This theory is correct. I acquired a business several years ago with 45 employees. I fired a dozen of them and hired by personality only. My employee turnover rate was less than 5%. The average store’s turnover was 25%. After 8 months the CEO flew out to meet. He wanted to know how my location was able to retain employees. I told him the other locations hired based on skill set but the people’s personalities were toxic. I hired by personality and if they fit the team then trained them. My teams all got along and it was one of the highest performing locations out of 3000 stores in the USA.
One of the greatest failures of the school system worldwide is training young men and women to do a task, and not train them whatsoever to be a good, trustworthy, stand up person who has high synergy with others.
I work as an engineer in a union shop and the only bad thing I have to say about unions is that they protect everyone even the toxic abusers. The toxic people are the ones that use the union resources the most because without constant aid, they would get rightfully fired. But the union needs them to keep paying union dues and promote the union for all the good it has done then, namely saving their job after such bad behavior. Removing the cancerous tumors is necessary to save the life. Overall, I’m happy the union exists because they are able to live much better lives when they are not living paycheck to paycheck.
@@BrianGivensYtubeyea, I’m happy unions exist overall. Sure some folks abuse them but I take the good with the bad. At the of the end day, you have the option to have a fighting chance against unfairness / injustices in the workplace with a union. I’ve worked in companies without a union and boy, if management is against you even gif you’re in the right, it’s a battle you won’t win.
I had a very similar experience in retail management several years ago. I took over a store that had been one of the top performing stores but had become one of the lowest performing stores in the division. When I arrived, I immediately recognized the problem -- all the sales associates were all about themselves and were against everyone else. The tension in the building was like thick fog. They beat up the warehouse/delivery guys, the office workers, and even the custodians. They over-promised and under-delivered 100% of the time, then blamed others for their lack of success. I promptly fired all four sales associates and worked with a local college to recruit some smart people with great personalities who were looking for entry level positions is business. We trained them to be sales professionals and they exceeded everyone's expectations. Within a year it was apparent the store would soon be a top performer again.
I can't believe how much truth he fit into 2 minutes and 27 seconds. This is true everywhere, but it is most true in the most competitive realms - sports, business, and the military. Spot on.
I run a specialised business in a remote community and can never find skilled staff. A few years ago I stopped employing on skill levels and just employed the best PEOPLE I could. Business has boomed ever since and in the worst skills shortage since WW2 I have maintained full staff levels at all times, with incredibly low staff turnover. It works
I love this and it is very true. I don't own a business. But I lead a team. I will always take choose someone I can trust than a great performer I can't trust when the chips are down. The same goes for working for others. Sometimes there are middle management you can't trust, but are good at being seen to be the boss and behaving like so. And I find that people start to quit or quiet quit when that happens.
How to be at work when basically I have to check, verify, and qualify what others tried to prove in the industry, it happens to be insufficient, I tell and demonstrate them so, end up being the black sheep when I am the only one telling truth? They are all lying and pretend they're doing "good things"...
Profound! The trust part is more complex and can be more personal, but building trust has a lot of factors, of which I''ve remembered these five: Competence, Commitment, Caring, Benevolence, and Predictability.
What you said made complete sense Simon. Unfortunately, nearly all businesses reward those in the top left corner! The moral of the story for me is that when toxicity is pervasive, it only keeps promoting such people and punishes the trustworthy and even medium performers.
As a self identified MPHT manager this is so relatable. I find as I continue my mission the greatest threat is fellow managers trying to let you fail ‘I’ll show him’, or workers who will take advantage of your high trusting environment. The cream, however, will readily rise to the top.
So true. I worked for a co. that had Bubbly Personality and BrownnoseAbility instead of performance. Result: Corruption and low performance in management.
Good point. My only qualm with this presentation was that he said “we have little or no metrics to measure trust”. I am sure that we have lots of them but they are never disseminated tot he general public. Because being a trustworthy person correlates to how to comport yourself when you believe “no one is watching”. So you will never know you are being tested until the test has concluded. A couple movie examples that come to mind are “The Circle” and “Ender’s Game”.
I managed engineering and technical organizations for 30 years and I agree with him. I combined performance and trust into respect. You don't respect an asshole. How could you learn if you could trust someone? You asked them a question to which you knew the answer. You could trust them if they were truthful or even said they didn't know, but not if they spun a yarn.
Hired people for the last 35 years of my life. Always went with those i felt i could trust even if they were mediocre. I did by intuition. Navy Seals confirmed my “gut feeling”. 😂🙏
I think I lead but people usually don´t me see as a leader but "just" a team member. (I produce music for a living.) It kinda bothers me ´cause I think I´m good at building teams and getting the job done without being an a-hole. But at the end of the day I try to put my ego aside and think it´s enough that I know what I´m doing - even though others don´t see it. This video just reminded me of the fact that we don´t naturally think kind and emphatic people as leaders. The assumption usually is you need to be a bit of an a-hole.
Many organizations turn a blind eye toward toxicity. “Did the job get done on time?” is what the shareholders want to know. Not “Did anyone’s feelings get hurt?” And especially now where we even give the time of day to people because they’re “special.”
very brilliant. I have seen something similar in an old article by Jack Welch. It was related to the people to fire first in your company. Not the low performers but the high ones, when their VALUES are bad
In all of the different size business I worked at, very rarely the HPs were a-holes and a-holes were HPs but also very rarely the HPs were valued and rewarded accordingly.
Yeah. Maybe it's different with the SEALs/ other military, where they might have some big alpha ego, who'll be HP<. In my field (IT) the HPs are often introverted and the only time they act as a-holes is when they are frustrated. For me, the bigger a-holes are those who are LP and act like they are the best
@@panda4247 Yup, I am in the IT field too and based on a test done by the company like 20 years ago, I am an extrovert. Still, the work ethic among "good" IT people is always the same from what I have seen. You are right, those acting like hotshots or taking credit for others' work. Sometimes they are colleagues but sometimes they are your sup or manager which is worse because that is when the real worker bees (unsung heroes) get ignored, passed on for promotion and hardly ever rewarded accordingly. Additionally, Mr. Sinek considers them as a part of world's biggest organization but it is not a corporation, meaning out for profit. When $$/profits is involved, that is when the corruption and injustice starts.
This is why at our work they measure our bonuses based on metrics it is easy to cheat on. Also our QAs are based on meaningless box checking. So you can have someone who is polite on the phone., shitty at their job as they speed through accounts that the rest of us have to fix later on. And we wonder why we are 1-2 weeks behind in accounts we manage. Because the high performers are not really performing highly. They are merely performing quickly. Leaving the rest of us who take the time to do it right to suffer in the middle of the bonus rankings, doing most of the work correctly. I love my job but I have recently decided it may be time to leave. I refuse to work for an employer that rewards poor work ethic.
AMAZING video. I feel like all my 4 managers in my department should watch this. They are all of course in the bottom left corner, but hey, maybe they can learn something.😂😂😂
Holy shiet... Thats why i always notice , the Military people are always something else....(the mindset) Their prespective of approaching things is completely different than civilians they are just extraordinary and balanced than most people you come across.
Modern corporations destroy the trustworthy people. I left the corporate world. Toxic as hell. While I was working there a number of people thought I was their manager and didn't even seem to know who their real manager was after being there for almost 2 months. This was in what is considered a top tech company. A joke. So happy with my new change of career.
Leave a job because of toxic workplace, however those toxic colleagues get promotion eventually because of their high performance, that is when you know it is not a good company worth staying anymore
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🏋️ *Military selects based on performance and trust, valuing trustworthiness alongside battlefield skills. Toxicity arises from high performance but low trust.* 01:48 🛡️ *Organizations prioritize performance metrics over trust, leading to toxicity. Trustworthy leaders foster team cohesion and long-term success.* Made with HARPA AI
I agree on this, however not always the highperformance worker are untrustful. I work in health, which is not the same situation than a regular bussiness company, the patience need high skilled people, and also need true comments on what is the best for him/her. What if you have underperformance people, also untrustful to the hospital, but they look trustful because they cover each other backs (when they are doing something wrong, like leaving work early as a constant or hiding data or just not working. The higher performance gets sick of that too, because it feels like doing all the job, but if you add to that the backbite, the comments. Everytime you have a highperformance you could train that performance to be trustful, because it is easier to train one people (especially a high performance). For me this is the same than taking out of bussiness a great singer or a great actor because he is seen as difficult. I am quite sure we will regret that. Maybe just maybe a high performance who is not getting along is not because he/she is a psycopath, may be just may be there are something else going on there and if you have the will to find that and fix it, you will not have a regular workplace but a great workplace.
Have you ever tried to ask to a high performance percieved as a untrustful to create trust in first place? Because maybe just maybe you are leaving behind a really good worker who doesn’t know what you need. Because this talk gave me this bad feeling of missing a good singer that is amazing just the people producing his records are considering him/her difficult or whatever. That happened to Kathy Perry, for instance. Just keep in mind that sometimes when your are judging the trustfulness you could be wrong.
Saving typically results in you earning a lower return but with virtually no risk. In contrast, investing allows you the opportunity to earn a higher return, but you take on the risk of loss in order to do so. Not reaching a million before retirement feels like an unfulfilled retirement.
And usually, but not always, those people with low trust are extroverts, because they dont longterm bond with people. Introverts who bond longterm have more trust. Just my own experiment. ❤ I would give my money and everything to a introvert but not an extrovert, who might "forget" whose money is that. Introvert would never accidentally "forget".
The AHs are often also sycophants, kissing up to the bosses and “punching down” to use Adam Grant’s term. The best people to identify the AHs, are those at a lower level in the organization.
One thing that I cannot understand from this: how being asshole and someone you trust cannot be the same person? I mean English is not my native, but I am and asshole (harsh, mean) but in the same time as far as I can tell I got everyone's back and they can count on me. And my colleagues do! So got a bit mixed message here I cannot decipher.
Trust. Trust in what specifically? Define trust? Then that leads to a toxic workplace? What specifically is a road that leads to a toxic workplace? There are so many holes in this presentation… A) trust is subjective, so at best intersubjective. It’s not a thing it’s not objectifiable! It’s a feeling and therefore led by a persons thinking
