Perhaps the leader’s output is a function of the number and quality of decisions they make in a day.If that’s the case, the quality of a leader’s decision may be a function of:Awareness and perception — information and intelligence.Time and Space to think.Tools for collaborating, designing, building, and showing work.Courage to take risks.The x-factor is the leader’s ability to influence and execute.

What signals a good manager? When you look for a good car mechanic, you might look at reviews on Google, or other social media. You might weight the number of reviews, and how real the reviews look. Based on what you read, you then decide to try out the mechanic or not.When job seekers look for potential companies, they consider Glassdoor reviews. Does the company look good or not? But when candidates think of their next boss, what review sites exist? Radical ideas: What if managers showed up to interviews with a list of references of previous direct reports candidates could call for a reference? What if LinkedIn had a way to have people managers rated? Would-be employees could see star ratings and reviews of people managers to determine who they want to work for. What if previous employee engagement surveys are shared with potential hires? Managers would be responsible for sharing their thoughts on areas for improvement and what employees could expect.Employees like to ask about culture, and managers usually have nice canned responses. “We’re inclusive, we celebrate this and that, we’re getting shit done, blah blah blah…” but how many open the books and say, “this is who people say we are, and here are some of our scars, and here’s what we’re proud about.”I realize I am ruffling the feathers of conventional wisdom. I’m quite okay with that.

When people say they want to leave a job, they invariably tell me it’s because of the boss. My question: why don’t candidates ask to interview their would-be bosses?If candidates are always putting their “best foot” out there, how can we be so sure that would-be bosses do the same? And,If the boss-employee relationship is close, then wouldn’t the presence of good chemistry between the boss and candidate be essential? Take the traditional job interview:Candidate joins the Zoom.Interviewer says “hi” says “this is just going to be a conversation” and then goes into standard interview questions.Candidate presents prepared answers to these standard questions. They often preface their answer with, “oh, good question.”Interviewer says, “it looks like we have a few minutes, is there anything you want to ask me?”This asymmetric exchange may result in a lousy deal for the candidate. I imagine a symmetrical job interview:Every joins the Zoom.Interviewer: we’re going to start out with questions you want to ask, but also, I want you to know that you’ll have time with my team later on to ask them, directly, about working with me and what it’s like working here. They’ll give you honest reviews. Simply ask. Interviewer and Interviewee dig into the type of problem solving they might work through in the job — both getting a glimpse of how the other thinks and works. Interviewer wraps up: thanks! Is this the type of working relationship you want to opt-in for? Interviewer shares their feedback. When our world and work are becoming automated and tech-driven, we must become that much more human.

I notice that when people get confused about a decision or a situation, they say “I don’t know.”I ask, “what don’t you know about?” “I don’t know, nothing seems clear.”“What are the options immediately in front of you?”I then take two options and put them on a table. Option 1 goes to column 1, option 2 goes to column 2. I ask, “what are the benefits of each option?” I write the benefits in the second row under each option. I then make two rows below benefits. The first row is “Opportunity Cost” and the last row is “Benefits Lost.” I then ask the person to pick an option. The “Opportunity Cost” of the option they pick is always the next best alternative, and the “Benefits Lost” is always the benefits of the next best alternative. People tell me that the table creates decision-making clarity for them.

There may be a limit on authenticity. My friends would argue that I’m not aware of one. I believe I have a limit. There always seem to be a push from the HR and employee-engagement communities for more authenticity in the work place. Do we really want that? We all play a role in life — like characters in a show or musicians in a band. Our productivity in our various roles is a function of many things: environment, capacity, skill, desire, genes, etc. My output as a musician is not a function of my output as a friend. I argue to abandon the idea of authenticity and opt for considered or effectiveness. Instead of asking “are you able to be your authentic self” I might ask, “are you able to produce work that you’re proud of; are you able use all of your skills, knowledge and capacity to do it; and do you believe you’re effective?”Perhaps I’m asking a lot — as my friend Darryl says, “you’re known to ruffle feathers.”

I don’t think there’s a better feeling than putting your head and heart into something brand new, suffering through sucking at it, and then seeing it start to work out. The validate from peers is okay, but it’s not nearly as meaningful as seeing the work meaningfully help others.Keeping chipping away - it pays off.

Don’t assume everybody is giving you their A-game. I have a working theory that we all think we’re doing our best and that our best isn’t good enough. If that’s even 1/10th of 1% true, then we may benefit from giving ourselves and each other more grace.

If you want to know if you’re on the right track, show your work.Don’t wait for perfect.Ship now.

I need to create a swim lane process chart with multiple dependencies, conditions and time phases. The chart looked more like a mess of spaghetti than something clean and beautiful. How would anyone make sense of my work?I noticed a blank sheet of staff paper. Drew lines for measures and gave each staff the name of my collaborators. I made a score. Lesson learned: change your perspective as a way to make complex things simple.

I wonder about taste and preference. If someone who loves garlic created food loaded with garlic, and if you loathe garlic — is the food bad or wrong? I argue no. From where you sit, you see a world where less garlic is used. If the chef was cooking more dishes for people like you, it might benefit from less garlic. The chef sees the world as a world where everybody loves garlic. When it’s a question of taste and preference, perhaps leaders can use more helpful language. That’s how I see things.