WHO IS TOO PROFESSIONAL?

Recently we heard about someone, we’ll call Alex for the purposes of this article, who was told by a successful chief executive, that they had been held back in the promotion stakes because they were seen as being ‘too professional’. This tale prompted the Kaleidoscope team to consider what ‘being professional’ and ‘too professional’ was all about. Eventually we came to a conclusion, you might regard, as being one which is not generally considered.

We agreed that being professional at work is essential if you wish to be a success. Consequently, we first considered, from an employee’s viewpoint, what ‘being professional’ might mean. Simply put the definition of ‘professional’ is actually a person who is engaged in a specific activity as a main paid occupation. However, being professional frequently means different things to each of us. For some it means having advanced qualifications, degrees or industry certification. For others it might mean doing a good job or being smartly dressed at work. Consequently, what is actually required to be professional can be difficult to pin down. On the flip side the requirements of a successful company, to portray themselves as being corporately professional, is well known. Such a company generates a perception of dependability, respectability, reliability, dedication and most importantly trust.

We soon realised that professionalism has two facets in the business world. There’s one for the individual worker and another demanded by a company to achieve an overall corporate image. Both these distinct entities are clearly and closely inter-related. Without achieving a high standard in the former it becomes, more or less, impossible to attain the latter. Accordingly, we focused firstly on what a worker needs to do to be classed as professional.

‘Professionalism’ isn’t about what you are wearing or the fact your hair is perfectly coiffed. Indeed, one leading UK executive, of a stock exchanged listed company, was known to chair meetings wearing a cowboy hat with boots to match! Using big or posh words, when you talk, also has nothing to do with being professional. Indeed, an individual focusing on these issues may mean that they come across as too professional. Interestingly we didn’t believe this was the implication of the ‘too professional’ accusation levelled at Alex. Image, personality and a team spirit are important, particularly when working as a dedicated group. Nevertheless, an individual’s professionalism will depend on how others assess them and not on their own judgement. Those believing they need to be somehow super professional could alienate them, as colleagues may feel that they cannot easily interact with them.

So, our bottom line is: –
Dress well so as to be comfortable.
Be yourself.
Make sure you enjoy your work.
Keep your qualifications to yourself because no one needs certificates waved in their faces.

But what drives an employee’s environment? It’s the need of a company to achieve a professional accolade in order to be successful. This is where, we believe Alex fell down. He failed to realise that, in focusing 100% on the needs of the company, he overlooked the different perceptions of professionalism amongst staff. Invariably a company sets out their objectives and targets on the basis that management are convinced they are credible and achievable. In doing so, they believe success will be assured as customers will appreciate dealing with a business that delivers.

But what happens when things don’t progress as visualised? This is when the ‘trouble-shooter’ is often brought in to identify the problems. Over his career this is the position for which Alex was noted. He was so professional, to a point, that all that mattered was focusing on what the company needed to achieve success. There’s nothing wrong in this you might say, but do you recall the saying,

‘No matter how qualified, a poor workman always blames their tools’?

Without occasional self-checking we may all fall into such a trap. When things go wrong, we mitigate our insufficiency by passing the blame to someone or something else. Alex’s role as a trouble shooter was to get to the heart of a problem, identify where such instances were happening and determine a solution. In this context Alex was ‘too professional’ because it meant challenging others on their professionalism. This required a tricky balancing skill to keep everyone happy.

Alex’s situation underscored the meaning of professionalism and its interplay between employee and company. This led us to conclude, rather uniquely it seems, that being professional means owning what you have done, by accepting full responsibility for your actions.

True professionals will never pass the buck!

In a similar way The Kaleidoscope team stand by our conclusion. So please feel free to offer your opinions if you wish. They will be welcome.

HOW POROUS IS YOUR LIFE?

Some years ago, Kaleidoscope featured an article about ‘Techno-leapfrogging’. It’s a notion that persons, technology and economies can move themselves forward rapidly by adopting modern systems without going through the intermediary steps. Younger people do this easily because they take what is available now, as their starting point. Ask them what is a ‘brick’ mobile phone and they will have generally no idea. They take the internet, cloud storage and the fact that ‘World Wide Web’ was 30 years old last March for granted. Today the greater majority would be lost without their ‘www’ connection. So, when someone asked the Kaleidoscope team, if we enjoyed being connected, it was a challenge to compare what our social life situation was in 1989 with where we are now.

It will be difficult for some to realise that writing letters or sending a fax, way back then, was the only way to confirm a telephone discussion. However, unlike emails neither could be hacked and compromised. Equally can you imagine standing at a bus stop with nothing to do, where you take advantage of this opportunity to chat with other regular travellers to work? Nowadays many are lost in their isolated world of checking their mobiles. Yes, it is definitely true that we did use our time to interact with what was around us and consider things. Even with this approach some questioned if we were living life too fast. The 19th century acclaimed poet William Henry Davies, in his poem ‘Leisure’, wondered: –

‘What is this life if full of care,
We have no time to stand and stare?

Currently it’s the norm to walk about, ignoring others, with eyes staring down at our mobiles. Many are totally disconnected with their local and social environment, only just about trying to avoid bumping into others. There is certainly no consideration given to ‘standing and staring’, looking at what is going on around them. But what about the person who is not on a mobile? Someone who is looking around? Someone who is checking you out? In such circumstances the whole idea of social interaction is turned on its head. Distraction from our actual environment may mean we miss obvious opportunities whilst, at the same time, we have made ourselves ‘porous’ both visually and electronically.

Those who techno-leapfrog into such a situation have automatically accepted it as being normal. They feel comfortable, even though they are missing out on person to person contact and direct emotional interaction. Being primarily use to social media, staying in touch via mobiles, means they have no basis for comparison with anything else. Mobile communication demands instant responses. Such thoughts are almost ‘peer to peer’ which is why posts are put into the ‘Twittersphere’, ‘Snapchat’ or ‘Instagram’ which are later regretted, when it is too late.

New technology really should come with a warning that we need to reassess and refocus on how we communicate and understand others. In doing so we have to set aside a basic human characteristic of using body language and facial expressions as a way of interpreting what is really meant. Even Facebook or Skype video are restrictive in emotional terms. It is true that you can actually sense and smell fear and you can’t do this by video!
For those who believe that new technology is the next best thing since sliced bread, then perhaps it would help to consider how things have advanced since 1989. Apply the same rate of change and reasoning to where we are now and try asking yourself: –

“If Google, Apple and Amazon have us talking to them now, who will be listening and reacting to what we say in 30 years’ time?”

‘Hi Alexa set the alarm for 6am’ – ‘Hi Alexa play some Bollywood music’, sound innocent enough but it’s been reported that these messages are being stored and examined. Children love playing with dolls and ‘Barbie’ now interacts and build-ups responses with their very young owners. This is where human bonding starts to be replaced with technology and our lives become porous. We have started to leak out information, to others, without realising it. You may be reassured to know that tech companies apparently only listen selectively to your voice, on the basis that they can use information to improve their product. However recent reports, that some share voice clips without your knowledge, must be cause for future concern. Giving out personal information, without your realisation, means your home is no longer your castle because your walls have become porous. Technology is listening in; on the basis it is there to be your assistant.

Maybe as we reach for the future, we should keep a firm eye on how porous are our lives becoming. After all if things progress too far, we may reach a stage where is it too late to hanker for ‘Leisure’ where: –

‘We have no time to turn at Beauty’s glance,
And watch her feet, how they can dance.
A poor life this, if full of care,
We have no time to stand and stare’.