on the job five days a week, we tend to tie a good portion of our identity to our work.

Unfortunately, our zeal to be creative and productive can be thwarted by endless rules and regulations that drain our energy and defeat our aspirations to contribute. Chances are, you, at one point, have begun a new job eager to make a difference, only to run head-long into processes and procedures, some of which may have seemed unnecessary or even nonsensical. While you may have tried to change the system, chances are you were defeated by the response, “What you’re suggesting makes sense. But this is the way we do it.”

Is it possible to feel burned out by being forced to do less than you’re capable of? Yes! In fact, it can be downright depressing. As much as most people complain about having too much to do these days, you can also feel burned out by having too little to do. Why, because it lacks meaning. And meaning is what drives our psyche. Remember, burnout is a collection of emotions. One of these emotions is the sense of meaning that we derive from what we do.

Is there a solution to feeling burnout out if you’re working in a bureaucracy that seems to drain you of meaning? There’s no magic bullet. It is a rare occasion that someone beats the system. That leaves you with a choice. You can accept the confines placed on your efforts and find your meaning elsewhere. Or you can leave that bureaucracy and find meaning within another organization. Just make sure you do your homework so you don’t end up in a similar situation.


The Only Way to Accurately Screen Applicants is to Watch Them

I have been hiring people, writing about hiring people and teaching people how to hire people for more than 30 years. Every year, I become more convinced that the only way to accurately screen people is to watch them in action. In other words, create simulations and run your most promising applicants through them before making the final decision.

There are any number of ways to accomplish this, ranging from the very simple to the very complex. Here are three that come to mind:

First, Southwest airlines used to conduct group interviews with prospective flight attendants. (I’m not sure if they still do this.) They would sit everyone in a circle and ask each person to stand up and talk about themselves and their background for a minute or two. What the applicants did not realize was that the evaluators were not judging each person on their speaking skills. They were watching to see how well the others in the circle attended to the speaker.

What they would observe would be everything from the applicant who demonstrated genuine interest in whomever was speaking to the applicant who spent all their time preening and perhaps showing impatience about having to go through this. Their reasoning for this exercise was simple. Which would you rather have on your flights; The attendants who were paying attention to customers or those who were self-absorbed when not serving meals or performing safety demonstrations?

Second, prior to the age of factory robotics, Toyota Motors would gather groups of applicants into a room. The evaluators would explain that in the corner were large boxes containing the components for 500 flashlights. The group’s job would be to assemble all the flashlights as quickly and efficiently as possible. Then they would simply say, “Go,” and watch what happened.

By observing individual and group dynamics, the evaluators could gain insights into the natural leaders, those with organizational skills, those with a detail orientation and so on. They could also ascertain those who lacked patience, those who followed others, those who talked more than they worked, and a host of other insights you would not pick up in an interview.

As a result, the evaluators could accomplish two tasks at the same time. First, they could determine who they wished to hire. Second, they could use these insights to determine which applicants would best fit which roles in the assembly process.

Third, the owner of a machine shop in Denver once showed me an aluminum puzzle he had designed. It consisted of about a dozen pieces. It wasn’t too hard to assemble, but it wasn’t too easy either. He would place the puzzle in front of applicants and ask them to assemble it while he watched.

What he was looking for, he told me, were several factors: How was their hand/eye coordination? How well could they see spatial relationships? How perseverant were they when they got stuck? How much patience did they display? How did they approach the exercise in general? Did they look at it with curiosity or as more of a chore? (This would indicate how they might approach projects day in and day out?) Time invested to create this simulation? Just what it took to design and machine the puzzle parts.

You may not own a machine shop, work for an airline, or oversee auto assembly. But the principles behind each of these exercises is adaptable. Including simulations in your screening process, even when there are few applicants to be had, is still a heck of a lot more accurate than three interviews and a resume review.

Has the Power of Choice Distorted Our Decision Making?

Sixty years ago, Newton Minow, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, famously called television “a vast wasteland.” This was at a time when there were a total of three networks. Candid Camera host, Peter Funt, recently asked Mr. Minow about his thoughts on the seemingly unlimited choices now presently available.

“Fractionalization of the audience provides more choice,” he said, “but we pay a big price. Our country now is much more divided because we don’t share the same news or believe the same facts. I used to think that providing more choice was in the public interest. But I’m not sure today.”

In other words, part of society’s present polarization is being caused by a population that no longer shares common interests based on media. Thirty years ago, people watched The Tonlght Show, starring Johnny Carson. Then they discussed his monologue the next morning at the office. Now, on any given night, you can choose between more than a dozen late-night talk shows, all of which have hosts projecting partisan political viewpoints, something Johnny was careful not to do.

Another television phenomenon of thirty years ago was “Who killed JR?” on the night-time drama, Dallas. People spent weeks arguing about who pulled the trigger. Why, because millions were watching every Friday night. In essence, it created a sense of community. You could get on an elevator and ask the strangers next to you, “Who do you think shot J.R.?” and they would immediately get the reference. Today, there are so many choices, we have balkanized ourselves into micro affinity groups. The chance of an elevator stranger watching the same thing you did last night is remote. Besides, we don’t talk to strangers. We bury our heads in our smart phones.

This fractionalization is not limited to today’s media. The same thing is true with pretty much every product, topic or issue. As a result, we have not just become fractionalized, but hyper-fractionalized. Without shared experiences, it becomes so much easier to hide behind the beliefs with which we feel comfortable. We seek out others who share our beliefs and avoid those who might have a different point of view.

The problem with this, of course, is that when we all retreat to our individual corners, we lose the perspective to make truly informed decisions. This is reinforced by the highly partisan politicians, activists, media and colleagues who choose to press their beliefs on others without remaining open to alternative points of view. The best decision-makers accept that their beliefs are not the only ones out there. They ask questions, knowing that the answers or opinions they receive in response may not be to their liking. But they accept that colleagues, friends and strangers can have diverging beliefs without being wrong. Effective decision-making is the result of seeking out the best information, opening yourself to thoughtful discussion and acting, knowing that you might be proven wrong.


Quitting is the Best Decision You Can Make

Do you want to be known as a quitter? I do. In fact, quitting has been the best decision I’ve made on occasion. Contrary to popular opinion, quitting is what the best decision makers do regularly. Allow me to explain.

Life is full of opportunities. There are new people to meet, new groups to join, new projects to launch, and on and on and on. But there is only so much time in each of our days and only so much energy with which to navigate those days. When invited to participate in a new group or opportunity, most people say yes because of the natural desire to belong or contribute. Psychologists call it the need to be needed. For those of us who enjoy being involved, this can become overwhelming. Between the meetings, tasks, and other commitments, we can reach a point where life becomes a never-ending series of activities. Eventually, we feel like we’re doing a lot, but not getting anything done. Have you ever felt this way? Maybe you do now.

So, how do you extricate yourself from this treadmill of non-stop obligations. Follow these five steps: meaningful experience essay buyessay org dpg dissertationspreis 2012 george washington essay paper go to link enter best research papers site clarinex over the counter equivalent to viagra go turabian paper sample does viagra work better in the morning essay draft example ma in creative writing ucd spinach cialis college admission essay 2014 shakespeare essay examples how the grinch stole christmas essay realting to humanity 11 paragraph essay templates source url dapoxetine go disertation abstracts biography 1 paragraph essay 1murid 1 sukan 1malaysia run essay help First, prioritize the commitments you have. There is no perfect way to do this. You might make a list. You might consider pros and cons. You might examine the value of each endeavor. However you do it, list every activity. Then determine which ones are non-negotiable (your job, for instance, along with family responsibilities). After this, examine the others in the light of what value each adds to your life. Chances are, you will already have some clear ideas of what could be eliminated. Consider how much time each one consumes. This is not just time in a meeting or working on a task. You should also consider the amount of thinking time and even heartburn it consumes. All aspects of an activity sap some of your energy and focus. Finally, prioritize these and decide which one, two, or three are good candidates for elimination.

Second, give yourself permission to quit. Every decision we make is made through a lens of emotion. Even in situations where the environment is toxic or you’ve realized that the commitment is a complete waste of time, you will have developed relationships you will be reluctant to end. There will be an emotional tug that you must acknowledge. Those you are leaving may even plead with you to stay involved. “Follow this through to the end,” they might say. Once you have determined that this is a group or commitment with which you should not be involved, give yourself permission to walk away. Not every commitment has a positive outcome. Not every commitment is a good use of your time. The best decision makers are able to step away from their emotional attachments and evaluate the situation with detachment. This is a key to quitting successfully.

Third, come up with a strategy for ending the commitment. This is an essential step in reducing the burnout and sense of overwhelm you probably feel. But you need to be prepared. Simply announcing that you’re quitting will generate questions you need to be prepared to answer. By providing a reasoned explanation, you will accomplish two things: 1) You will be able to preserve the relationships you have established and 2) You will reassure yourself and others you are making a reasoned decision and not acting impulsively. If you do this, there is less likelihood your departure will become awkward or even difficult.

Fourth, execute your plan. This can be the toughest part, but only if you are unprepared. If you have developed the reasoning for quitting and the words necessary to smooth your departure, the quitting should be successful. If you are prepared to make the break, you will feel a sense of relief when you have severed the relationship. The best decision makers don’t make a big deal out of it. They simply contact the key person involved, generally outside of a larger gathering, and let this person know that they will be concluding their involvement. They will be prepared with a succinct explanation of why and be prepared to hold firm if an appeal to stay involved is made. Then they move on as planned.

Finally, anticipate the emotions you might feel. The need to be needed is a powerful emotion and can hijack our determination to quit an activity, if we let it. I know this first-hand. I served on the board of a state association for years. I developed lots of lasting friendships. I had an opportunity to guide the organization. Truthfully, I enjoyed the influence that came with the position. One board member even called me an institution. In a way, a portion of my identity was tied up with this position. But this was also time I could spend growing elsewhere. Would I feel regret when ending this tenure? Sure. I would no longer be in the inner circle. But it was time. By anticipating these emotions when resigning from the board, I was able to make a smooth transition.

I should mention here that quitting an activity should not simply result in your filling that time with another commitment. Personal balance is extremely important. The best decision makers know this and work to enforce these limits. Becoming a strategic quitter may be the best step you can take in regaining control over your life. After all, leveraging your time and energy is an essential element in becoming a success, regardless of how you define it.

Are You Thinking Like Larry the Tree Guy?

Larry Meyer trims my trees. He takes care of the maples, cottonwoods and oaks on the properties I own. Whenever one needs to be taken down, I watch with fascination as he climbs 50 feet or more into the upper reaches of a dead tree. He methodically ties off each branch and removes it with the chainsaw hanging from his belt. Then he gently lowers it to the ground without damaging the surrounding landscaping or structures.

Periodically, he stops to assess the situation, planning his next four or five moves. If he cuts a branch prematurely, after all, he can’t use it for positioning, safety, or as a fulcrum to lower other branches to the ground. Occasionally, I will watch him swing from one branch to another in order to reposition himself for the next move. It’s like a one-man ballet in the air.

To me, Larry’s work is the perfect metaphor for how the best decision-makers accomplish so much. I’ve seen Larry stand at the base of a tree for five minutes or more, studying how the branches have grown from each other and how they can be removed in sort of a reverse order. Most of us would get our saws and begin hacking away. For Larry, it’s like studying a chess board. In fact, Larry has told me he spends a great deal of time playing chess.

As I have interviewed thousands of decision-makers over the years, patterns have emerged about how they accomplish tasks and objectives that seem to elude others. Some of these individuals have been corporate chieftains. Others, like Larry, run small thriving businesses that keep millions employed.

There’s Tom, who produces a food industry magazine. Tom told me he is always thinking three and four steps ahead. Because he is both editor and publisher, he has to write the articles, but also sell the ad space. This requires a balance of interviewing company owners for feature articles and getting them to part with several thousand dollars of advertising budget at the same time.

Then there’s Marty, who spent years managing restaurants. On one hand, he had to think several steps ahead to ensure that potential staffing, inventory and food production hiccups were anticipated and addressed. On the other, he had to be the charming host to hundreds of patrons, all while dealing with the occasional complaint or mistake.

Finally, there’s Sarah who oversees the adult division of a university. With an enrollment of more than 8000 online students across the US, she is tugged between the strategy required to lead the institution and the day-to-day challenges of delivering its services. All of this is managed under the ever-present oversight of accrediting organizations and government agencies.

While reading all this, you might be tempted to think, “I think strategically. This is nothing new.” But the bigger question is how often and how well. Unless we take the time to consider the downstream consequences of the actions we’re taking right now, we can end up dealing with the unintended obstacles created by our impulsive, and perhaps impatient, decisions. When it comes to the big projects, we are generally predisposed to planning our work. But how about when dealing with that spur-of-the-moment decision that catches us off guard? Isn’t it worth that extra 60s seconds to step away and think three or four steps ahead?

Larry’s, and Tom’s, and Marty’s and Sarah’s discipline and methodologies have been honed over the years through trial and error. But even now, they are always discovering nuances to improve their process. How about you?

P.S. If you live in the Denver metro area, I recommend Larry Meyer with Northern Lights Tree Service if you need your trees trimmed. 720-203-3186.

The Most Expensive Kind of Question Ever Asked

If you have ever supervised people, you have been on the receiving end of these questions. If you have ever been supervised, you have asked these kinds of questions. If you’ve had to answer these questions, it’s cost you time and focus, sometimes for hours every week. If you’ve asked these questions, you knew you were doing it, but it was so much easier than thinking.

What kind of questions? Lazy ones. They come in many forms. Some start out with, “Can you help me?” or maybe “I don’t know what to do.” Perhaps they end with, “I don’t want to make a mistake,” or “I looked it up on the Internet and there wasn’t any information.”

These questions can become the bane of a supervisor’s existence. Just when you have regained your concentration on the project at hand, someone leans in your door and says, “Got a second?” When you figure out that the question being asked should have been handled by the asker, your impulse might be to yell, “THINK FOR YOURSELF!” But then you conclude that it’s just easier to answer the question than dealing with the blank stare that comes with your demand for independent thinking. But that’s where you’re wrong!

There are three consequences to answering lazy questions: 1) Enablement – It is human nature to learn by observation. If employees observe you answering all their lazy questions, they will conclude that it is okay to keep asking.

2) Cost – Time is money and lazy questions drain your time and attention like nothing else. Answering ten lazy questions a day can run into thousands of dollars per month.

3) Turnover – Asking lazy questions demonstrates the lack of investment the person has in their job. If they don’t care enough to think, why would they care enough do good work or even stick around?

Now, I’m not telling you anything you don’t know. The issue is what to do about it. In my experience, it comes down to the word “compel.” Compel is defined as having a powerful or irresistible effect. In other words, the person feels like they have no choice except to comply. Notice I used the word “feel.” There is an emotional element to this. You’re not forcing them to do anything. You are convincing them that it is in their best interest to think rather than take the easy way out.

A number of years ago, I was introduced to an educational technique called a “think-aloud.” Imagine a student approaching a teacher to ask for help on something he’s already been shown before. Rather than showing him a second or even third time, the teacher says, “Let’s think this through together. How should we begin?” Then the teacher waits for a response.

The student may be hesitant or even say, “I don’t know how to begin.” In response, the teacher says, “Suppose I was not here and you had to solve this yourself. What’s the first step?” Then he or she remains quiet again.

After a few seconds, the student will suggest a first step and the teacher encourages him by saying, “That’s great. Now, where do we go from here?” This process continues until the student catches on. All the while, the teacher provides a mix of encouragement and guidance, but not answers.  At the end of this exchange, three positive things have happened.

First, the student has developed an understanding of how to solve the problem. Second, the teacher has observed how the student thinks. This informs how he or she should teach and coach the student in the future. Third, in learning this new skill or technique, the student develops additional confidence in his ability to think critically and independently.

The cool thing is that you can take this technique and transfer it directly into the workplace and use it to compel employees to think creatively and independently. Does it take some time and energy to employ this approach? Yes. Will it work every time? Not at first. But after a while employees will begin to understand that you will take them through this process whenever they ask questions they should be able to resolve themselves. This will compel them to think for themselves rather endure this kind of conversation each time. Once you have this practice in place, you’ll be pleasantly surprised at how the number of lazy questions diminishes and everyone’s productivity rises. I know, I’ve tried it with the people who have worked for me.

So, here’s the bottom line. Unless you try this technique, you are not allowed to complain any more about people who ask lazy questions. I’m just sayin’.

Will Bo Be Ready When He Gets to You?

My daughter works for a university. This summer, she hired a student intern named Bo. Bo is a rising senior and graphic design major. He will be working twenty hours per week, creating video promotions and brochures for this year’s student events.

Erin is looking forward to seeing what he produces. But she’s concerned that he seems afraid to act without explicit instructions. Since she will be in and out of the office quite a bit this summer, she’s relying on him to take the topics and concepts they agree on and turn them into promotions that students will find engaging.

The day before Erin left for a few days of vacation last week, Bo was in her office five times in four hours. Each time, it was for a question he should really have been able to deal with himself. Finally, in a bit of exasperation, Erin told him to use his best judgment. “Okay,” he said, “If I need you, I’ll just text you while you’re traveling.”

Now Erin faces a dilemma. If she responds to his texts, will she be encouraging his behavior? If she does not, will Bo get the work done or wait until she responds to each question? What would you do? After all, Bo could be working for you when he graduates next year.

I sometimes face pushback from young people when I mention this kind of behavior. But Erin’s dilemma another real-life example of the challenge so many managers face. So, what’s a supervisor to do to manage this issue successfully? Here are the three strategies I recommend:

Employ the use of simulations during selection – Let’s face it, interviews do not reveal the decision skills of most applicants. You need to observe them in action. These exercises do not have to be elaborate, but should be based on typical situations made in your workplace daily.

Take a few minutes to jot down five or so of these decisions. Then create a simulation that compels applicants to demonstrate their skills and confidence at handling those dilemmas. You shouldn’t be looking for correct answers. You should be watching to see how they think through each challenge. (In my next post, I’ll provide five illustrations that I’ve seen work.)

Meet new employees where they are – In these times of tight labor supply, I have managers saying to me, “I’m hiring every warm body I can find.” I get that. You can still hire people lacking decision skills. But if you do, you need to be prepared to coach them on decision making from day one.

One manager I know has a simple strategy. When hiring someone who’s lacking in certain skills, he says, “I’d like to bring you on. But I do have some concerns about how well you think on your feet. So, I’m going to put you through some decision skills training first thing. If we can have that agreement, I’d like to have you as a part of our team.” In this way, he establishes a bit of buy-in before the person starts. If the person responds negatively to this condition, he doesn’t want that person on the team, no matter how tight the labor market.

Place parameters around your access – In today’s digital environment, there has emerged an expectation that everyone needs to be available at all times for all questions. This is simply not necessary, but you need to set and enforce practical parameters.

Early in my career, I worked for a director named Don. Don had a tremendous amount on his plate. When I waltzed into his office to ask a question I could have resolved myself, it did not go well. After a few weeks of this, Don said to me, “Why don’t you wait until you’ve got a few of these questions you really need my help on. Then we’ll spend a few minutes resolving them all at once. This compelled me to re-prioritize what I was doing, solve the problems I could, and be well organized when I did approach him.

Over time, we got so in synch that he would hold up his index finger and say “one” when he saw me in his doorway. After we had resolved the first issue, he would hold up two fingers and say, “two,” and so on. This approach doesn’t work for everyone, but you get the idea. What will work for you?

So, those are my three recommendations. What are yours? I’d love to know. Respond to this post or shoot me an email at