In my last blog I wrote about bad apples spoiling things for everyone else. At times it can feel amazing to have a scape goat – to be able to lift the burden of responsibility from your shoulders and place it on someone else. But in doing so we do ourselves a great disservice. We limit our own reach, our own ability to affect the world around us. We accept our negative circumstances and allow them to continue unabated.

Victor Frankl, author of the incredible book Man’s Search for Meaning, wrote about how he thought the Statue of Liberty should be balanced by an equal symbol, a Statue of Responsibility. We all need reminders now and then that the one person we can rely on to take responsibility to turn a bad situation into something good or a good situation into something great is ourselves.

In the case of dealing with the bad apple there are numerous paths to take. Deflect their negativity by focusing conversations and work flow away from them. Call them out and tell them that criticism and negativism isn’t welcome. Remove yourself by avoiding them or leaving the situation in which you see them. If it is in your power, let them go. When people are miserable where they are and making things miserable for those around them, sometimes the best thing you can do for them is to release them to pursue a better fit elsewhere.

The one thing that doesn’t help is choosing to do nothing. Your hopelessness will only empower the negativity to continue. I know having a scape goat can feel great when standing at the water cooler, but do your self a favor. Take some responsibility to go with your liberty. Maybe you’ll turn the person around. The world could use a few less bad apples.

Have you ever encountered someone who brings everyone else down? He (or she) is the reason for all of your woes. He causes your team to fail. He stops you from achieving greatness. It’s all his fault. If only he wasn’t on the team everything would be perfect.

Well there might just be some research to back up your frustrations. This wonderful podcast details the three types of bad apples who actually can and do have dramatic effects on group performance and behavior.

The first 12 minutes offer a fascinating look at how bad behavior can derail a group. I highly encourage you to listen to this as it also provides a suggestion for turning around the bad behavior. The final 45 minutes of the podcast I only encourage you to listen to if you have lots of spare time. Though at about 35:30 there is a very funny comedy bit (approx. 10 minutes) about being the bad apple.

If this blog has given you the idea that you can blame others for any poor performance you or your group have suffered, enjoy that feeling while it lasts. Next up I will blog about why you really can’t pass the buck.

Seth Godin wrote today about how people without goals can have more fun now and worry less. But those who have goals accomplish more. They lead. I would also suggest that the fun of now has diminishing returns. Hedonism is only enjoyable for so long before the shallowness gets to you.

Victor Frankl’s book Man’s Search For Meaning is by far the best source I know for understanding how important it is to have personal and/or professional goals. Even though goals can often lead to work and accountability and stress and frustration, there is no deeper fun than eagerly striving toward something important.

I recently wrote that we should seek more involvement in 2009. One element of involvement is experience. People want experiences. They want to have done or seen something interesting. Art is something that can certainly be interesting but is often static. Then someone comes along and gives you an art experience that literally jumps up from the sidewalk at you while you are walking by. Now that’s a cool experience.

If you are a business owner or manager or sales person or parent it’s worth thinking about the experiences you are creating for the people around you. What are the new or interactive or novel or exciting or engaging or fascinating moments you are creating for them?

Everyone wants great experiences, but they don’t happen on their own. Someone has to go out and make them happen.

Happy New Year everyone.

I’d like to propose a group resolution this year. Let’s see if we can make 2009 more interesting and engaging. Here’s an interesting post by Steve Roesler about spending less time lecturing and more time in discussion and activity. This is great advice for a trainer/speaker, but also for anyone who works with groups of people.

For the most part people tend to be most engaged when they are actively participating in the discussion. I’ve written about this before in my article for Practicing magazine about why meetings fail. By my estimate over 95% of corporate meetings follow the large group discussion format. Only 1 person speaks at a time. Everyone else listens. In most groups only a few people occupy all the airspace. The rest are disengaged. Read my article for suggestions on how to switch that.

Even in social settings this applies. Last night I was at a small gathering with a handful of friends. I noticed that when there was only one conversation going a few people didn’t really talk. They disengaged. So I broke off a side conversation with them. They became animated and energized.

Whether you are speaking to a large group, running a meeting, or just hanging out with friends, let’s all spend 2009 helping one another be a little more engaged. All it takes is some little discussions.

I’ve always thought the Lexus Christmas commercials were a bit tacky, but this year at least one of them has crossed over into full blown offensive.

It begins with a little girl stroking a pony. She asks you to remember when you got a pony for Christmas. Your neighbor came over to see and was jealous and no longer liked her own non-real-live-pony-gift that she had received. Well no gift could ever be so perfect again . . . until you receive a Lexus.

So let me get this straight (and if you happen to work at Lexus, please email me to confirm, because I would really like to be sure I have this correct). The purpose of holiday gift giving is to make other people jealous and unsatisfied with their own possessions. The Christmas spirit is in fact to make other people unhappy, preferably those you call your friends. Or should this spreading of bad cheer extend to family members as well? Exactly whom are we supposed to try to make miserable with our gift giving? Maybe we should go find a factory or office laying off thousands of workers to drive past in our new Lexus. Are we supposed to revel in the sadness and shame on the faces of the newly unemployed? Perhaps we should top it all off by driving past a soup kitchen.

This ad was despicable and the marketers and executives at Lexus should be ashamed. This is no less disconnected from the reality of the public than when the AIG executives went quail hunting and couldn’t understand why perhaps that was wrong.

If ever there was a time when such gross consumerism and corrupt values should disappear, I would think it would be a holiday season in the midst of a severe economic recession.

Shame on you, Lexus.

Convincing people to act can be troubling, but your certainty can pay off. Contrary to what you might expect, choice actually makes people less likely to act, less satisfied with their selection, and less able to remember where they put their car keys. (Okay. Maybe not that last one.) There are many serious explanations for this as well as poetic. If you want real proof of this call your spouse and tell him/her that you want to go out to eat. Then give 10 options of places to go. You will very likely be met with aggravation and resistance. Alternatively, call and offer two choices. The reception is likely to be much warmer.

I think that a childhood lesson comes in handy here. I learned early in life that whether or not I know what I’m talking about speaking with authority convinces people. So next time you wish to get someone to act, don’t offer 10 choices with uncertainty – try just 2 with confidence. And if that doesn’t work, try repeating the options 3 times.

I received a shipment this week that consisted of 4 packages and discovered something that fascinated me. There was a sticker on one of the packages. I immediately went to my wife and asked her, “If you were sending 4 boxes to someone and wanted to make absolutely sure that one box was opened first, what would you do?” Her answer was to label the box, “Open First.”

I don’t know. Her idea might work.

Three of my boxes were unlabeled. The fourth had a bright orange sticker with bold letters that said, “Open Me Last.” Sure enough, the curiosity was too great. It was the first box I opened.

So let this be a lesson to you. Sometimes your instructions may have unintended effects on the recipients and sometimes resistance may be a simple matter of curiosity.

I was watching TV and a commercial came on that had me totally engrossed. In fact, I can’t remember the last time that a TV commercial so shocked me into paying attention. You might wonder what in this age of used car salesmen could rise so far above the din to cause me to take notice.

The answer?

Silence.

The black screen had a single sentence that read, “The following 30 seconds of peace and quiet have been brought to you by Karako Suits.”

I was so surprised by the lack of noise I found myself staring at the screen, marveling at the fact that nothing was happening. I didn’t quite know what to make of the complete lack of change in the picture. My hand involuntarily reached for the remote in hopes of unpausing the screen. But of course, it wasn’t paused.

After about 25 seconds the black background faded to a picture of a suit. Then, after 5 more blissful seconds of silence, life returned to normal. (I.e., loud, flashing, abrasive and annoying.)

I think there is a lesson in here for marketers, but I’d probably have to out-shout the used car salesmen to get their attention.

No one in my house growing up was allowed to get away with grammar mistakes. My mom was even known for correcting the grammar of my school teachers. (Incidentally, it didn’t go over very well when I copied that behavior.)

Despite my wonderfully grammatically correct upbringing, there is one grammar challenge that always stumps me – the question of who vs. whom. Fortunately, I came across this blog that very effectively clarifies the point.

I hope it’s helpful to you. It was for me.

Now, for a sign-off that is a quote from Winston Churchill.

“That is a rule up with which I will not put.”