The Freak Factory - David Rendall

Dave likes to talk . . . do you like to listen?

I'm terrible at being quiet and listening. That is why I was so pleased when Jeff Brainard, from Catch Your Limit Consulting, asked if I'd  be willing to do a Freak Factor CODcast interview.

Catch Your Limit is a great example of how the freak factor can be applied to  organizations. They are the world's only consulting firm that specializes in "management, marketing and fish cleaning services" and their CODcast, not podcast, stands for Creativity on Demand. I'm hoping to share Jeff's story with you all soon.

We talked for about an hour and discussed a little bit of everything, including: scissors, baseball, marriage, Hardees Thickburgers, parenting, Lance Armstrong, school, careers, outsourcing, interviews, management and the outrageous rewards for being the best.

Below are some specific questions the interview might help to answer.

- How can fixing your weaknesses actually damage your strengths?

- Why should you go farther in the direction that people tell you not to go in?

- What do the people that like you the best, like the least about you?

- How can you get a head start on success?

- Why is Shaquille O'Neal so bad at free throws and why doesn't it matter?

- Why was Michael Jordan bad at baseball?

- Why won't Lance Armstrong ever win a marathon?

- Why do you have to be willing to be the worst in order to be the best?

- What can Hardees Thickburgers teach us about our career?

- Why should you let your kids do poorly in school?

- How can the Freak Factor improve your marriage?

- How should you respond to the interview question about your biggest weakness?

- Why should you outsource tasks that you don't like to do?

- Why bother trying to be the  best?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you notice the new tabs at the top of the blog?

I've added links to my Facebook page, Linked-In profile and these Free Resources:

• podcast
• eBook
• self-assessment

Sara Dunnigan didn't want to do it again . . . So she didn't

I've gotten some great responses to my Freak Factor podcast with Jeff Brainard at Catch Your Limit Consulting. One of my favorites came from Sara Dunnigan at The Greater Richmond Partnership in Virginia. We had a nice conversation last week and she explained how she has already been able to apply the freak factor at work. I'll let her tell you in her own words . . .

"I’ve been struggling for weeks to write an annual report for a business program that I manage. Each year, we interview about 600 business people in an effort to connect them with resources and support the growth of their businesses. The annual report is an aggregate view of the data points and every time I tried to write an engaging, conversational report that people would actually want to read – it came out like a dry article from an economic journal. While well-written and chock full of facts and figures – this was NOT the effect I was going for.

This wasn’t the first time I struggled with this project. It has been my responsibility for more than three years and no matter what I did to get better (I must have read every other similar publication in the country) I just couldn’t get there.  In fact, during the time I spent trying to write, all I really wanted to do was go out and talk to stakeholders in the community about what we had discovered, what we had done and exciting plans for the future.
 
Then I happened to pick up the podcast through some friends and heard the conversation about the freak factor. It just clicked for me. I had been working with Grace, an intern in our office who was a fantastic writer.  I did the data gathering and roughed in the outline and she reorganized the content and added the dimensional writing I was looking for in the project.

I’m happy because now I get to focus on building on my skills as a speaker and solutions facilitator and Grace got to use her skills and add another great project to her portfolio. Now I am excited about using this approach for other projects our small team works on.  It’s got me thinking more about by own freak factor and how I can stop fighting and fixing my weaknesses (maybe I SHOULD write a piece about our program for an economic journal)."

Sara's story is a great illustration of how the freak factor can transform your life at work.

- Sara made continued efforts to fix her weakness. It didn't work. However, the problem wasn't a lack of self-discipline.

- Sara was strong in some areas and struggled in others. She was good at gathering and organizing data but had difficulty creating a compelling report.

- The time she spent trying to fix her weaknesses was frustrating and unproductive and could have been better spent on activities that she did well.

- Finding someone else to write the report was a win-win-win situation. Sara was happy because she had more time to do what she loved. Her company and constituents were happy because the report was more interesting and Grace was happy because she had an opportunity to use her strengths at work. Applying the freak factor enhances teamwork and improves performance.

- Now, instead of criticizing herself for her writing style, Sara is looking for publications that value her particular approach. She is trying to find the right fit, instead of trying to fit in.

Do you have a freak factor story? I'd love to hear it. Post a comment, send an email or give me a call.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you notice the new tabs at the top of the blog? I've added links to my Facebook page and Linked-In profile as well as these Free Resources:

• podcast
• eBook
• self-assessment

Let your employees drive

Daniel Pink is one of my favorite authors. His new book, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, will be out in December.

However, if you don't want to wait, you can watch him present an overview at the TED Conference.

What is so "surprising" about what motivates us? Pink's main point is that incentives or extrinsic rewards are ineffective. In fact, he cites research that shows how incentives can actually reduce performance. Specifically, as work gets more complicated, incentives become less helpful and actually become harmful.

Pink is concerned about the mismatch between what social scientists have discovered and the way that managers attempt to influence behavior. "There's a mismatch between what science knows and what businesses do." He argues that organizational "decisions about talent and people are based on assumptions that are outdated, unexamined and rooted more in folklore than science."

For example, research shows that "intrinsic motivation beats extrinsic motivation every time." But how can managers use that knowledge to get the job done? How can they align their motivational strategies with scientific principles? Pink has three suggestions:

1. Autonomy - "If you want engagement, self-direction works better."
2. Mastery - People's skills, interests and talents have to match the work.
3. Purpose - The work has to be meaningful.

He cites examples, like Google, that allow their employees to use up to 20% of their time to work on projects of their own choosing. Not surprisingly, when given this freedom, employees naturally choose tasks that are meaningful and that fit their personal style and strengths.

He also praises Best Buy for pioneering the Results Only Work Environment (ROWE), which encourages employees to work when, how and where they want to as long as they achieve the necessary results.

Pink's presentation fits nicely with The Freak Factor. As our daily work becomes more and more complex, organizations can't simply employ external rewards and punishments to force employees to do work that doesn't match their strengths and weaknesses. Instead, companies need to adapt the work environment to match the natural motivations of employees and look for the intersection of the company's goals and their employees' talents.

"The solution is not to do more of what we've already done. We need a new approach." That new approach starts with an understanding of our employees' unique needs and motivations, not with efforts to make everyone the same.

Are you ready to try this new approach? Are you ready to move over and let your employees drive?

Too strategic or not strategic enough?

During my managerial career, I was often criticized for focusing too little on details, tactics and operations. I was told that I focused too much on vision, strategy and the big picture.

How did I fix this weakness? How did I improve my ability to provide tactical guidance?

I didn't. Instead, I became a college professor and started teaching strategy, not operations. And I became a consultant that helps business with strategic planning. My big-picture perspective, formerly seen as a liability, is now a valuable asset.

As Seth Godin argues in his blog post, When Tactics Drown Out Strategy, many organizations are so busy with tactics that they don't spend enough time developing a strategy to integrate those tactics.

"In my experience, people get obsessed about tactical detail before they embrace a strategy... and as a result, when a tactic fails, they begin to question the strategy that they never really embraced in the first place."

Certainly organizations need both a clear strategy and aligned tactics. However, strategic and tactical skills don't need to reside within a single individual. That is what teamwork is for.

As managers and co-workers, we need to learn to embrace the strengths that others bring to the workplace and stop worrying about their weaknesses.

As individuals and employees, you need to embrace tactics if you are tactical and strategy if you are strategic. Don't let your boss or your organization force to you find balance or to become more well-rounded. Your perspective is valuable and unique, but so is the perspective of people that see things differently.

You aren't too tactical. You aren't tactical enough. Do it more.

You aren't too strategic. You aren't strategic enough. Do it more.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hungry for more Freak Factor?

Get the free e-book here  www.changethis.com/45.02.FreakFactor

Starbucks vs. McDonald's

I don't drink coffee. I don't like the taste and, despite many explanations from my coffee drinking friends and relatives, I don't understand why I should bother "acquiring" the taste. I drink what tastes good the first time.

I start with that disclaimer to explain that I'm not promoting my coffee preference biases in this post about Starbucks and McDonald's coffee wars. So please don't send me hate mail or try to convince me that your favorite coffee outlet is the best. For now, I'm agnostic.

Adam Hartung has an interesting blog that focuses on helping businesses "innovate to achieve real growth." He offers some excellent analysis of the current problems being faced by well-known companies, including Starbucks.

In a recent post he stated, "Starbucks has gifted McDonald's by choosing to fight them head-on right at McDonald's strengths - operational consistency and low price."

McDonald's is strong where Starbucks is weak (consistency, low price). However, Starbucks was (past tense) also strong where McDonald's was weak (service, customer experience, status, etc.).

Instead of continuing to do what they do well, and ignoring what they do poorly, Starbucks tried to fix their weaknesses, become well-rounded, and act more like McDonald's. As Hartung points out, this did not lead to success. Instead, Starbucks is now playing a game that McDonald's can dominate.

This is a classic problem that we all face when we make strategic decisions about our lives, our work and our businesses. We want to be perfect. We want to do everything well. We want to make everyone happy. But that is not possible.

Hopefully Starbucks can rediscover their strengths and the weaknesses that inevitably go along with them. They should charge high prices (even if some people think it is ridiculous), focus on social responsibility (even if some people think they are self-righteous), create a great atmosphere (even if some people drive-thru), and promote the luxurious experience that their products and service provide (even if it excludes some people because it costs a lot to have that experience).

In other words, they need to flaunt their weaknesses, instead of trying to fix them. They need to get comfortable with who they are and who they are not. They need to stop trying to be like everyone else and be themselves.

But if they don't, you won't hear me complaining because then my wife will get her coffee from McDonald's and we'll be able to afford to send our children to college. So maybe I'm not agnostic, just cheap.