Ineffective Human Conditions

People pretending to be somebody they are not

There can be several reasons for this, ranging from a fear of rejection to seeking recognition or acceptance. Whatever the reason, it means that the person is pretending to be something he or she is not. Usually, it is successful in the short term and harmonious relationships are possible. But once there is pressure and tension, the varnish quickly splits off and the default character traits are forced to the surface. The result is that everything that has been orchestrated this far is lost and enters a self-destructive phase, which normally does not go well for the person and those around him/her.

Better known as IGNORANUS, someone who is both stupid and an asshole.

Regarding someone as stupid is quite an insult. But worse, it is statistically a strong likelihood that we will – more often than we hope – encounter the occasional bonehead… someone without the skill, ability, brains or talent to comprehend the problem at hand and also lacks the capability to have a rational, logical and meaningful discussion about it.

When failing to understand the problem is simply a low IQ, it will manifest itself in several ways. The individual will make frequent, repeated mistakes, misremember important facts and come to wrong conclusions based on the evidence at hand. Others can come to this person’s rescue by dividing some of the more crucial aspects of the problem as experienced and reassigning them to persons who are more competent in those areas.

However, most stupid people’s inefficiency is often due to STUPIDITY, a stupidity often characterized by hard-headedness, mental stubbornness and a stubborn unwillingness to listen to alternatives or consider other possibilities, once his/her mind is made up (i.e. a rigid close-mindedness). Many stupid people are – what is the politically correct way to put this? – Flexibility Challenged.

There are those individuals who have a vexing combination of attributes, they are untalented in the craft of interacting, but skilled in the politics of communicating. When their intentions are noble, others can deal with them – at least – for a while, due to their charisma, enthusiasm and personal charm. But overall efficiency and performance will be poor, and these individuals – regardless of whether within a personal or professional capacity – will eventually have to step aside and allow a more competent person to replace him/her.

However, when their intention is self-serving in nature, these people typically become dark angels… individuals skilled at covering up their own failures, at surviving despite their unproductive performances and a person that can provide compelling reasons for failure and justify all their own actions and behaviours. Therefore, Ignoranus is a real threat and danger to any group’s vision and/or mission and must either “change his/her ways” or be removed.

Ignorant People

In real life (i.e. our modern civilization) we normally condemn ignorance. However, because of technological developments and the many challenges we face daily as a result of these developments, ignorance – to a certain extent – is preferable, and sometimes or under certain circumstances even bliss.

This a contradictory statement at first glance, but there are some compelling reasons for this…

• Some ignorance is a given with interdependency. The days of the all-knowing individual are long gone. The concept of interdependency implies that people need to complement each other’s limited knowledge and experiences, allowing for the creation of a stronger whole.
• Ignorance doesn’t have to be forever, stupidity – on the other hand – is terminal. We all have gaps in our knowledge base that we should bridge with learning. But there are various degrees and types of ignorance:
  • One might say that an ignorant mind is an open mind… ready to be filled, open to new information, perspectives and ideas. Thus, nourishing ignorance. Humble ignorance.
  • Bad ignorance is being proud of being ignorant. Closed off to new input, stuck and arrogantly set in their ways. Perhaps it is ignorance founded on previous outdated experiences… “This has always worked for me in the past, so I don’t have to learn anything new now”. Thus, toxic ignorance. All-knowing, intrusive ignorance.

What can be done when a person lacks knowledge critical to success? Help to fill in the gaps through education and training, or bring somebody new from the outside to assist or take over, if and when necessary. This is a delicate matter, but a wicked challenge that must be dealt with. Because, interdependency amongst people only really succeeds in a climate of mutual cooperation, sharing and co-creating.

Over Trained People

This is the eager beaver syndrome and frustration. This is the sub-species of humans who attend a few too many seminars, read too many magazine articles, recite too many self-help “bibles”, are permanently bubbling over with the desire to eagerly set aside current initiatives and promptly replace them with new improved ones… without the necessary contextual understanding and supportive experiences.

Differently put, the eager beaver is too quick with new ideas and concepts to reliably integrate what s/he is learning or discovering with reality, mainly because they are lacking relevant experiences, critical questioning skills, patience and the ability to honestly, truly and openly reflect. Gaining knowledge is fine, reading is advised, attending workshops is beneficial and learning from others limits unnecessary mistakes, BUT applying such knowledge without deploying your common sense is similar to a cyclone in a teacup, with plenty of activity and ideas flying around, and once it blew over… only leaves serious damage control.

However, objecting to eagerness can be dicey. One can easily appear to be “anti-progress”, “change-resistant”, prudent and ignorantly stuck in one’s comfort zone. Rather approach an eager beaver with the recognition that all learning is immensely valuable… but as a means to a result or outcome, not as an end or goal in itself.

People who are either too talented or brilliant

This is something that most people find difficult to wrestle with… when a person is so bright that his/her competence exceeds their ability to share or teach.

It is the “too smart for your own good” syndrome, where the person is so brilliant that others never catch up. The best example, from the literature, is probably the Professor on Gilligan’s Island… smart enough to make a cyclotron out of coconut shells, but unable to persuade his crew to patch a boat.

The best way to deal with this kind of “intellect” is to use the person as a resource or for reference purposes, rather than for needed functions or urgent processes. When this is possible, everyone will breathe a sigh of relief.

People who are too kind

Sometimes, being considerate is these people’s downfall. They begin to believe or see others as their responsibility.

They constantly worry, “Am I going too fast for them?”, “Am I pushing them too hard?”, “Don’t I expect too much from them?”, “Am I not asking too much”, …etc. The danger is that their concerns become a limiting factor in progress, with these individuals knowing “what’s best” and trying to spare others the shock of sudden plunges into new unknown territories.

A possible antidote – for these people – is to realize that they are dealing with people, not idiots or Cocker Spaniels. Surprises, pain and fear are a natural part of learning. Without crossing the line into sadism, an individual is expected to keep other people on the edge of what is comfortable… always learning and growing.

People who are closed to new ideas

Bozone: The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer – unfortunately – shows little sign of breaking down any time soon. This is closely related to ignorance. All people have, in our make-up, certain tools with which we have enjoyed consistent success.

Like the carpenter poised with a hammer, we are ready; willing, and able to find a nail to pound. The problem is that human interactions aren’t all nails. The tried and “true” problem-solving approach (often scientifically proven) doesn’t apply to everyone, situation or circumstance.

People need to accept this and develop a diverse set of tools, to avoid over-reliance on the “hammer”. Inefficient individuals keep hammering away long after the pounding stops doing any good. This is a learning issue. Interactions must be about learning and openness to knowledge from every quarter.

Ostriches are said to stick their heads in the sand when challenged, this behaviour is much more typical of ineffective people. How does one intervene with a closed-minded person? Good question. We do not deliberately seek out such people at any level, but we know that every now and then we have a rife with them.

Chances are that the resistance to new ideas is a fear reaction. If the person has succeeded with method A, approach B will not seem familiar, “succeedable” or even possible. This evolution from hammerer to hammerhead is as ancient as the human race itself. Everybody must constantly strive to prevent calcification.

Therefore, create a culture (climate) of conscious and continuous openness, an atmosphere that instinctively rewards “looking freshly” at problems, and which is inherently suspicious of an unquestioned reliance on the already tried, proven and allegedly true. The spirit of continuous improvement… nothing is ever so good that it cannot be improved.

People with improper interaction styles

A self-empowering inclined individual, expects others to function autonomously, with a minimum of direction. But these people either have no experience with this kind of freedom or are unable to muster the initiative to make it work.

Or an autocratic person expects that the style that worked fine in the days of the industrial era (“Do this, Do that. Now do this.”) will work equally well with cross-functional peers. The autocrat quickly finds his/her orders have no force with the group s/he operates within.

However, despite the above, we still need coaching, facilitation for the articulation of goals, sharpening interactions and the willingness to teach and coordinate in a healthy balanced manner.

People who always put themselves ahead of others

This is perhaps the most damaging indictment of an individual, the individual has no loyalty to or real identification with other people.

Signs that individuals participate only for their own selfish reasons are…

• unwillingness to run interference for set goals (i.e. budgets);
• disinclination to fight for others and possibly alienate outside important sources;
• reluctance to share credit in times of success;
• cheerful willingness to point fingers of blame when things go wrong.

Individuals who will not take personal risks for the greater good of others are not interacting and only using people. It is doubtful that any initiative can alter their self-serving nature. Confront these people and force them to choose between succeeding individually or succeeding as part of a team.

People must be committed to one another, not just as convenient participants, but as interacting human beings (e.g. if I am part of your “team” and I know your child needs an operation, I should want to help you get that operation – as one of the goals of the team).

The above is a hard standard to commit to. Some of us are noticeably unlovable; a few of us head for the hills at the mention of the word love. Substitute a phrase with less baggage – say that individuals must know and sympathize with one another as individuals – and the meaning may come into focus.

There are lots of people who do not “share together”, who do not share physical workspace, who do not socialize and who do not eat, breathe, sleep and dream with others. Nevertheless, there can be no real cooperation, and certainly no true interaction without some degree of intimacy… some human acknowledgement of one another… that we are all people, each with a unique story, unique difficulties and unique dreams.

Inconsistent People

In saying that human interactions must exhibit humanity, we open interactivity up to all the foibles of human nature. Perhaps the most common of these is inconsistency.

Very few people are human ramrods… reliable from day to day, in sun and in shadow, unvarying and mechanical as a traffic light. People have rhythms and contradictions. These fluctuations don’t normally cause serious problems in “simple” behaviours like walking or snoring. In “complicated” actions like driving a car or facilitating others, they do.

Without doing violence to the human spirit, variations or fluctuations must be examined and understood. You need to constantly ask questions like…

• What are the causes of these inconsistency lapses?
• Do they appear random and uncontrollable, like the shifting direction of the wind?
• Is it just natural that we have our good days and our bad days?
• Are lapses brought on by predictable and understandable events (e.g. fluctuations in personal financial stresses, quota and deadline stress, periodic visits from supervisors)?

You may find that stresses cause lapses or the opposite… that let-downs occur during moments of low accountability or on the heels of visible success. The solution… Understand and improve those things that can be changed, and accept the things you can’t.

People who cannot be followers

Most people are members of more than one functional group. In some team-conscious societies, an individual may belong to as many as a hundred different functional groups – some lasting no more than a few minutes – in a year.

So it is inevitable that as a leader in one functional group, the person will be a follower or a peer member of many others. When an individual flatly refuses to be a follower and always insists on being a leader (i.e. taking control), it surely will give rise to plenty of conflicts, poor interactions and appalling performances.

An inability to follow (especially when needed) is an attitude that isn’t rooted out easily. Regrettably, our modern society insists that individuals (as well as organizations, companies and institutions) become leaders (or fade into the background) and people are often merely treated as either winners (leaders) or losers (followers).

This is the unfortunate residue of competing, striving for excellence and being the democratic best. Encountering and dealing with an inability to follow, is a long and tedious task that is “aggressively” opposed by social pressures. Unless the individual has a strong enough self-identity to withstand such pressures and believes in doing things right, rather than the right thing, there is a very slim chance of constructively dealing with this issue.

People who refuse to acknowledge others

One of the first tasks of interactions is enlisting (recruiting) other people to participate. Without participation, interaction is something of a moot point. No matter your position, title or place in the royal birth order, if people aren’t willing to participate, there is NO interaction.

People thriving on interaction (actually all of us, but especially e.g. team leaders) must see into the hearts and heads of those that they would like to participate. Individuals who think interaction is about them, have it completely wrong. Ignore others, and others will surely ignore you.

Acknowledging the contributions of participating members (giving credit away), concentrating on recognition, reinforcement and rewards to all, go quite a long way toward solidifying the legitimacy of efficient interactions. When a person doesn’t acknowledge the contributions of other people, s/he is likely involved in interactions for selfish reasons.

People that play favourites

There is an 80/20 rule in nearly every aspect of human society… 80 per cent of good results come from 20 per cent of participants. In the case of e.g. customers or processes, it makes good sense to concentrate on and attend to the 20 per cent that does 80 per cent of the work.

With people, however, special treatment prefaces a sudden, steep fall. Individuals must walk a tightrope… between knowing each person individually, knowing what makes him/her tick, what motivates him/her, what that person’s needs or desires are and any appearance that one group of individuals is more valued than any other.

Favouritism is a cancer that eats away at cooperation. How can interactive cooperation do justice to its musketeer slogan of “all for one and one for all” when we are seeing to it that certain musketeers are given a greater ration of gunpowder? Special treatment and merit awards are for the birds. Fawning over individuals – creating a system of stars and drones – is one of the surest ways to wreck a cooperative spirit. Thus, treating everybody fairly, by treating them differently… but be careful, be very, very careful!

People who do not allow failure

Human interactions are melting pots of knowledge and creativity. Their intentions are twofold, to…

1. perform a designated function, process or task, and
2. continuously improve the way a function, process or task is performed.

People can fulfil the first half of the above mandate without ever taking any chances. However, no human interaction can fulfil the second half – function, process and task improvement – without trying new things. And new things carry a higher risk for mistakes and embarrassment.

Joseph Juran, the Rumanian-born prophet of quality training, calls all mistakes “gold in a human mine”. What he means is that mistakes are not just mistakes; properly committed, a goof feeds information on what works and what doesn’t back into the “human system” (i.e. community). Each failure, so long as it is faced up to and not swept under the carpet, is a golden nugget of information leading people to greater success.

Some of the most successful interactions have created a culture, where failure is not only allowed but encouraged. This represents a sea change in human thinking, of course, who wants to be known as the first unit in the company to celebrate failure, especially the folks in finance? However, it is no more radical a change than the move to cooperation itself. The basic principles are, in fact inseparable. Cooperation, interactions and trial-and-error are all about learning through implementation (i.e. first do then learn).

When people are uptight about failure, that is again a sign that fear runs them. People must give each other hope of success by displaying courage. Especially in the face of embarrassment. One way to minimize the risk and expense of errors is to introduce new ideas on a scaled or pilot basis, a laboratory basis as opposed to a global “the-whole-world-is-watching” basis.

People who protect themselves and are quick to blame

Cannibalistic individuals – those who, in times of stress, eat their own – have little patience with reports of screw-ups. The pattern is frightening and very predictable… some poor devil makes a detectable error, and everybody stands around (like the stiffs in the Invasion of the Body Snatchers), point their fingers and screech. The “useless” individual, as terrified of personal retribution as everyone else, joins in with the pointing and screeching, pointing towards who (in actual fact) is to blame.

In such a society, there may be groups designated as functional teams for cooperation purposes, BUT with people living in such fear, there can be little productive and interactive cooperation. A good leader is like a friend ready to step in and take the occasional bullet.

A sane organization (company, institution, family) cultivates what James Heskett and Earl Sasser call “an atmosphere of blamelessness”… the acknowledgement that bad stuff happens, but that we are all in the business of learning and failing together, especially in times of a crisis, immense pressures and severe stress.

Unethical People

Much has been written about the importance of principles and norms for interactions, but most of it is at the legal level or appears in academic books. Ethics and values are important at the ground level as well, especially the ethical tone that individuals set in an organization, company, school or within the family.

Interaction does not exist for one individual alone, quite the opposite. Leaders of groups are there to coach and facilitate team members in skills and interactions, to assist people with problems they are having in execution, to acknowledge achievement and efforts, to share and teach knowledge as it is acquired, to model suitable behaviour and to periodically remind individuals of the group’s objectives and goals.

These tasks imply – above all else – a moral simplicity and directness. A leader or facilitator cannot tell one individual one thing and another person something quite different. A facilitator may not ever deceive people and should not place him/herself above the “rest”, for any reason or for any period of time.

The leader or facilitator has been given a trust that is easily violated. For something that happens daily, it is pretty darn sacred. Does this mean facilitators or leaders must behave like St. Francis of the Assisi? No! They should always be themselves (honest, open and approachable). And they should be free to pursue their ambitions, even if that eventually takes them away from their circumstances.

But while they have accountability for a person they must be true to their role as facilitators. And that means a continuous improvement of those facilitating skills, by becoming a better coach, teacher, model and servant. Unethical people just do the exact opposite, they blame, judge, condemn and threaten.

People who are helpful saboteurs

Dark Angels are those who – whether consciously or unconsciously – are extremely helpful and involved, but unfortunately in such a way that they sabotage successful outcomes. If it is not intentional, it usually is easier to deal with. The problem is that conscious sabotaging is something that very little can be done about because the person sabotages things by e.g. withholding information or distorting it in a way that suits him/her. In short, dark angels are out to shamelessly use others to serve his/her own agenda.

People who are remote

In general, individuals may put a distance between themselves and those they interact with (e.g. email, SMS, WhatsApp). This distance deliberately limits the information others have and protects their “image” against being challenged by truth or honesty.

Think of Big Brother in George Orwell’s novel 1984, visible only on TV screens, frighteningly similar to the actions of politicians and celebrities in modern times. These created distances are used as a prop. It allowed these people to create a cult of personality, charisma and establish an inflated sense of superiority. Take away the distance and we would see these heroes put on their pants one leg at a time.

Authentic interactions feed on frequent, consistent and true information. People who squeeze it through the eye of a needle kill productive interaction. It gets a lot worse when the scarcity of information (to make decisions) is founded on a philosophy of protecting people against the cruelty that they cannot handle, incidentally often decided by the one in an authoritative or controlling position.

Our own experiences with censorship, during the “apartheid years” and recently the war in Iraq, are excellent examples of creating distance and remote actions that effectively derail productive problem solutions and encourage chasing an illusion.

People who fail to model healthy interactive behaviour

The tongue-in-the-cheek phrase “Do as I say, not as I do”, is unfortunately taken seriously by many people when coaching, guiding and teaching others. If only, we could get rid of that. But we can’t. Even small kids see through it.

Interactions require mutual respect between participating members. If they see someone behaving counter to the standards of behaviour that s/he set or expects, they’ll lose their respect, trust and refuse to cooperate. The operative term in this case is… Hypocrisy. It’s OK to talk the talk… provided you first walk the walk.

People who are oblivious to the needs of others

For interactions to be truly efficient, the needs of individual participants must be acknowledged and – when possible – met.

People do not live to be interactive in one way only, they have dreams of moving on to better things someday. Individuals who actively involve themselves in helping others to achieve their aspirations, build trust, loyalty and camaraderie. Unfortunately the opposite (modern operative rule, because of the price tag it carries) is to ignore the needs of others, creating a climate of distrust, resentment and back-stabbing.

People who are unwilling to fight for others

The great and paradoxical philosopher Lao Tsu described the purpose of true interaction as being a servant.

In modern terms, the servant-individual concept translates into the one who establishes the direction (vision, goals, etc.), then runs alongside others shouting encouragement, knocking down barriers, opening up networks and running interference. Thus taking care of the climate (fighting for it, if needed) allowing others to proceed efficiently with a process.

Sadly though, only a handful will do it. The majority will cling to the illusions that they are serving others (for a better understanding of this aspect, read human core concerns). Fighting the process or system can be suicide, but fighting a toxic climate to establish a nourishing climate is always worth taking the risk.

People who are unwilling to take risks

People must have the guts to take risks to succeed. Those who take the safe routes tend to get mediocre results… over time, they are overtaken by “change” and competitors.

Individuals should be encouraged to take calculated risks. If things go wrong, you should separate the outcome or result from the decision, you complain about the outcome while praising the decision to take the risk in the first place. Failure – after all – is valuable information. You do not shoot the bringer of such information (decision to act). Rather, you encourage continued calculated risk-taking, another attempt, a different direction, …etc.

People who don’t make stretches in life are normally rewarded in kind, with inelastic situations. Two things destroy productive interactions, too little challenge and way, way too many challenges. One should find a middle path. Therefore, craft challenges that stretch your imagination, without shredding your self-confidence to bits.

People who cannot allow conflict

We all have a mental picture of the ideal interaction… clever people share their ideas, nod appreciatively at one another and work harmoniously to craft solutions in which everyone participates equally. This picture is quite charming but, eerily unreal.

In real life, a lot of the humans interacting is less a “fish-and-bread” accretion, it is more like combat rations. You present your idea. I am sort of listening. As soon as you are done, I lob a pineapple-sized grenade in the vicinity of your idea. We compare. We bulldoze for an advantage. We disagree, sometimes passionately. Often we just don’t like each other very much, and the conflict takes on an unpleasant personal edge.

This kind of conflict is very dismaying to many people. They are too smitten by the idealistic idea of interactions and sharing opinions, by their preconceptions of how people should behave or their innate distaste for disharmony, to endure this very real human conflict.

There is conflict and there is conflict. Successful interactions are sometimes unattractive, but not dysfunctional. They aren’t characterized by verbal abuses of each other, back-stabbing, sabotage or petty actions to discredit one another. People must expect and must endure the fact that many interactions and accompanying conflicts often tie more closely to Pitbulls fighting than sophisticated-TV-promoted think tanks.

People who are too high-strung, too squeamish, who seek to censor, act politically correct, protect feelings or stifle self-expressions have a problem… the knowledge/information that must be shared may not be communicated at all. We must realize that give-and-take is much too valuable, to try and “control” all, even what others may think.

People who do not value diversity

Diversity in the sense of equal opportunity for people of races, religious groups, ethnic backgrounds, both genders, lifestyles, medical conditions, …etc. This kind of diversity is dealing with a global and diverse society and is an obvious advantage. An individual who is prejudiced against certain groups of people belongs in Jurassic Park, not a modern society. Looking beyond cave behaviour, there is a more important way to think about diversity, as a difference, not a mistake.

Un-diverse human interaction (free from conflict or differences) is a white-bread gaggle of yes-men, often quite literally. Truly diverse human interactions bring together, not just people with different backgrounds, but different ways of thinking and ideas as well. To be valuable to anybody, diversity has to go way beyond legal compliance. To an opportunistic cherry-picking of individuals for the different outlooks – knowledge and ideas – each participating person can bring to the table and contribute.

Genuine human interactions are synonymous without factions because no two individuals are in automatic cultural agreement. An efficient person is one who cannot only live with this differentness but can revel in the clash of values, exult in disagreement and have respect for the spirit of dissent.

People who are passive

Think of inter ACTIONS as a set of initiating activities. It is about moving things – a product, a service, an idea, a group of people – from here to there.

Most people are properly reactive (passive participation in change), responding with existing knowledge to existing circumstances. People should rather be proactive (active participation in change), acquiring and teaching new knowledge for continuously changing circumstances.

Reactive individuals mostly stay in place; Proactive individuals are on the move. You may be a good manager of events (reactive, firefighting), but not a good leader (proactive, planning). However, you cannot be a great leader without first being – at the very least – a decent manager of events. Don’t make assumptions. Find the courage to ask questions and express what you want. Communicate with others as clearly as you can to avoid misunderstandings, sadness, conflict and drama. With just this one agreement, you can completely transform your life.

People who are prescriptive Rule Makers

Hippocrates are people who believe that they should protect the world and the people around them from themselves. So they are quick to formulate rules and regulations to keep things on track. In itself, this is not a problem, because in general we sometimes need to be reminded of certain things. Where the big problem comes in is that hypocrites expect others to do, without exception what is right, but they are excluded from the rules they impose on others for their own good. They tend to live by the motto of… “What’s good for the goose IS NOT good for the gander”. The best examples are bullies and managers. Important to note that managers aren’t necessarily leaders and leaders lead by example not prescriptive rules.