Belief in the mission matters. Do you believe in yours?

Especially those placed on the lives you’ve touched.

If you can explain why we do what we do in fewer words, you win.

Yet somewhere along the line, companies started to favor rhetoric and excuses instead of results and accountability.

How do you know when a company lacks character? Simple. When discussing poor results, leadership:

• Makes excuses
• Rationalizes limited progress
• Formulates arguments to minimize accountability

Not so with companies of character. They tell the truth. They take responsibility for shortfalls and failures. And they refuse to play the victim just so they can feel good about themselves.

Character is a choice. And one alternative is more likely to lead to success than the other.

Choose wisely.

Shawn (@shawmu on Twitter) just launched the Wake Up and Shake It Up blog series. Need a push to think bigger than you have before? Here it is.

The first post, Big versus Small, went live this morning. I think you know the author – check it out.

“Yes, I’d like to ship that for you, but you can’t use that box.”

“That’s a good idea. I’d like to say yes, but this isn’t the time to try something different.”

Somewhere along the line, people were conditioned to say no. What would happen if everyone in the company had to look for a reason to say yes?

A company’s story can’t be about convenience, low-cost, premium-value, and great selection.

A politician can’t talk about lowering taxes, increasing services, attacking bureaucracy, and reducing the deficit.

A Little League coach can’t preach health and fitness to his team and then sneak a cigarette while the kids are running laps.

I realize that it’s hard to take a stand, to tell people what they don’t want to hear. But it does no good to change your story to suit your audience. Sooner or later people will figure out that you don’t stand for anything at all, which means you’ll be gone tomorrow.

“That will never work.”

“It’s never been done before.”

“Don’t bother – we already tried that once.”

“Nice idea, but can you prove that it will work?”

“We can’t sell that to senior management.”

We aren’t taught to question things that are familiar to us. Which reminds me of an experiment that can be done with five monkeys.

Start with a cage containing five monkeys.  Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it.  Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana.  As soon as he touches the stairs, spray the other four monkeys with cold water.  After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result – the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water.

Soon enough, any monkey that tries to climb the stairs will be stopped by the others.

Now, turn off the cold water.  Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one.  The newcomer will see the banana and try to climb the stairs. To his surprise, all of the other monkeys attack him.  After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original monkeys and replace it with a new one.  The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked.  And the previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm.

Continue the process – replace the third monkey with a new one, then the fourth, then fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked. But most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs – or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey. After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Regardless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana. Why not? Because as far as they know, that’s the way it’s always been done around here.

Companies all over the world repeat this experiment every day with their own people. What about yours? Or do you promote a culture that is eternally curious about why they do what they do?

We’re in the midst of the 22^nd recession since 1900, and so far it’s been an ugly one. And while the rate of job losses has recently slowed, many companies are still in retreat – freezing salaries, raising health-care premiums, and eliminating training programs.

If you’re a linchpin, this is an incredible opportunity.

I was privileged to attend the book launch in New York City. During the presentation, I learned that the original title of the book was The Chef, The Cook, and The Dishwasher.

In a restaurant, the dishwasher is clearly the lowest job available. Someone will always have to fill this kind of role, but that someone doesn’t have to be you.

The cook follows a recipe – make a particular dish one way, every time. Everyone can follow instructions, so it should come as no surprise that there are a surplus of people available to perform these jobs. And since a cook doesn’t create any real value, they have little hope of making more than an average living.

The chef is different altogether. A chef may be aware of recipes, but chooses not to follow them. Which means that unlike the cook, her best work is completely unknown. By creating instead of following, she turns her work into art.

In the post-industrial age, the artist is the one in demand. Linchpin is the type of book that will push you down this path. It goes on sale today (January 26th). I hope that you’ll pick up a copy – it is by far Godin’s best yet.

A lot of people think that we overextend ourselves. “Slow down,” we’re told. “Take a breath every once in a while. You can’t run at the extremes all of the time.”

We disagree. The days of moving slow are over. Look at the leaders of yesterday – battered, bruised, and frozen in fear. Running at the extremes is now an important component of winning.

How fast do you run?

Too many in business have the same attitude.

That’s a problem. It’s a problem because although it looks like we’re starting to emerge from the recession, we’re not out of the woods yet. So the stop-loss efforts made by many (job cuts, salary reductions, training program elimination) have accomplished little more than buy time. Yet time is running out, and there are still fundamental business challenges that need to be addressed.

Crying for help – as many are doing – isn’t going to solve anything.

You can improve your business a number of different ways. But before you do anything else, make sure you have the right attitude. Because no one is going to carry you to safety.

That hasn’t stopped some from targeting the employed. In this Wall Street Journal article, a partner from Kaye/Bassman International Corp. made one of the most ridiculous statements I’ve heard in some time. “If they’re employed in today’s economy, they have to be first string.”

Really? In my experience, layoffs are rarely objective. Sure, talented people survive, but many (some might say too many) sheepwalkers make the cut as well. When the smoke clears, a company is rarely left with the best of the best.

This strategy has another obvious flaw. Placing trust in the talent assessments of another firm is foolish, especially when you consider that many of these companies were run so poorly that they led us into the economic downturn in the first place.

Why would a recruiter stay with this approach? Maybe they don’t know better. Or maybe they’re simply following the rules of their employer (and thus are sheepwalkers themselves). Or perhaps it’s because they’re lazy. After all, the high volume of active candidates would result in additional strain during the screening phase and require a very precise selection process. Sounds like a lot of work to fill a position.

Or maybe they just don’t care. Whatever the reason, the folks at Kaye/Bassman International provide us with a great example of a big company thinking small.

More capital. More distribution channels. More sales people. And while these things used to matter, they don’t anymore. The fact is, small companies today are often a lot more successful than large ones.

Do you know why? There are several reasons, but one in particular should be painfully obvious. If you don’t know what it is, here is what I recommend:

1. Get up out of your chair.
2. Walk around to every cubicle and office.
3. Look at each employee.

The evidence you need is staring you right in the face.

But don’t take my word for it. Take a minute to watch the video below – Tom Peters delivers a great summary of the importance of talent in the workplace.

Falling short of expectations is another problem altogether.

DHL screwed up the first time I used them for overnight delivery. For some reason, the package never left the distribution center. The customer service rep told me he would try to complete delivery that same day, but couldn’t promise anything. Worst-case scenario was that it would go out the following day – 24 hours late. That wasn’t good enough, and I told him so. His response? “Sir, it’s just an express letter. I’m sure it’s not a matter of life or death.”

Shortly after that, the company announced it would cease express deliveries in the U.S. DHL closed 18 distribution hubs, eliminated 9,500 jobs, and ultimately lost $10 billion in the U.S. in five years. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

On the phone, I gave precise information so that the police could act quickly. In 60 seconds, I outlined the situation and provided them with a description of the car, license plate number, and location. From my standpoint, they had the information they needed to act. Send someone now!

Instead, time stopped. The dispatcher repeatedly asked the same questions over and over. I patiently repeated myself, but it quickly became obvious that she was unclear how to move forward. After 10 minutes on the phone, she finally said that they would “kansas” the area.

None of this was what I expected. The problems here are obvious:

• She didn’t listen.
• She wasn’t a knowledgeable resource.
• She didn’t act in a meaningful way.

Any citizen (or customer) wants someone to listen to them. They want to talk to a knowledgeable person. And most importantly, they want that person to act on their behalf. If any one of these are absent, the interaction falls short of expectations.

Many companies insist that they not only get this, but that they deliver on it as well. In my experience, that’s hardly the reality. The consequences of this ignorance could be horrific.

Sounds like an opportunity to me.

I was impressed with the speed of his decision. “Why wait?” he said. “I’d rather do work that matters.”

He looked at me. “You can do the same thing.”

I knew what he was about to say.

“You don’t have to settle.”

He was right. And I didn’t. But far too many of us do. We decide to accept careers, projects, companies, and relationships that are “good enough.”

How do you avoid settling? Simple. It’s a choice.

Like most entrepreneurs, I believe in thinking big. But there is a difference between a naïve entrepreneur and one that is relentlessly positive for the right reasons. Positive has a well-thought out plan. Positive knows when to tweak that plan in order to deal with inevitable setbacks. Positive balances wishful thinking with reality. 

Naïve doesn’t. Naïve uses optimism to mask reality. And optimism is not enough to achieve the impossible.   

If you’re a goal-oriented person and regularly push your limits, no doubt that you regularly run into obstacles. When you do, make sure that you know the difference between Naïve and Positive. 

One often leads to very unexpected outcomes.

I experienced one of these the other night. I was engaged in small talk – in other words, nothing being discussed was going to alter the quality of my life. But small talk led to a colorful conversation, which quickly resulted in a difference of opinion. No big deal, right?   

Not exactly. In this case, our emotions were strong. And since the other person was my fiancées best friend, the stakes were a bit higher than if I were debating someone I had just met. While I’ll spare you the details, let’s just say we could have sold tickets to the first act.  

We didn’t make any progress in that initial round. I didn’t immediately realize why, but it turned out that something was missing from the conversation. We were both focused on what was important to us, and said nothing that mattered to the other person. Sound familiar? 

It should. Think about how companies communicate with employees, customers, and prospects. Seems to me that something is missing there as well. 

When employees complain about a management decision, are they frustrated with the actual decision or the way it was communicated? Do customers have issue with company “policy” or the fact that employees only know how to explain it from the firm’s perspective? And exactly how personalized is SPAM? Or that jingle that cost a fortune? 

The answers are obvious. So is the solution. Every interaction should be personal. 

That difficult conversation from the other night had a better second act. We both took a step back and thought about the other side. Then we sat down and talked again, this time from the other person’s perspective. Suddenly we were on the same page, so we hugged it out. 

If you want to get someone to consider your point of view, DON’T talk about what matters to you. No one cares. Instead, give them something useful (information, a story, etc.) that will matter to THEM. 

You can hug it out as well, but that’s optional.