POWER MOVE: Who can get away with wearing sunglasses inside

There are only two reasons to wear sunglasses inside (excluding for any medical/eye issues).

Reason one (and this is by FAR the most common) - said inside sunglass wearer is a Grade A loser/jerk/poseur/idiot, and the sunglasses are screaming 'Look at me'

Exhibit 1 - Lane Kiffin (back when he was still coaching at Alabama).

As I mentioned - really jerky.

Two (much less common but far more interesting) - the inside sunglass wearer is competing, with you, me, pretty much everybody around him or her, and doesn't want to give away any hint to what they may be thinking or feeling. The sunglasses in this case are saying something totally different - 'Don't look at me.'

Exhibit 2 - Greg 'Fossil Man' Raymer - professional poker player most famous for winning the 2004 World Series of Poker Main Event (and a $5M prize)

Pro poker players doing the sunglass inside thing at the table is pretty common now, but back in 2004, Raymer was kind of an innovator - and a savvy competitor. Hard to get a read on a person when they are hiding behind the shades.

Exhibit 2A - And my new hero, one Anna Wintour, fashion industry icon, and in this picture seemingly disrespectful to Queen Elizabeth by not removing her trademark sunnies.

But why does Wintour rock the shades? Hint - it isn't because she is trying to be too cool for the room. It is because she doesn't want you (or me or anyone else), to know what she is thinking, particularly as she sits in the front row of a fashion show, eyeing the latest designs.

From a recent piece on Business Insider explaining Ms. Wintour's affinity for the shades: (edited a little)

If anyone's actually watched Anna Wintour in front row fashion shows before, they'd know she always wears her blacked out sunglasses so that people and prying media cameras cannot read and reveal her true thoughts on the fashion items as they pass her on the catwalk. 

And that's the reason the real ballers go with the sunglasses inside look. When everyone wants a piece of what you are thinking, and it is not in your best interests necessarily to let them know what you are thinking, then players like Raymer and Wintour put their guard up, and kind of dare you to call them out on it.

But when you win as much as Raymer and Wintour have in their careers, most folks don't bother to call them out after all, and if they do, it really doesn't matter, because after all, who is doing most of the winning? And one thing we see in most winners - they are often willing to do things that the rest of us wouldn't consider 'proper'.

So here's the move I want you to consider. That next 'big' project or staff or client meeting when things could get a little tense, when you do want or need to play your cards, (sorry Raymer), close to the vest, and to not reveal what you are really thinking or feeling - do you have the guts to walk in like Wintour, with a set of blacked out shades? How would Jerry from accounting react when he looked at you an all he got back was a stone face and a set of Ray-Bans?

Could you pull it off?

Wouldn't it be awesome if you did? 

Have a great day!

Loss

Note: This week on the blog I am trying out a little experiment - writing on the first five (or so) subjects that popped out at random from a cool little app called Writing Exercises. The app provides suggestions for topics, characters, first lines - that kind of thing. I tapped the 'Random Subject' button a few times and will (try) to come up with something for each subject I was presented. It may be good, it may stink - who knows? But whatever the topic, I am taking like 20 minutes tops to bang something out. So here goes...

Today's subject: Loss

Wow, the fun never ends with these random subjects. Check the earlier posts on Regret and Fear. Is seems like the Writing Exercises app wants to make sure I stay in a funk all week. Ok, well I committed to this nonsense and today's post gets me over the hump for the week so carry on we must. But I am not going to get too heavy on Loss, as no one needs to be bummed out any further, especially on a Wednesday.

When was the last time you lost something really important to you? I am not talking about misplacing a set of keys for ten minutes or not being able to find your favorite T-shirt on a Saturday morning, but rather actually losing, (gone, disappeared, never coming back...), something you truly cared about or even loved?

It probably doesn't happen all that much, as we usually do eventually track down most of the things that mysteriously go missing. Maybe your roommate or one of your kids borrowed the thing and didn't tell you or didn't return it to its normal place. Or maybe you're simply getting old and more forgetful yourself and then all of a sudden - Oh, now I remember I left my lucky sweatpants back at the tailgate last weekend (illustrative purposes only, I assure you).

Well, I know I have lost a few things over the years that I still am pretty peeved about.  Here are the three things I wish I still had, please feel free to share yours (lost or just moved on from), in the comments:

1. My Camel Saddle Seat - Yes, I once had a camel saddle seat and yes it was exceptionally cool. I acquired it while working in Saudi Arabia a lifetime ago and after about 20 years and a dozen moves somehow I no longer have the saddle seat. And that stinks.

2. My 1976 Buick Century - This car was slow, unwieldy, ugly, with ponderous driving characteristics and I loved it. I didn't so much lose it as it just went missing. I think. I actually don't really remember what happened to it. But I might have to get another one. 

3. My Superstar Baseball Board Game - Superstar Baseball was a kind of strat-o-matic style board game that essentially kept my core group of 10 - 13 year old kids busy on summer nights in the late 70s. This was basically Fantasy Baseball before anyone had dreamed up the term Fantasy Baseball. Nothing better than watching two 7th graders argue over whether trading Arky Vaughan straight up for Pie Traynor was a fair swap. Where is my game today? Who knows.

So that is my take on Loss. What have you lost that you would love to get back?

Sprinkles are for winners

Over the weekend during an extended period of extensive reading and research that keeps this blog full of interesting and provocative content, (I was mostly watching basketball on TV), I ran into this little beauty (video embedded below, email and RSS subscribers will need to click though), one of the latest in the long-running series of 'Flo' spots from Progressive Insurance. Watch the quick 30-second spot then some FREE comments from your humble correspondent.

I, like you too probably, was just about done with Flo, she has been seemingly telling us about how fantastic discount auto insurance can be for literally YEARS.

But with this little bit of wisdom, 'Spinkles are for winners', she is all the way back on Steve's 'approved' list.

Why is this spot perfect, and relevant too?

Because it reminds us that in life, sports, business, sales - whatever, that losing is sometimes the inevitable outcome. Sometimes the other guy/company/product/candidate is bringing is simply better than what you have to offer. And sometimes you just have to accept that.

But, and here is the key, you don't get a complete pass, or a do-over, even if the other guy really is better. You get an acknowledgement, sure, (if you are lucky), but you don't get many more chances probably, and you definitely don't get a prize.

You have to figure out a way to win, eventually, even when no one blames you for losing. 

Sprinkles are for winners, Jimmy.

Have a geat week!

SPORTS WEEK #3 - No one cares what you don't have

Note to readers: As I have had a really busy Summer and early Fall preparing for the now recently concluded HR Technology Conference, the posting frequency here has been pretty diminished lately. Additionally, I find myself well behind my regular number of 'sports' posts that form the basis of my contribution to the annual 8 Man Rotation E-book on sports and HR. So I have declared this week of October 21 to be 'Sports Week' on the blog. I'm shooting for 5 days of sports-themed posts to make sure I don't get dropped from the 8 Man crew. So if sports takes are not your thing, check back in a week of so, when I will probably have another equally inane theme working.

Onward..

No matter who you are, where you work, and the time/budget/resources/talent that you have at your disposal to carry on your campaigns for conquest of the world the unassailable fact is that someone out there has access to more/better/faster/smarter than you. 

Unless you are a recruiter or Talent pro at Google. Then you have already won, and there is no need to read any further.

But if you are not in that prime position of recruiting for or managing talent at the clear market or geographic top dog then from time to time you run into what are 'competitive disadvantages' in your efforts to find, attract, coach, develop, retain, and squeeze the best performance from your workforce.

Someone else can offer a better starting salary to college recruits.

Someone else has a better, more comprehensive benefits program.

Someone else has won a few of those 'Best Places to Work' awards, (the ones you can't be bothered to fill out the application for).

Someone else has a reputation for sticking with their strategy, even when times are tough, and not announcing layoffs three days after posting record earnings.

You get the idea. No matter how great you are, someone out there is probably doing it better.

You can let your relative disadvantage be that crutch you rely on, and the excuse you fall back on when explaining why you can compete with the better funded, faster, sexier, and generally 'not that different that you, just not as obviously dysfunctional' others in your space.

Or you can take a page from the Triqui Indian (or Mexico) boys basketball team, and not only compete, but win and dominate an international competition while PLAYING BAREFOOT.

From a CNN piece describing the team and the tournament:

Despite most of the team being of short stature and playing barefoot, the Triqui Indian boys from Mexico won the championship -- and the hearts of many -- at the International Festival of Mini-Basketball held in Argentina.

Their coach, Sergio Zuniga explains that playing barefoot is a reflection of the poverty in their community in the state of Oaxaca.

"The boys train barefoot, they always walk barefoot. There are no resources to buy shoes," Zuniga commented in an interview with the Basketball Federation of the Province of Cordoba, where the tournament was held.

The seven games against six local teams ended with incredible scores: 86-3 over Celestes; 22-6 against Cordoba University; 72-16 against Central; 82-18 over Hindu; 44-12 against Monteeis and 40-16 over Regatas de Mendoza.

The National Sports and Physical Culture Commission of Mexico named the team as the "Barefoot Giants of the Mountains."

Awesome.

A team of poor, short, and certainly disadvantages and barefoot kids from the mountains of Mexico remind us that whatever barriers or obstacles or 'It's not fair' complaints that we might offer up are just about always pretty hollow, and kind of meaningless.

The message?

Find a way. Don't settle. Don't let the competition beat you before the game has even started.

And don't underestimate the determination of a foe that by virtue of playing through some remarkable challenges have become much, much tougher than you realize.

Playing a different game than the rest of the league

A few weeks ago I had the good fortune to attend the Human Capital Institute, (HCI), Talent Acquisition Strategies event in New York City. One of the highlights of the event was the closing presentation given by New York Mets executive, Paul DePodesta, who you may remember from the Moneyball book and movie. DePodesta was an assistant to Oakland A's General Manager Billy Beane during the years profiled in the book and film, (in the film, the Jonah Hill character was based on DePodesta).

With the success Moneyball, both book and film, plenty of opportunity and time has been spent on analyzing the process that Beane and DePodesta undertook to determine some less well understood keys to winning baseball games, and then to find and recruit undervalued (by the rest of the teams), talent to help them execute their competitive strategy. As I am sure you know by now, the A's were very successful for a period of years, though they fell short of winning the ultimate championship, despite a relative lack of resources compared to the traditional league powers like the Yankees or Red Sox. If you have somehow been under a rock for the last few years and are not familiar with Moneyball, I highly recommend the book, and sort of recommend the movie, (the book was better).

I don't dredge this all up again to try and re-tell the Moneyball story, or try to wax philosophical about how some of the ideas from Moneyball can be applied in the workplace, or to talent management, (lord knows we have had plenty of that), but rather to share a comment made by Mr. DePodesta during the question and answer portion following his presentation at HCI. An audience member asked, essentially, since Moneyball, and the concepts, process, methods utilized by Beane and himself were now widely understood and copied, thus diminishing (or eliminating), the competitive advantage that the Moneyball approach provided, what did DePodesta think would be next, i.e. the logical successor to the Moneyball method, that perhaps would also offer significant and important advantage to the team that could figure it out, (and exploit it).

DePodesta paused just for a moment, then replied, (I am paraphrasing here), that the successor to Moneyball, which was at its core a different way of analyzing prior outcomes, or what has already happened in prior baseball games, and applying the analysis of that data to evaluate players and to form a team, would be a new and better way to predict which players would eventually grow into high performers. Baseball players are typically drafted and signed as young as 17 or 18 in the USA, and even earlier in many of the foreign countries where baseball teams recruit talent. Many of these players require 3, 4, or ever 5 years of seasoning before they are even ready to start playing in the Major League. Making more correct talent assessments of 17 year-old high school players than the next team is often the difference in building and sustaining a successful franchise, (and saving your job).

DePodesta would not really get into what specific traits or attributes he was thinking about that would be a better predictor of performance some years out into the future, but suffice to say that he and the Mets are spending time and effort in working out new, more, and better predictive models.

What if anything does this have to do with you, Mr. or Ms. Talent Professional?

Just a reminder that like Moneyball, most corporate secrets don't last for long, and the advantage that comes from being better than the competition at analyzing what already happened eventually whittles away to nothing. Every team, (or most anyway), eventually get in on that game. And a Brad Pitt movie makes sure of that.

Knowing what is going to happen next, or at least what is likely to happen next - that's when you are playing a different game than the rest of the league.