Is it still rude to wear a hat indoors?

But it's part of my outfit...


I was at a business event the other night with about 200 other people.  The guest speaker was great and the topic was relevant but throughout the night, I was distracted by something that other people may not have noticed - a young man wearing a fedora indoors.

The 'No Hats Inside Rule' was strictly enforced in my childhood home and is so ingrained in my psyche that when someone violates this etiquette guideline, it just feels wrong, like snow in summer or a cheerful DMV employee.

I have carried over this particular rule to my own home and family.  My kids and their visiting friends know they are not allowed to wear their hats inside and absolutely must remove them for meals. If I'm out for dinner with my peers and one keeps a hat on during the meal, I would never ask them to remove it (that would be rude) but it will annoy me for the duration. Of course, that is my problem, not theirs.

But times change and well-intentioned rules are relaxed or abandoned all together for reasons of practicality or enlightenment. The rule of removing hats indoors was established decades ago when men regularly wore hats outside to protect them from the elements.  They removed the hat indoors so that the elements (rain, dirt, etc.) did not fall onto meals or other people.  Where did they put their hats?  Well they probably checked them with a coat attendant who knew how to properly store them so they didn't get smushed.  It's unlikely that the same service is available today in most establishments.

Today, hats are a fashion statement for both genders and can be such a part of one's "look" that asking someone to remove their hat is akin to suggesting that they take off their shoes.  There are other things to consider.  Many of the etiquette rules that formed the North American approach to acceptable social behaviour were written at a time when the population (or at least the ruling class) was homogeneous in terms of religion and therefore, didn't take into account the need to observe the customs of faith by wearing hats or head coverings indoors.  The Emily Post Institute notes this in its updated, more modern list of acceptable places to wear hats, as well as the fact that cancer patients need not worry about this rule.

So, like so many other "old-fashioned" guidelines, the "no hat" rule will probably fall by the wayside in the next few years for reasons that include an embrace of different cultures and a general relaxation of appropriate attire.  I can accept that, but I don't think I will ever be able to stomach a baseball hat worn indoors at any time.

What do you think?  Do you have guidelines about hats in your home?  Does it annoy you when a man doesn't remove a fedora indoors?  Would you even notice?

8 Questions to Ask Yourself Before Burning A Bridge

To my knowledge, I have burned four bridges in my career.  It's possible that I have unknowingly and unwittingly burned more and that other people have burned bridges with me (with or without my knowledge).  But, there have only been four times in two decades (one every five years or so) that I have deliberately and willingly decided to end a business relationship in a way that clearly demonstrates there is no possibility of ever working with that person again.

Burning a bridge is a bold career move that is sometimes necessary and often misguided but it always feels great, if only fleetingly.  Many dysfunctional business relationships can come to a natural end without the need to torch anything.  People are fired and laid off everyday without the need for drama and business partners, clients and consultants often realize that they are not a good match and go their separate ways with a handshake and an assurance that they will be civil if they bump into each other on the street.

Burning a bridge usually means you leave a business relationship by telling your boss/colleagues/partner/client exactly what you think of them and their methods in no uncertain terms.  You might even channel your inner Scarlett O'Hara and declare that "as God is your witness, you will never cross paths with them again".  Highly unlikely if you work in the same industry but full of impact nonetheless.  Others burn bridges in more passive ways, simply disappearing, not showing up for work, refusing to answer phone calls, etc.  In this case, their silence speaks volumes.

It's hard to have a successful career without lighting a few flames but you should do so judiciously and ask yourself the following questions before you pour the gasoline:

1. Was this person's behaviour truly abusive, egregious or unethical? 
There's a big difference between someone who is incompetent or a bad fit and someone who is abusive.  We have all had our share of crappy bosses and catty coworkers but unless their behaviour can truly be described as abusive, just move on and chalk it up to a learning experience.

2. Do I plan to continue working in this industry?
If the answer is yes, then think twice.  It's a small world and you'll likely encounter the person again. I once purposely burned a bridge with someone I considered unethical and years later, he showed up as a valued partner in a piece of business I wanted to win.  When I found out he was involved, I backed out, but it was lost revenue nonetheless.

3. Is my reputation strong enough to withstand this? 
Have you spent years helping others,  building your reputation, growing your network and collecting a portfolio of good work?  If so, you can probably survive any mudslinging that arises as a result of this situation but if you're just starting out or your reputation is already on shaky ground, walk away quietly and regroup.

4. Do I need this person for a reference?
No matter how much you may dislike someone, unless you already have three solid references to present at future job interviews, don't burn the bridge.  I've been shocked to see some people dramatically burn a bridge in writing at their very first real job and then actually ask that person for a reference later.

5. Can I burn a bridge in a dignified manner?
Don't just explode in a hail of profanity. That's all that will be remembered. If you're going to have this conversation with someone, do it with as much class as you can muster.  Plan your departure in advance and choose your words carefully.  Leave out personal insults and petty grievances.  They'll only weaken your case.

6. Is it really necessary to put it in writing?
So you've decided to burn a bridge.  Why create an everlasting archive by putting it in an email or letter?  Simply meet with the person in question and explain why you will no longer do business with them.  I know some disgruntled employees have received front-page coverage with spectacular public resignation letters  but that just paints you as an attention-seeking troublemaker, not an ideal future employee.

7. Did I play a role in the breakdown of this relationship?
Is this a case where you did your very best, worked hard, followed through and acted professionally but were still treated poorly?  If so, get out the propane torch.  But think seriously about your role, if any, in how things went awry.  Unless you come out squeaky clean, it might not be worth it to play the blame game.

8. Do you have the stomach to handle the potential outcomes?
You just want to say your piece and move on to greener pastures but the object of your wrath might not cooperate.  They might fight back, take it public or launch a smear campaign against you.  Are you okay with that?  If not, you may not have the stomach to handle burning bridges.  Better to take the high road and focus on more positive things.

She'd be great, if only I could motivate her

If only I could have more autonomy...

When I ran a business, the realization that it was my job to motivate staff hit me like a ton of bricks.  I had just assumed that everyone was motivated by the same things and at first, took a fairly formulaic approach to motivation.  When this didn't work, a mentor suggested that you can't actually motivate another human but you can find out what motivates them and use that to your advantage.  So, how do you find out what motivates someone?  You can ask them outright but you won't always get an entirely truthful answer.  For example, some younger workers claim to be motivated only by meaningful opportunities but my negotiations with them usually revolved around higher salaries and fancier titles.

So, in my lifelong quest to understand how to bring out the best in people (myself included), I was excited to read DRIVE: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, a New York Times bestseller from author Daniel Pink.  According to Pink, the old carrot and stick approach to motivating employees with external rewards like money is a relic of the 20th century that needs to be scrapped.  He asserts that the secret to high performance and satisfaction is the "deeply human need to direct our own lives, to learn and create new things and to do better by ourselves and our world" and to implement this, we need to let people experience autonomy, mastery and purpose at work.  Pink encourages modern workplaces to abandon motivation 2.0 (assume that if you give employees total autonomy they will shirk their duties) and embrace motivation 3.0 (assume that everyone is ready to work hard and do a good job in the right setting).

Pink asserts that people are happiest and most productive when they're in "flow", that magical time when we lose ourselves in our work, becoming deeply engaged in achieving our goals, challenging ourselves and learning new things.  I completely understand this concept and I have experienced it often but if I'm perfectly honest, I'm more inclined to experience "flow" when I'm reading a book on a beach or tending to my garden, in other words, things that are not attached to how I pay the bills.  Pink believes this Zen-like state is also achievable in an office setting and provides many ideas and examples of how to make it happen, including:  

Results Only Work Environment (ROWE) - Focus on results and nothing else, let people work whenever and wherever they want and don't waste time judging how people get the job done.  I love this idea and I can see it working with highly-disciplined individuals in certain environments. However, although Pink touches on autonomy versus accountability, he doesn't really offer any solutions for how to deal with employees who are allowed to work from home at midnight and still don't meet their deadlines.

Remove financial incentives and just pay everyone a healthy flat salary - Sounds good, but what's healthy? Is it the going rate in the industry or a few thousand more?  Is it what you think the employee deserves or what they believe they've earned? Pink argues that commissions, bonuses and even billable hours don't work and just force people to get creative when filling out forms and I can't say I disagree.  But human nature suggests that that there will always be people who think they're working harder or contributing more than their peers and who will expect external rewards, whether it's in the form of more money, extra vacation time or public recognition.

Let employees run free for a few hours - Informed by the reality that even the most creative person can get crushed under the weight of a deadline, Pink shares stories of companies which carve out time each month for employees to work on something completely unrelated to the business and not connected to compensation at all.  In this free time, liberated from client demands or management constraints, employees can really get their minds working and come up with their best work.  According to Pink, this is how Google News was conceived and scientists at one organization even won a Nobel Prize for Physics for something they developed in their non-work time. I can get behind this.  Many marketing types would say that the work they do for fun is much more creative than what they're "allowed" to do for clients. But when every single day is packed with new deadlines and fresh crises, how would a consulting firm find the time?

The book is well researched and Pink backs up his claims with reams of scientific data, study results and real-life examples although most of the workplaces he mentions are large tech companies and the scenarios don't always translate to an advertising agency or a retail outlet. I enjoyed the book, would recommend it, and I agree with Pink that the old models of motivation and reward are not working and are no longer applicable.  I would even say that this approach, or a form of it, is worth a try.

But I'm still skeptical about his belief that inside every seemingly lazy, disaffected worker is a hard-working Einstein just waiting to burst out if only the workplace culture is revolutionized.  It doesn't take into account the many personality traits and innate differences that shape humanity.  In my experience as an employer, wife, friend and mother, I know that some people genuinely want to do a good job at everything they touch and will respond to any kind of motivation.  Others can only excel if they're passionate about the subject matter.  Still others are purely transactional, will work for money, do no more than what's required and don't care what you think of them. Some thrive in a structured environment where they're monitored closely and there's little room for distraction and others can be trusted to work at home and not spend the day watching Tom and Jerry reruns.

What do you think?  Are you ready to embrace motivation 3.0?

How About Some RFP Etiquette?

So, did we win?

The Request for Proposal (RFP) is popular these days.  With shrinking budgets and increased pressure to demonstrate due diligence, more organizations are issuing RFPs to ensure they choose the right external partner, or at least create the perception of doing so.  When consultants choose to participate in an RFP process, they do so knowing that they may not win and even if they do, they will probably never recoup the hours of unpaid time they spent responding to the proposal.  When the search ends, there will be one winner and multiple losers but all candidates should be treated with respect, honesty and professionalism.  If organizations insist on using RFPs, I'd like to see them adopt these etiquette guidelines for issuing, managing and closing the process:

1. Be honest - I recently reviewed an RFP that painted a rosy picture of a company but a quick Google search revealed the organization was in a shambles. Why hide this?  No one can prepare a thorough, appropriate response if they don't have the necessary background and context.

2. Share your process - RFPs are a ton of work so help people decide if it's worth participating. Share your plans for decision-making - the deadline for proposal submission, what should be included, when the shortlist will be announced, what is involved in phase 2, when you will make your final decision and how you will inform participants.  If an incumbent has been invited to participate, be honest about that.  It's important.


3. Don't kick tires - Most of the research, writing and collation of RFPs is done after hours and on top of an existing work load.  Don't issue an RFP unless you have the budget and the intention of hiring an external partner. Nothing is more frustrating than putting hours of unpaid time into a proposal only to find out that you've decided to manage your campaign "in house".

4. Answer questions thoroughly - If candidates have questions for clarification, take the time to provide proper answers.  The best approach is to collect all of the questions and combine both questions and answers in one document.  One-word answers or responses like "whatever you think is best", "anything goes" or "wow us" are unacceptable.

5. Don't ask for ideas - It's unrealistic to expect anyone to provide creative, feasible ideas based on a couple of paragraphs in your RFP.  Phase 1 is about qualifying candidates, and looking for expertise, experience, case studies, references, etc.  If you narrow the pool to a shortlist, meet with them to provide the information they need to develop workable ideas. Better yet, wait until you've actually hired someone.


6. Remove the guessing game - If you have a budget (and you should if you're serious), share it, or at least include a range. If consultants have no idea what they're working with, it's impossible to provide the best case studies and references and brainstorm appropriate ideas.  


7. Avoid the revolving door - It's efficient to book several presentations on one day but try to hold them in a room with two doors or leave time between visits.  It's awkward for everyone when candidates meet each other in the hallway.

8. Practice proper follow-up - No one should ever find out they didn't win an RFP in AdNews.  Acknowledge receipt of all proposals and honour the dates in your initial process. If you are delayed for some reason, let people know when they can expect to hear from you again.  When you choose a winner, inform the unsuccessful parties before making any announcements.

9. Use only what you pay for - I recently participated in an RFP which stated that all submitted ideas, even from consultants who didn't win the business, would automatically become the property of the issuing company.  Why should they?  If you choose a partner and start to pay them, you can use their ideas but it's unethical to use creative ideas from an agency you didn't select.

10. Give feedback - If someone has spent hours of unpaid time responding to your RFP, they deserve more than a cursory dismissal.  Let unsuccessful candidates know where they fell short and provide candid feedback to help them with future proposals. If you have been honest and professional about your RFP process, you should have no problem articulating how you made your final decision and what they could have done better.

Is it better to be right or happy?

Almost 20 years ago, a new age aficionado I worked with loaned me a cassette tape she thought (hoped?) would "broaden my outlook on humanity".  The tape was a recording of a talk given by Christina Thomas, a teacher of A Course in Miracles, a self-study program of enlightenment.  I enjoyed it quite a bit but the one statement that struck me most was Thomas' assertion that, in life, you can choose to be right, or you can choose to be happy. the notion of getting rid of resentment as the route to happiness features quite broadly in A Course in Miracles and the many self-help movements it has birthed.

At 24, I thought this was complete hogwash and didn't see any reason why I couldn't be both right and happy. I also believed that it was bad luck to buy lottery tickets because it would be an affirmation that I wouldn't make my own millions, but that's another story. I returned the tape with thanks and, although the phrase didn't really leave my conscience, I didn't give it much thought for years.

Fast forward to 2011.  It's a day before my birthday and I'm convinced my husband has forgotten about it and I will be disappointed when it turns out to be a non-event instead of a celebration.  When I mentioned this to a mutual friend, he asked why I didn't just remind my forgetful husband of my impending anniversary and I launched into a rant about the fact that it's one day out of the whole year, it's important to me so it should be important to him, I've dropped numerous passive-aggressive hints he couldn't possibly miss.  I went on and on with variations on the popular female notion that, "if I have to remind him, then that takes the fun out of it".

After a few minutes of bewildered silence, my friend said, "You are setting him and yourself up for unhappiness and you need to ask yourself whether it's better to be right or to be happy."  Ah, that phrase again.  I left the conversation with that wounded sense of betrayal you feel when you bare your soul to someone expecting sympathy and you get rebuked instead.

But something about it stuck and when I was honest with myself, I knew my friend was right and I was the architect of my own misery.  My husband is an amazing guy who sometimes forgets things. Why did I so desperately need to "prove" this point?  The notion of being right versus happy gnawed at me over the ensuing months and I started to look for, and find, examples of it playing out all over society.  The estranged family member who realizes only after the death of an "enemy" that they no longer remembered what had driven them apart.  The politician who is willing to derail productive debate on an important issue because he's so focussed on his hatred of his adversary. The single-cause activist who makes it her life's mission to change one thing and misses out on everything else life has to offer.  These are extreme cases but we all struggle with the overwhelming need to prove a point from time to time, and end up spending hours rehearsing our positions, reliving unpleasant conversations, and eventually, regretting that all those hours could have been spent doing something enjoyable, something that didn't revolve around proving another person wrong.

There are some cases in life when I believe you can be right and happy.  For example, protecting my children from danger seems like the right thing to do and their continued safety and survival makes me happy.  But there are many more situations where you need to choose one of the two.  Every time I feel offended, insulted or otherwise put out by someone or some thing, I try to ask myself if I want to be right and therefore start down a path of attempting to show this person the error of their ways, regardless of the consequences or if I want to be happy, let them know gently that what they've said or done has upset me and then move on, whether they accept responsibility or not.  It's easier said than done but I've gained some mastery with practice. The trick, it seems, is to ask the question immediately before the negative thoughts start to take over.

So, a year has passed and another birthday is coming and this year, I decided I wanted my birthday to be amazing and devoid of the silly emotions that come with proving a point. So, starting a month ago, I reminded my family of the date and told them I wanted a huge celebration with decorations and breakfast in bed and gifts and champagne and foot rubs and singing and clowns...well you get the idea.   In other words, I communicated my wishes like a mature adult.  As a result, I'm really looking forward to this birthday instead of worrying that people will forget it.

So, is it better to be right than happy?  I can't deny that sometimes it feels good to be right but usually the euphoria is short-lived and is negated by the waste of time and energy it takes to get there.  Choosing happiness is more peaceful in the long run.

Why the World Needs More Introverts

Ponder these questions:
1. Do you prefer one-on-one conversations over group activities?
2. Do you like to express yourself in writing?
3. Do you tend to think before you speak?

If you answered yes to all of these questions, you just might be an introvert.  Maybe you already suspected this.  Maybe you know it but have spent a lifetime trying to pretend you're more extroverted than you actually feel.

Why would you do that?  Maybe it's because North American society dramatically undervalues introverts and as you traversed from elementary school to college to your first job, you might have learned that your introverted tendencies were something you needed to hide, fix or deny.

I've always known I'm an introvert but thanks to Quiet: The Power of Introverts in A World That Can't Stop Talking by Susan Cain, a New York Times bestseller, I now have a better understanding of what that actually means.  Many people assume that introverts are shy, withdrawn and even antisocial while extroverts are loud, friendly and gregarious.  While these things may be true of some people, the truth is more complex.

For example, one of the main differences between introverts and extroverts is simply that extroverts can handle more sensory stimulation.  Loud music, roller-coasters, crowded streets or an animated group discussion don't bother the extrovert and in fact, they energize him.  If an introvert is exposed to these same things, she is thrown off-balance and, after a period of time, she feels over-stimulated, begins to shut down and is desperate to escape to quiet surroundings.

Consider public speaking.  Most introverts are terrified of speaking in public and experience a variety of mental and physical reactions to it.  These include sleepless nights, elevated heart rate, excessive sweating, shaking, vomiting and even fainting on the way to the podium.  But, because so many careers require public speaking, many have trained themselves to do it by only accepting engagements on topics where they have expertise, spending weeks planning, and practicing breathing exercises, etc. beforehand.  When it's over, even if it was a huge success, the introvert is completely depleted and needs to immediately retreat to solitude to recover.  While extroverts may also get butterflies before giving a speech, they don't put so much pressure on themselves to succeed, spend less time planning, wing it more.  If the speech is a success and the audience is pleased, the extrovert feeds off that and sticks around for the backslapping.

One of Cain's most interesting claims is the notion that extroverts react while introverts inspect. If an introvert and an extrovert both go to the same sales pitch, the extrovert is more likely to react instantly to what is being shared, to be wowed by high-pressure tactics and to be excited about the possibilities.  Inherently suspicious, the introvert will probably experience none of these things.  He'll need to go back to the office, think about what he heard, digest it, maybe do his own research and then come back with a host of questions.

When the extroverted tendency to jump in and see what happens is combined with the introverted need to inquire and make informed decisions, great things can happen.  Business partnerships, boards and senior management teams which value and include an equal distribution of both dispositions, have the perfect combination of fearlessness and risk aversion.

But this rarely happens.  Because our society values speaking up, sharing your opinion and excelling at teamwork, introverts rarely make it to the top and when they do, their cautious approach to change is often viewed as a hindrance.  Introverts dislike teamwork even though, fastidious about details, they often do the bulk of the work and demand little of the glory.  They are also less interested in wealth, fame and status than extroverts, which knocks many of them off the corporate ladder early on.

Cain believes that we live in a culture which admires risk-takers but a time which needs more heed-takers.  Some people have gone so far as to blame the 2008 economic meltdown on a lack of introverts in high finance, positing that, if only there had been more cautious, quiet, inquisitive people at the top, it never would have happened.  I'm not sure if that's true.  Perhaps they were there and no one listened.  Perhaps they don't have the chutzpah to make it in such a high-octane business and so there's a dearth of them at the top.

Reading the book has been therapeutic for me in the sense that I feel more comfortable with my introversion and realize that there's nothing wrong with my preference for working in solitude and my desire to always leave parties early, if I go at all. As the parent of a classic introvert, I'm also determined to let him be who he is and resist the temptation to "bring him out of his shell".

If you think you might be an introvert, you can take Susan Cain's quiz here   You might just be surprised.

Why our elected officials should apologize more

A couple of years ago, I wrote a blog post on the importance of saying "sorry" when you're in the wrong.  The need to apologize exists whether you are totally responsible for a debacle, or if you own only a small part of it.  Some jurisdictions have even instituted apology legislation, which means saying sorry cannot be used as a confession in legal situations.  This accommodates the human need to see an appropriate level of atonement and accountability in order to start the healing process, rebuild trust and move forward after a disaster.


I realize that finding politicians who don't take responsibility for their actions is like shooting fish in a barrel but there's a situation unfolding in Ontario right now which has truly taken blame-slinging to a disgusting new low.  In short, the Toronto Star recently revealed outrageous spending irregularities at ORNGE, the province's publicly-funded air ambulance service and the ensuing investigation has unearthed a laundry list of questionable practices including the use of taxpayer dollars to renovate a high-end office building, establish a complex web of shell companies to shield itself from government scrutiny, send executives to foreign schools for expensive MBAs, loan the CEO $1.2 million for a house purchase and much more.  After a forensic audit, $25 million of taxpayer funds is still unaccounted for so the Ontario Provincial Police has been called in to investigate.


It's painfully clear that the Ministry of Health, which oversees ORNGE, was asleep at the switch and even when warned about potential problems, chose to ignore the evidence.  Now that the truth is out and the police are involved, many are calling for the Minister of Health, Deb Matthews, to resign.  She has refused which is typical, but more astoundingly, has yet to take even a shred of accountability for letting this happen on her watch.  Consider her statements:


"There's lots of blame to go around"
"People who chose to take money out of the pockets of taxpayers"
"You can't legislate trust"
"We were misled"
"I am sickened when I see people who were in a position of trust, abuse that trust"


If she was using these statements to talk about her role, however detached, in the debacle, the words would be appropriate but sadly, she is not.  She has used them, and countless others, to deflect blame away from herself and her team. In a rare turn for a politician, she has also claimed that she inherited the mess from her predecessor, a fellow Liberal who actually set up the controversial air ambulance service.  When confronted with this, his refusal to take accountability was even more profound.  Among his quotations:


"I feel like I have been scapegoated"
"It's just too convenient to lay the blame at the feet of politicians"
"the system is always set up to throw politicians under the bus"


While it's true that the Ministry of Health is huge, has thousands of employees and myriad sub-committees and spin-offs, the reality is, the buck stops with the person in charge. I ran a business for ten years and even though it was much smaller than our Ministry of Health with its thousands of employees and myriad spin-offs, I was not always able to oversee every decision.  As a result, sometimes mistakes were made and clients were disappointed.  But, as an owner of the company, I understood that ultimately I was in charge and it was my role to apologize, even if the entire transgression had gone on without my knowledge.  While you can choose to privately reprimand employees who breach organizational ethics or just plain screw up, it's unacceptable to publicly blame someone else when a program you are responsible for, goes awry.


No one expects perfection from elected officials but everyone expects at least a show of contrition.  That provides a starting point for moving forward and rebuilding trust.


If Deb Matthews hopes to emerge from this relatively unscathed (and it may be too late), she needs to make a simple statement along the lines of, "While I cannot oversee every single thing that happens in my portfolio, I'm sorry for the role I played in this and I hope you'll have faith in me as we work to clean up this mess."  Is that so impossible to consider?


I have never been involved in politics, I'm not affiliated with any of our political parties and this blog post is not an attack on the Liberal party.  So, I'm not aware of the popular theory on how these scandals should be handled but I'm wondering if there's a "never apologize under any conditions" ethos that exists among political advisers and if so, it needs to go.