One of the weirder experiences most of us can relate to is being in a meeting where nearly all of the participants disagree with the decision being made, but the power dynamics keep anyone in the room from objecting. It’s never a great feeling, and it seems to happen for a few different reasons
I'm not one to extol the virtues of failure. I get annoyed whenever people talk about “celebrating failure.” That said, there are some benefits to getting your ass handed to you every once in a blue moon.
Investing time, money and energy into a strategy, only to have the market not respond is like taking a punch. You might not get knocked out, but the effect of multiple blows can take a toll on your confidence and enthusiasm.
I nearly scrapped this column, because they’re not bad ideas per se. Both are still in fashion today, especially in the startup-o-sphere, and like many popular ideas there's more than a grain of truth to them. But these two ideas have run themselves ragged, and I see them doing more harm than good when I encounter them.
The right way to evaluate an interview candidate varies by industry, company, and role. But there are universal mistakes to avoid whenever you’re interviewing a candidate for any role. After conducting hundreds of interviews of the last several years and many, many post-mortems, I’ve learned...that I’ve made a lot of mistakes over the years.
Communicating with your superiors like peers is a subtler extension of the same practice of thinking like a manager from the outset. By interacting with your managers on their level, you encourage them to treat you like a peer as opposed to someone whose experience and judgment pales in comparison to their own. By communicating with them the way their peers do, you encourage their communication “muscle memory” to take over so they don’t think to adapt their style....
