The High Order Bit

I’ve had these two articles in front of me today – I couldn’t close either, and kept reading snippets of each one throughout the day. I had a hunch that they related to each other, but couldn’t quite figure out why.

My best friend from high school told this story of their family on vacation – on their way to their holiday destination, three kids in the back of the car, mom & dad in front, they got a bit lost. A bit like National Lampoons European vacation (albeit somewhere in the Carolinas if memory serves) Dad G started driving around and around a traffic circle trying to determine which exit to take. Among the heated discussion of which way to go, someone lights up from the back “Dad, what are we doing!!?? (driving around the traffic circle when we’re supposed to be at the beach having fun already!)” – Dad replies in a stern shout …

WE’RE HAVING FUN!!!

I tell this story – no matter if my memory actually serves me well – often. The reply – ironically funny in it’s own right (especially as Rob tells it) – reminds me that you can’t force the end result. Fun / funny is simply a side effect – and you certainly can’t force it – other than in the ironic/watching-people-squirm sort of way (and you definitely don’t want that!).

The point of feeling fun – of feeling ‘buzy’ – is that you’re actually doing something fun or as a result of success. It indicates that people are all on the same page, are relaxed, are doing anything other than supposedly having fun. Fun is the side benefit of the activity / mood. It’s not something you can really set out to have with any authenticity. Which is why the article in the Economist struck a chord with me. At first I thought that maybe I’m too cynical to believe the Zappos way could be fun – that sometimes work is — well, work. That bummed me right out, because of all times, I’m actually enjoying work these days. And that cynicism crept right up and hung off my back.

But then I circled back to the HBR article one more time today and had a re-epiphany: set the goals of the team around performance, around risk, around ownership – anything other than around having fun. I hope that Zappos has the right priorities to enable their CEO’s vision of corporate culture. That somehow they’ve managed to align the priorities of their employees in such a way that fun is the result. I really wish Create fun and a little weirdness wasn’t in their list – but simply a footnote to their 10 principles. Maybe having that point 3 doesn’t insert employee cynicism within their organisation – but I think it gives every other leader a cop out. The copycats will focus on 3 and nothing else.

As the Economist piece points out, CEO’s who aim to mimic an environment of the Zappos case study focus on the end result – of the “FUN FUN” bit – and lose the focus that actually generates and enables fun in the first place. They lose the focus to create a stable, goal oriented, grounded workforce that’s able to take chances – that doesn’t feel scared to fail – that doesn’t mind a bit of egg on their face when they shoot too high. Not all companies can be Zappos from the ground up (and certainly not when a culture is already in place). Sure you have to learn and take points from others – but embrace who you are, what you can bring to the table, and what makes your company and employees tick. Only then will employees enjoy their success and maybe even learn to enjoy the opportunity to take a few lessons from a bit of failure.