At the Golden Globes, Jeff Bridges accepted the Cecil B. DeMille Award, and gave an acceptance speech that made us want whatever he was smoking.
— Read on www.thecut.com/2019/01/golden-globes-2019-we-want-what-jeff-bridges-was-smoking.html
Observations of a Corporate Headhunter In centuries past, the Malayan Dayaks were feared for their headhunting traditions—formidable warriors who pursued only the most worthy adversaries. Their practice was governed by discipline, selectivity, and an unrelenting respect for strength. While colonial rule and religious conversion formally ended the tradition, history suggests that some instincts never fully disappear. Today, those instincts have simply evolved. In the modern corporate arena, a new class of Dayaks operates quietly across boardrooms, founder offices, and global networks. The hunt is no longer physical, but the stakes are just as real. Their objective is singular: identify and secure the rare leaders capable of materially changing the trajectory of a business. The tools have changed. Deep market intelligence replaces ritual. Pattern recognition and judgment substitute for brute force. The ability to assess leadership under pressure—across growth, complexity, and transformation—has become the decisive advantage. In an environment defined by compressed timelines, global competition, and asymmetric outcomes, leadership quality is the ultimate differentiator. For venture-backed companies navigating hypergrowth, or private equity–backed businesses executing value creation and exit, the margin between success and stagnation is often one hire. This is the reality of modern corporate headhunting. The terrain is unforgiving. The competition is relentless. And only those with the sharpest instincts—and the discipline to act on them—prevail.
At the Golden Globes, Jeff Bridges accepted the Cecil B. DeMille Award, and gave an acceptance speech that made us want whatever he was smoking.
— Read on www.thecut.com/2019/01/golden-globes-2019-we-want-what-jeff-bridges-was-smoking.html

It’s hard to nail down exactly what it means to “have your shit together,” but you know when you may have met someone who does.
These people are functional and competent, but never pretentious or elitist. They make their beds and do their jobs and always seem to be level-headed about all the nonsense the rest of us conflate into huge crises.
No matter what your personal goals are, at the root of them all, you just want to have your shit together too.
But, while this might be hard to believe, the truth is that nobody really has it all together — not entirely, not all the time. But aspiring to function well in your life, own personal responsibility, have real diplomacy and social grace, a healthy temperament, and other similar traits are definitely noble, if not crucial to being well-received by the world.
Therefore, here is your official cheat sheet to getting your shit together… or at the very least, convincing everyone else that you do.
Decide what you love and then wear it often. Either has a signature scent, accessory or color scheme that sets you apart. When people see you, your appearance should align with who you say you are and what you say you care about. Your style should match your personality, and it should stay as consistent as possible. Think of CEOs who wear the same thing every day or cartoon characters who stay in the same clothes. People respond well to consistency.
If you don’t want people thinking that your life is a hot mess, then stop talking about it being a hot mess on every platform, at every chance that you can. There’s a huge, enormous, world-altering difference between being authentic and capitalizing on your struggles to earn sympathy or whatever else some dark corner of your mind thinks you’re achieving by complaining every hour of the day. You can keep it real without overemphasizing what you’re not that great at. What you share is what builds other people’s image of you.
On the same note, realize that the 2012–2014 era of confessional essays is over. It’s done. Not every single person online and in your personal life needs to know every single TMI detail about your life. Not only that, but they don’t even want to know. If you feel truly moved to share your struggle in some part of your life in the hopes that it will be therapeutic and help another person going through it, amazing, please do that. But if you are just constantly telling people way more information than would ever be appropriate to share, it makes you seem as though you don’t understand healthy boundaries.
This might seem really obvious, but it’s totally overlooked: people who have their shit together have the one really simple thing in common… they are always clean. They clean themselves, their spaces and their belongings. They take care of themselves, their spaces and their belongings. This doesn’t require much money, and really only minimal effort. Keep your life a little more cleanly and organized, and it will go a really long way.
I’m not saying that nobody is trustworthy, but I am saying that we are all dealing with something I’m going to call the “one person” phenomena. Every single time you tell a secret or important information to someone, if it’s interesting enough, they will tell their one person. Then that person will their one person. Ultimately, what you tell one person is what you tell everyone at the end of the day, so don’t say anything in private you do not want to be repeated in public.
Instead of being someone who creates drama and issues, be someone who problem-solves and innovates with new ideas. Instead of creating more chaos around a disagreement or issue, create a solution.
Other people and their lives are not topics of conversation. This is a lazy way to forge a connection with others if you have nothing more important or interesting to discuss. Ultimately though, being a gossip isn’t a good look. It makes you seem vindictive and judgmental. Find things to talk about that aren’t other people’s business. Your relationships will be better for it.
For people to respect you, they first have to understand you, and that really begins with your language and approach to explaining yourself, both online and in person. In general, you should have a single sentence explanation that adequately sums up what you do professionally, and then another that sums up what you’re interested in personally. If you can’t sum it up clearly, that means you are assuming your life is so complex and nuanced that it couldn’t ever be simply explained — but you’re achieving the opposite effect that you desire because really, you just seem to be sort of lost.
We do one another a disservice by insisting that, when having a conversation — and especially an argument— we have to answer immediately and impulsively. This is not how brains work. This is also not how intelligent people behave. Instead of spewing out whatever thing first comes to mind when you’re questioned about something, pause, think about what you want to say, and calmly express that you haven’t done enough research or hold enough expertise in the field to speak on it with authority, but you’d like to share your opinion or viewpoint anyway. As for what isn’t in your authority? Anything you’re not an actual expert in or have personal, direct experience with. So, most things you talk about — but that’s okay. The point is to try to share opinions with one another to generate more conversation, not convince one other about what’s absolute fact.
People who fly off the handle at every little thing do not seem strong and tough, they seem weak and of very weak will. Anger is like gasoline when there’s some kind of friction between people: it raises people’s defenses and pushes a resolution farther away. If nobody else can manage it, be the person in the room who can keep their composure and speak clearly and calmly.
Complaining isn’t venting. Venting is what you do when you need to get something off your chest. If you have to vent every single time you see one of your friends, there’s something wrong with your life or how you think about your life. Otherwise, you’re just in the habit of complaining, and you need to get out of it. It’s ungrateful, and a lot of the time, short-sighted. If you really think about it, you have a lot more to appreciate that you have to stress about… but emphasizing the latter will make your life seem worse than it is, and that’s not what you want.
Principles are the rules are guidelines by which you govern and manage your life. If you value relationships, prioritize them by principle. If you want to improve your self-care, do it regularly, by principle. No, you will not always want to wash your face, put on moisturizer, or drink another glass of water when you really need to. But if you succumb to your impulses all the time, you’ll end up a shell of the person you’re meant to be, all because you don’t have principles.
Behaving as though you can do absolutely everything yourself limits you. When you need help, you need help. Ask for it and understand that it does not make you less dignified.
You are ultimately responsible for whatever experience of life you want to have. You are responsible for your electric bill, for how well you keep up with current events, for how you interact with others, for how well you do at work, for how much you sleep. You have to take an active role in your life, not a passive one. Stop thinking and acting like life is just happening to you and you have to accept it and start taking some creative control.
Your willingness to uplift others is a sign of real confidence. People who are not happy with themselves cannot be happy with others. And there’s even more beneficial to you, because the more you are willing to affirm and love others, the more you are going to see yourself with more love and appreciation. Remember: your relationships with others are reflections of your greatest relationship, which is the one you have with yourself.
Absolutely no adult is beyond this.
If you don’t want to be the person who questions whether or not their card will be declined somewhere, make sure you’re checking in on your accounts before you actually go out and spend money you don’t have. You should know your debts, your incomes, and your goals. You shouldn’t be in the dark about your financial health.
Feed yourself when you’re hungry, rest when you’re tired, know how to gracefully bow out of a social situation, relationship, house party or job when you need to. If you wait until you’ve passed your limits, you’re going to burn out and burn bridges at the same time.
In the age of social media, it’s easy to the victim to the spotlight complex, which is the idea that everyone is thinking about you and evaluating your life decisions frequently. They aren’t. Everyone is thinking about themselves all the time, in the same way, that you are thinking about yourself all the time. Those coincidences you’re so sure to mean everyone deeply cares about the intricacies of your life? It’s probably confirmation bias or your brain’s way of filtering information that affirms what it already believes. The first step to being self-aware is recognizing that other people’s thoughts do not revolve around you.
People who are able to simplify their lives come across as sophisticated. People who complicate their lives do not. People who have their shit together are able to live simply, to enjoy simple things, to show up as they are and to sort through issues with clarity. People who do not have their shit together cannot do this.
Most importantly, remember that the point of getting your shit together is to make your life easier, and more enjoyable… not to impress anyone else. But like anything else, getting your shit together is a matter of faking it until you make it… and this is the best place to start.
There is a common perception among management that if you can’t handle the small things, you probably aren’t well suited to handle larger responsibility.
— Read on www.inc.com/quora/how-you-dress-at-work-is-way-more-important-than-you-think.html
A number of years ago, Jeff Bezos stopped by our office and spent about 90 minutes with us talking product strategy. Before he left, he spent about 45 minutes taking general Q&A from everyone at the…
— Read on m.signalvnoise.com/some-advice-from-jeff-bezos-4ee95086c76b

The Case for Prioritizing Talent Leadership in High-Growth Companies
Ask any CEO, and they’ll say their most critical responsibility is ensuring they have the right people in the business. Yet, when reviewing the “Our Team” section of many early-stage or high-growth technology companies, it’s rare to find a Chief People Officer, Chief Talent Officer, or an equivalent executive role dedicated to talent and culture.
This gap reveals a common mistake founders make: they prioritize Product, Technology, Marketing, Sales, and Finance but overlook the foundation of these functions—people. Without the right talent, these functions underperform or stagnate. Founders must recognize that building a strong Talent, People, and Culture function is just as crucial as these core business areas, if not more so.
A common misunderstanding lies in equating Human Resources (HR) with Talent and People leadership. Traditional HR often focuses on administrative tasks, managing employees post-hire, and reporting to the CFO. However, a forward-thinking CEO knows the value of having a senior-level People/Talent leader on the executive team, reporting directly to them.
This leader is far more than an HR generalist—they serve as the guardian of company culture, the architect of the Employee Value Proposition (EVP), and a strategic partner to other executives. Their role spans understanding the company’s trajectory across all key functions—Operations, Finance, Marketing, Technology, Sales, and Product—while building a scalable, data-driven Talent organization.
High-growth companies often hire HR generalists, assuming they can also manage recruiting and talent acquisition. This is a mistake. Recruiting is highly specialized and requires a strategic, process-driven approach. HR generalists, no matter how skilled, often lack the expertise to build an effective recruiting engine or manage large-scale hiring goals.
This gap becomes painfully evident as the business scales. For example, hiring 100 employees in 6–12 months is a full-time job requiring a high-impact recruiting team. Without a dedicated Talent function, the business risks delays, poor hiring decisions, and damage to its employer brand.
Investing in an experienced Talent Executive early pays dividends. This leader can develop a scalable, repeatable hiring process, create a strong recruiting brand, and establish the systems needed to attract and retain top talent. Here’s how to build a sustainable Talent function:
The People and Talent function is not a cost center—it’s a critical investment in your company’s success. By hiring a dedicated Talent Executive early and building a strong recruiting engine, CEOs can ensure their company is positioned to scale with the right people, processes, and culture in place. Getting this right isn’t optional in a high-growth environment—it’s essential.
About:
Michael is a Partner at True Search, where he specializes in managing Retained Executive Search processes for venture-backed, emerging growth, private equity, and disruptive technology companies.
With extensive experience in executive search and professional services, combined with first-hand expertise in entrepreneurial, founder-led, high-growth SaaS businesses, Michael offers a nuanced understanding of the skills, mindset, and leadership qualities essential for success in dynamic, venture, and private equity-funded SaaS and technology environments.
He collaborates closely with investors to build high-performing leadership teams across portfolio companies, focusing on CEO and C-level roles spanning Operations, Marketing, Sales, Finance, and Technology.

The news out of Uber last weekend was horrifying. A woman engineer was unable to get human resources to deal quickly and appropriately with a sexual harassment claim. I don’t know anything more than what I learned in her blog post. Uber is investigating and the full story will likely emerge in due course. I am not interested in piling on Uber right now. Plenty of people doing that.
But it does raise a great question which is how to get human resources right in a fast growing tech company. Growing from 50 to 500 to 5,000 to tens of thousands of employees is hard. Operating systems and processes that work in a 500 person company don’t work in a 5,000 company. The same is true of every growth spurt. Systems break down and stuff gets messed up.
A well designed and implemented human resources organization can help. A messed up human resources organization will hurt. As Uber has found out.
So what have I seen work and what do I recommend?
Here are some things you can do to increase the chances that your human resources organization will be a force for good in your company:
I hope those suggestions are helpful. They are based on what I’ve seen work and not work over the years.
In the Uber situation we also saw a failure in the “whistleblower process.” This is a particularly hard process to get right. First of all most teams, whatever kind of team, don’t really want “snitches.” It is human nature to try to come together and support each other. And blowing the whistle is the exact opposite of that. So here are some things you can do to get this right:
If you don’t have this stuff worked out in your company, now is a great time to do that. Your employees are watching you.

This is just a niggle but I think we hear that “hiring is the worst part of my job” far too often.
If anyone in your organization feels this way, you might take a look at deeper seeded issues.
Hiring is one of the most important responsibilities that any employee and certainly any leader has. Only using an aggregator (Zip Recruiter etc) to sort job seekers in buckets is not a best practice. They are not the most qualified or attractive candidates, are actively looking, and there is a reason they are available.

This is more relevant by the day:
Joe Navarro was one of the FBI’s top profilers, a founding member of their elite Behavioral Analysis Unit, and author of several books on human behavior, including Dangerous Personalities: An FBI Profiler Shows You How to Identify and Protect Yourself from Harmful People. To be clear, at no time did Navarro diagnose Trump as having a narcissistic or predator personality. He says we should leave formal diagnoses to professionals — but that each of us still needs to be able to identify and protect ourselves from harmful people in our lives. And so he created behavior checklists and published them in his book to let you do just that.
Navarro’s book warns that if a “person has a preponderance of the major features of a narcissistic personality,” then he “is an emotional, psychological, financial, or physical danger to you or others.” As the book The Narcissism Epidemic explained, “A recent psychiatric study found that the biggest consequences of narcissism—especially when other psychiatric symptoms were held constant—was suffering by people close to them.”
It’s even more important for journalists to decide if Trump behaves like a narcissist—as James Fallows explains in his must-read post at The Atlantic, “How to Deal With the Lies of Donald Trump: Guidelines for the Media.” Fallows cites a reader’s note to him “on how journalism should prepare for Trump, especially in thinking about his nonstop string of lies.”
“Nobody seems to realize that normal rules do not apply when you are interviewing a narcissist,” this behavior expert explains to Fallows. “You can’t go about this in the way you were trained, because he is an expert at manipulating the very rules you learned.” He criticizes the New York Times for believing what Trump said when they interviewed him (which is the same point I’ve made). Finally, he warns:
“… anyone who’s dealt with a narcissist knows you never, ever believe what they say—because they will say whatever the person they are talking to wants to hear. DT is a master at phrasing things vaguely enough that multiple listeners will be able to hear exactly what they want. It isn’t word salad; it’s overt deception, which is much more pernicious.”
I’ve been professionally interested in behavior assessment because to achieve and sustain serious climate action, empathy may be the most important quality in a president or political leader.
After all, climate change requires us to take very significant if not drastic measures today in order to avoid catastrophe for billions of others in the future who contributed little or nothing to the problem. Without empathic leaders, the necessary climate action becomes all but impossible.
That is a why the Pope ends his landmark 2015 climate encyclical calling on God to “Enlighten those who possess power and money that they may avoid the sin of indifference, that they may love the common good, advance the weak, and care for this world in which we live. The poor and the earth are crying out.”
Learning from Navarro’s Work
To leap to the conclusion, people on the far end of the narcissist spectrum lack empathy. And, Navarro told me, “these personality traits are fixed and rigid.” That person doesn’t change. They don’t pivot. Not what you would want in the leader of the world’s most powerful nation.
So, if you come to the conclusion that Trump (or anyone in your life) is on the extreme end of the narcissist spectrum — using the tools Navarro provides — then that person is, as his book explains, “an emotional, psychological, financial, physical danger to you or others.
As any potential levity about Donald Trump’s participation in the GOP nomination fight was stamped out by the serious and growing concern that he might actually become president — or merely trample our democracy in the process of losing — I kept reading up on the subject. I came across the work of Joe Navarro, who spent a quarter century as an FBI agent and supervisor focusing on counterintelligence and behavioral assessment. Now Navarro writes, consults and speaks on human behavior.
In particular, because few people are professional psychological diagnosticians or FBI profilers—but we all run across people who might be a danger to us or others — Navarro wanted to empower laypeople to be able to decide for themselves if someone they knew had a dangerous personality.
Is Donald Trump a cult ?
We came across a 2012 article for Psychology Today Navarro wrote listing “the typical traits of the pathological cult leader… you should watch for and which shout caution, get away, run, or avoid if possible.” Here are just the first 9 of the 50 traits he lists:
1. Has a grandiose idea of who he is and what he can achieve.
2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power or brilliance.
3. Demands blind unquestioned obedience.
4. Requires excessive admiration from followers and outsiders.
5. Has a sense of entitlement — expecting to be treated special at all times.
6. Is exploitative of others by asking for their money or that of relatives, putting others at financial risk.
7. Is arrogant and haughty in his behavior or attitude.
8. Has an exaggerated sense of power (entitlement) that allows him to bend rules and break laws.
9. Takes sexual advantage of members of his sect or cult.
Navarro writes, “If these traits sound familiar to leaders, groups, sects or organizations known to you then expect those who associate with them to live in despair and to suffer even if they don’t know it, yet.”
sound familiar ?
Navarro had “studied at length the life, teachings and behaviors of” people like Jim Jones (Jonestown, Guyana), David Koresh (Branch Davidians), Charles Manson, and other infamous cult leaders, and concluded: “what stands out about these individuals is that they were or are all pathologically narcissistic.”
Indeed, when I contacted Navarro, he explained that someone could meet most of these criteria and be pathologically narcissistic, but still not necessarily be a cult leader because cult leaders have other traits. For instance, they generally try to isolate people from their families.
In August, GQ interviewed cult expert Rick Alan Ross, “director of the Cult Education Institute and a lifelong Republican,” about Trump. Ross had been watching Trump’s rise with concern and was especially struck by his words at the GOP convention, “I alone can fix it.” Ross said, “That kind of pronouncement is typical of many cult leaders, who say that ‘my way is the only way, I am the only one.’”
Trump shares many key traits with cult leaders, Ross noted, including extreme narcissism, but, “We’re not talking about a compound with a thousand people,” referring to the Reverend Jim Jones. Jones gave cyanide-laced Kool-Aid to more than 900 of his followers in Jonestown—some 300 of them children. “We’re talking about a nation with over 300 million people. So the consequences of Trumpism could affect us in a way Jim Jones never did.”
Does Trump Behave Like a Narcissist?
As you may have read, the question of whether a psychologist should publicly diagnose someone they haven’t personally observed has a long history. A bunch of psychiatrists responding to a survey offered harsh diagnoses of Barry Goldwater, which ultimately led the American Psychiatric Association to issue a rule that “it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”
Yet some psychiatrists became so concerned about a Trump presidency last November that they broke the rule and were quoted in a Vanity Fair piece, “Is Donald Trump Actually a Narcissist? Therapists Weigh In!”:
“Textbook narcissistic personality disorder,” echoed clinical psychologist Ben Michaelis. “He’s so classic that I’m archiving video clips of him to use in workshops because there’s no better example of his characteristics,” said clinical psychologist George Simon, who conducts lectures and seminars on manipulative behavior. “Otherwise, I would have had to hire actors and write vignettes. He’s like a dream come true.”
Are such diagnoses untenable and/or meaningless? Not necessarily, says psychiatrist Dr. Sally Satel, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, in an article in Slate in October, “It’s OK to Speculate About Trump’s Mental Health.”
She argues we used to diagnose people by spending a lot of time talking to them. Now the “gold standard” is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fifth Edition(DSM-V), which bases diagnoses on observations. For instance, these are the nine diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) in DSM-V (“Five are needed to be eligible for the diagnosis”):
· A grandiose logic of self-importance
· A fixation with fantasies of infinite success, control, brilliance, beauty or idyllic love
· A credence that he or she is extraordinary and exceptional and can only be understood by, or should connect with, other extraordinary or important people or institutions
· A desire for unwarranted admiration
· A sense of entitlement
· Interpersonally oppressive behavior
· No form of empathy
· Resentment of others or a conviction that others are resentful of him or her
· A display of egotistical and conceited behaviors or attitudes
One of Satel’s main points is that even an official NPD diagnosis by a professional should not necessarily be disqualifying for a presidential candidate.
Interestingly, conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote in August that Trump’s behavior “is beyond narcissism.” In mid-October, he listed “a dazzling array” of “reasons for disqualification: habitual mendacity, pathological narcissism, profound ignorance and an astonishing dearth of basic human empathy.” And so despite how much he despises Hillary Clinton, he could not bring himself to vote for Trump.
Coincidentally, Krauthammer, a trained psychiatrist, “contributed to the creation of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, currently referred to as the DSM-5.”
Ultimately, Fallows himself writes, you don’t need a “medical diagnosis” to realize “there are commonsense meanings for terms to describe behavior,” and “in commonsense terms, anyone can see that Trump’s behavior is narcissistic, regardless of underlying cause.”
The “Warning Signs of the Narcissistic Personality” Checklist
The bottom line is that the degree of narcissistic tendencies — and the related lack of empathy — matters when assessing potential leaders.
Two key reasons Navarro developed his extensive checklists for dangerous personalities are 1) DSM-V has too few criteria to discriminate between degrees of narcissism and 2) he wants to empower individuals to be able to identify these dangerous personalities, because we will never get official diagnoses for the overwhelming majority of people in our lives.
Navarro actually has behavior checklists for four key personality types in his book: the Narcissist, the Paranoid, the Unstable Personality, and the Predator. You can see a short version of the “most central” criteria for each type in this 2014 Psychology Today interview.
There are 130 “warning signs of the narcissistic personality.” The behavior checklist “will help you determine if someone has the features of the narcissistic personality and where that person falls on a continuum or spectrum (from arrogant and obnoxious to indifferent and callous to abusive and dangerous).”
If you find someone has 15–25 of these features, they’ll “occasionally take an emotional toll on others and may be difficult to live or work with.” Someone who scores 26–65 “has all the features of and behaves as a narcissistic personality. This person needs help and will cause turmoil in the life of anyone close to him or her.” Lastly, Navarro warns:
“If the score is above 65, this person has a preponderance of the major features of a narcissistic personality and is an emotional, psychological, financial, or physical danger to you or others.”
Personally, no matter how many times I go through this checklist and give him the benefit of the doubt, I get a score for Trump of over 90. I suspect a great many people would score over him well over 100.
You should download Navarro’s book and do the assessment yourself. That way you can assess for yourself whether or not his behavior is so pathologically narcissistic, so devoid of empathy , that the only viable response to his election is to actively oppose him and his divisive and destructive agenda. As a side benefit, you’ll end up with an important book you can use to identify and protect yourself from the various harmful people you will come across in your life.
It has been crystal clear for a while that the election of Donald Trump would be catastrophic for humanity, that it would jeopardize the health and well-being of billions and billions of people in the coming decades and centuries.
If you have any remaining belief that somehow Trump is not a threat to our very way of life — if you have the tiniest belief that his pattern of behaviors suggests he could grow into the presidency, as some others have in our history—you should do the checklist.
Why people Leave? This stuff Holds up….
It’s pretty incredible how often you hear leaders/sorry, strike that — not real leaders — but just “Managers”, complaining about their best employees leaving, and they really do have something to complain about — we all know how costly and disruptive it is to have great people walk out the door.
“Managers” tend to blame their turnover problems on everything under the sun while ignoring the crux of the matter: People don’t leave jobs; they leave their boss !
The sad thing is that this can easily be avoided. All that’s required is a new perspective and some extra effort, and oh yea — you have to listen.
These are possibly the nine worst things that bad leaders do that send good people packing.
Nothing burns great people out quite like overworking them, its unreasonable and just dumb. It’s so tempting to work your best people hard that leaders frequently fall into this trap. Overworking good people is a paradox & perplexing; it makes them feel as if they’re being punished for great performance. Overworking employees is also counterproductive — the challenge is the “gamers” always think they are up for it and suffer from the “if I say I am at capacity — then I wont be a “valued” so intuitive leaders need to be sensitive to this.
The research data shows that productivity per hour declines significantly when the workweek exceeds 50 hours, and productivity drops off so much after 55 hours that you don’t get anything out of working more hours.
If you must increase how much work your best people are doing, you’d better increase their status as well. Talented people will take on a bigger workload, but they won’t stay if their job suffocates them in the process, and if you are not clearly of valuing their contribution. Of course raises, promotions, and title-changes are all acceptable ways to increase workload, but are not the magic bullet — nothing takes the place honesty, transparency, and empowerment.
If you simply increase workload because people are talented and are your “go to” resource, without changing they way you outwardly value them, they will seek another adventure that gives them what they deserve.
It’s easy to underestimate the power of a pat on the back, especially with top performers who are intrinsically motivated. Everyone likes kudos, none more than those who give it 110% + all the time .
True leaders know how to communicate with their people to find out what makes them feel good and motivates them (for some, it’s a raise; for others, it’s public recognition) and then to reward them for a job well done. With top performers, this will happen often if you’re doing it right.
More than 60% people who leave their jobs do so because of their relationship with their boss. Smart companies make certain their leaders know how to balance being professional with being human. If you don’t know what your EQ is — stop reading now and find out, but its probably too late for you.
These are the leaders who celebrate an employee’s success, empathize with those going through hard times, and challenge people, even when it hurts. Leaders who fail to really care will always have high turnover rates, and worse they blame everyone but their own lack of self awareness. It’s impossible to work for someone 110% when they aren’t personally involved and don’t care about anything other than your production.
Making promises to people places you on the fine line that lies between making them very happy and watching them walk out the door. When you uphold a commitment, you advance and grow in the eyes of your people because you prove yourself to be authentic, trustworthy and honorable (two of the most important qualities in a boss). But when you disregard your commitment, you come across as slimy, uncaring, veneer, and disrespectful, and dare I say — lazy.
After all, if the leader doesn’t honor his or her commitments, why should everyone else?
A players want to be on the field with peak performers, they want to work with like-minded professionals. When leaders don’t do the hard work of hiring good people, it’s demotivating for those that working alongside them.
Promoting the wrong people is even worse. When you work your A__ off only to get passed over for a promotion or high visibility project, that’s given to someone who told the boss what they wanted to hear, its not only disingenuous, worse it is a massive insult, and it probably means you might have a narcissist at the helm. No wonder you are losing great people.
A players are passionate, they are thoroughbreds that have to run. Providing opportunities for them to pursue their passions improves their productivity, intellectual stimulation, and overall job satisfaction. But many leaders only want people to “color in the lines”, because they fear that productivity will decline if they let people expand their focus and pursue their passions. Big mistake.
This fear is unfounded. Studies show that people who are able to pursue their passions at work experience flow or zone , a euphoric state of mind that is five times more productive than the norm.
When leaders are asked about their inattention to their people, they try to excuse themselves, using words such as “trust,” “autonomy,” and “time” “empowerment.” This is complete nonsense. Good leaders manage, no matter how talented the employee. They pay attention and are constantly listening and giving feedback. The art is blending leadership with direction and management.
Leadership may have a beginning, but it certainly has no end. When you have A players, it’s up to you to keep finding areas in which they can improve to expand their skill set. The most talented people want feedback — more so than the less productive people — and it’s leadership’s job to keep it coming. If you don’t, your best people will grow bored, become complacent, and leave..
The most talented people seek to improve everything they touch, always pushing the envelope into “discomfort” this fights complacency, and they know it. If you take away their ability to change and improve things because you’re only comfortable with the status quo, this makes them hate their jobs, and maybe you too. Caging up this innate desire to create not only limits them, it also limits you as a leader.
Great leaders challenge their people to accomplish things that seem inconceivable at first. Instead of setting mundane, incremental goals, they set lofty goals that push people out of their comfort zones.
Then, they do everything in their power to help them succeed. When talented and intelligent people find themselves doing things that are too easy or boring, they seek other jobs that will challenge their intellects.
If you want your best people to stay, you need to think carefully about how you treat them. While most good people are as tough as nails, their talent gives them an abundance of options. You need to make them want to work for you.


Not quite. HR’s role is changing, as a growing number of companies give more power to individual team leaders to evaluate and guide their direct reports.
When Deloitte revealed recently that it was redesigning its approach to performance management—hoping to fix a process that chews up nearly 2 million hours a year but yields crummy results—the professional services giant suggested that people might be surprised by “what we’ll include” in the new system “and what we won’t.”
As notable as the “what,” however, is the “who.”
Deloitte plans to give more tools, along with more of a sense of urgency, to individual team leaders so that they can conduct formal check-ins with all of their direct reports at least once a week.
“These brief conversations … provide clarity regarding what is expected of each team member and why, what great work looks like, and how each can do his or her best work in the upcoming days,” Ashley Goodall, Deloitte’s director of leader development, explained in the current issue of Harvard Business Review, where he laid out the initiative.
Deloitte is at the fore of a trend that is changing how major companies are managed: Team leaders are being offered—and, in some instances, simply seizing—more responsibility and autonomy in evaluating and guiding the people who work for them. As part of this movement, they are taking over functions that have traditionally been the province of corporate HR.
“We now have the opportunity to put power right into the hands of the team leader,” says Marcus Buckingham, who wrote the HBR article with Goodall and whose company, TMBC, has been advising Deloitte. (Full disclosure: Buckingham is a member of the board of advisors of the Drucker Institute, which I run, and he is a friend.)
Under the classic corporate hierarchy to which most businesses still adhere, HR centrally administers a performance evaluation once or twice a year. By the time feedback filters down to front-line managers, it’s often too backward-looking to be useful.
“The most important audience for this information is the person who doesn’t get any of it in a timely way—the team leader,” says Buckingham. “The real work of a company happens in microclimates.”
In the case of Deloitte, as well as other organizations using Buckingham’s methods, team leader check-ins are augmented by an initial online self-assessment taken by every member of the group. The instrument allows employees to explore and understand their strengths and share those insights with their supervisor and other colleagues.
Automated reminders then ensure that the team leader is given a weekly dose of data, making it possible for him or her to answer three questions shown to measure and help spur engagement and productivity: What are the strengths and capabilities of each of my people? What are they doing this week (and, implicitly, how does that match up with their strengths)? And how are they feeling this week?
Performance management isn’t the only activity undertaken directly by a growing number of team leaders. Goal-setting, surveying workers, training, and even hiring are increasingly being handled in much the same manner.
“There’s definitely a shift happening,” says David Hassell, the CEO of 15Five, a company that makes web-based software to improve communication between employees and their managers.
Two factors are fueling this transformation. First, pressure is rising for companies to move much faster than the typical corporate bureaucracy can facilitate.
For instance, athletic-gear maker Under Armour has turned to HireVue, an interactive platform for recruiting, screening, and hiring job candidates, to bring on staff as it opens new retail stores. But it’s the store managers themselves—with HR’s backing—who are making these selections. Through this decentralized arrangement, Under Armour has opened a new store in as little as two days, according to HireVue, and it has cut the time to fill jobs by 35%.
The second factor is a proliferation of technology. Indeed, while “there is no I in team,” there is ever more IT being deployed at the team level—some of it so cheap that managers can buy the stuff themselves without any corporate rigmarole. For example, 15Five costs $49 a month for the first 10 people, and $5 for each additional person.
The goal-setting application BetterWorks goes for only $15 per user per month. Kris Duggan, co-founder of BetterWorks, recalls the CEO of a financial services firm who at first saw little point in rolling out the product. But so many of his managers started using BetterWorks on their own that he eventually had no choice but to input his own objectives to keep them in line with everyone else’s. “It was definitely the lower ranks of the organization that was pulling the CEO in this direction,” Duggan says.
Of course, not every company is ready for their team leaders to assume such an assertive role; a top-down philosophy still prevails inside most large organizations. Nor does every team leader have the skills and mindset to successfully manage this way.
“You have these really fancy, awesome tools,” says Dan Pontefract, a longtime TELUS executive and the author of Flat Army: Creating a Connected and Engaged Organization. “But the culture has to be there first.”
It is also hard to imagine that some HR executives—afraid of losing their authority—won’t resist these changes.
But Buckingham believes that with team-leader-driven companies, HR officials will have the chance to be more valuable than ever. “Tim Cook recently commented that ‘the most important data points are people,’” Buckingham says. With team leaders tuned in as never before, “HR will finally be in position to have real-time and reliable people data,” as opposed to serving up figures that are “stale and untrustworthy.”
They’ll also be able to spot pockets of true excellence throughout the organization and try to replicate those. “Rather than having things centrally launched and cascaded down,” Buckingham says, “you’ll have them locally launched and aggregated up.”
Slowly but inexorably, the world of work is being turned upside down.DoDO

COLUMBUS, OH–(Marketwired – December 15, 2015) – Aver Inc., leader in the healthcare bundled payment space and provider of a patented data management platform that simplifies the healthcare reimbursement process, has appointed Nick Augustinos as President and Chief Executive Officer.
A member of the Aver board since 2014, Augustinos steps into the CEO role with more than 30 years of managerial, consulting and business development experience in the private and public healthcare sectors. Most recently, he served as Senior Vice President of Health Information Services and Strategy for Cardinal Health where he led strategy and investments in information services and key information services initiatives for the company. Prior to Cardinal Health, Augustinos held leadership roles with a variety of tech, consulting, and healthcare organizations including Cisco Systems, CareScience/Quovadx, Healtheon/WebMD, Deloitte Consulting, and CliniShareUniHealth.
Augustinos succeeds Kurt Brenkus, a company founder, who’s future is questionable at best.