Pearls, swine and the workforce

I'm not a particularly religious person. I was raised in a mainline Protestant tradition, and have traveled a LOT of religious/spiritual paths since, but have come to view organized religion with a healthy degree of skepticism.

That being said, the wisdom texts of MANY spiritual traditions still contain some wisdom (imagine that). Today I reference a passage from one such text that cautions people not to "cast their pearls before swine".

It turns out that it's actually some pretty solid career advice. Let's unpack it.

The pearls in this old-school "meme" refer to things of value that we possess and the "swine" refer to people who either cannot understand them (but will never admit it), are intimidated by our possession of those "pearls" and/or would prefer to remain in the metaphorical dark ages rather than admit that we might know something (or have some skills) that they do not.

Sadly, this is still quite common.

In years (decades?) past when the mobility of skilled workers was more limited, people in possession of "valuable pearls" were often forced to remain in the metaphorical pig pen where the chief pigs made all the rules. Today, people have many more options, but before we explore those; let's look at why swine don't deserve pearls.

Non gratuitas cibum

Loosely translated, this means "no free lunches" and it is something that the Boss Hogg types gladly hand out as advice to their underlings. The thing is, they overlook the reality that this advice goes BOTH ways.

There's enough content on this topic alone to fill at least 3 articles, but I'll sum it up for the sake of brevity: if we're arrogant, uninformed, uneducated and possibly also just plain ignorant, and find ourselves in a leadership position,... we might not want to irritate the people in our extended orbit that have more/different/valuable skills and more depth than we do across a larger body of knowledge.

This sounds simple and straightforward, right? It doesn't require a degree in astrophysics (e.g. rocket science) to understand that if we beat up our car/vehicle, it's not going to be a reliable option for transportation. Similarly, if we neglect basic upkeep of our car/vehicle, we're going to eventually find ourselves without wheels.

Effective leadership is similar. We cannot abuse, disrespect or overlook our team members and then expect them to continue to do work that is above and beyond and on the cutting edge so it makes us look good. We cannot disrespect team members because we feel inferior to or intimidated by them, and then assume that they'll continue to step up and provide information or work output that is superior in an area where we can't produce and may not even have a complete grasp or understanding.

Real leadership, in 21st century terms, is seen in leaders that willingly and openly elevate the people around them that have the knowledge, skills and abilities necessary for the team to move forward. These leaders are self-aware of their OWN shortcomings, and are strong enough in their own self-image that they not only realize, but acknowledge, when other people have knowledge, skills and abilities that they don't. In addition, they do not compete with them, but see them and treat them as colleagues and valuable assets for the team.

Weak leaders, on the other hand, reach out with petty messages that are intended as "hand slaps". These are sad attempts to remind people of their "Boss Hogg" status, and that the recipient(s) are lower on the Org Chart. The recipients already know who's got the Boss Hogg name plate on their desk, so they don't need a reminder and most of the time, people know where their name and job title are located on the Org Chart. The real outcome of these messages is that the sender reveals their core weaknesses.

Weak leaders overlook contributions, expertise and potential gains for the entire group while focusing their attention on someone's use of words, lack of/too much participation in a meeting, or (pick a petty issue and insert here).

Strategy 101

Weak leaders are so laser focused on making sure everyone acknowledges their Boss Hogg nametag that they don't see their own shortcomings. Non-sycophants on their teams recognize the obvious weakness, almost immediately, and will pivot to strategies that include avoidance, protecting their IP (intellectual property) as expressed through their expertise and innovation, and making sure the true leaders in the larger organization know where the quality output and ideas originate.

Another characteristic of weak leaders is that they are always focused on DETAILS while ignoring (or being oblivious) to a larger vision and/or strategy. This has been written about by people much smarter than me, and is known as the Peter Principle.

The Peter Principle is defined as follows:

...the tendency in most organizational hierarchies, ...is for every employee to rise in the hierarchy through promotion until they reach a level of respective incompetence.

This principle has been in the common vernacular since the late 1960's and has been present in some form in every organization that I have worked for across my career.

Here are some descriptive takeaways from the article (linked above):

• an employee who is very good at following rules or company policies may be promoted into the position of creating rules or policies, despite the fact that being a good rule follower does not mean that an individual is well-suited to be a good rule creator.
• the Peter Principle can be summed up with a twist on the old adage that "the cream rises to the top" by stating that "the cream rises until it sours." In other words, excellent employee performance is inevitably promoted to the point where the employee's performance is no longer excellent, or even satisfactory.
• competence is rewarded with promotion because competence, in the form of employee output, is noticeable, and thus usually recognized. However, once an employee reaches a position in which they are incompetent, they are no longer evaluated based on their output but instead are evaluated on input factors, such as arriving at work on time, and having a good attitude. (I would add they also include submitting canned reports on time, always forwarding emails - that everyone already received - to look busy, and being a "good little sycophant" to their boss).
• employees tend to remain in positions for which they are incompetent because mere incompetence is rarely sufficient to cause the employee to be fired from the position. Ordinarily, only extreme incompetence causes dismissal.

I'm going to pause here and let everyone take a deep breath, because I know that there are visual images of people who are living, breathing examples of these descriptions coming to mind!

Once we are promoted into a leadership role, we should LEAD - not nitpick small details. We should hire expertise into our organizations (or recognize existing expertise) and then channel our energy into supporting and respecting those resources instead of focusing on getting them to bow down to our (new) status.

Perhaps the saddest aspect of this lies in the loss of potential achievements, accomplishments and growth that was once possible. Sincere motivation to contribute as part of the team dies on the vine when a Boss Hogg takes the helm. People learn (quickly!) that the only people valued are those that acknowledge Boss Hogg as the supreme leader (Star Wars reference intentional), and guess what? People with stand-alone expertise, skills and experiential depth aren't going to continue to share their "pearls" of wisdom, insight and hard work for a petty and self-unaware Boss Hogg.

The knowledge and experience employees bring to their roles is a form of intellectual property (IP). Most people are willing and happy to share their IP in environments that respect them and what they bring to the team effort. Wise leaders understand this and work hard to ensure that all contributors are respected, supported and encouraged. Wise leaders also know that personal issues like low self-esteem, jealousy and the urge to slap people's hands requires the engagement of a therapist, STAT.

We will never get the best from our teams if we are focused on self-centered impulses of pettiness, a desire for power, or the need for recognition. To that end, it's a good idea to remind ourselves that the character, Boss Hogg (from the Dukes of Hazzard TV show) was a laughing stock. He had all the APPEARANCES of being the "boss", such as the big car, the white suit with the pocket watch, the "title" and the big hat; but he was outwitted, outfoxed, outrun and outmaneuvered - every time - by people he looked down on and underestimated.

There's a leadership lesson there,... if we're willing to see it.

If we want the best from our teams (contributions of their "pearls"), we need to make sure we're not acting like swine.

People who have invested their time and effort to acquire knowledge, build skills and hone their unique abilities - contributions that can be used to improve our teams - have options. And those options don't have to include sharing those pearls with a Boss Hogg or his sidekick sycophant, Roscoe P. Coaltrain.