I recently came across a list of Top 25 companies by “happiness of employees.” There are lots and lots of flaws with most methodologies that measure abstract things like “happiness,” but I’m only going to focus on one today. It practically leapt off the page at me when I saw it.

I’m not going to put any particular company on blast here, but one company jumped out at me because I knew this company well. I’d never worked for them directly, but I worked in an industry that interacted with a lot of their employees. And they were miserable.

So miserable, in fact, that there was excessively high turnover. And then – ah ha.

How do you raise the average wage of your employees while also saving money? Simple: you fire the lowest-paid 10%. Boom, now your average wage is higher even though your total payroll cost is lower and no employee is making a penny more.

How do you get really high employee happiness? Fire all the unhappy employees. Or just make them so unhappy that they quit.

That’s the “secret denominator.” What isn’t being measured or observed – or at least isn’t being reported. I remember first learning about this nasty trick in sales recruiting. A company could honestly say as part of it’s recruitment efforts that “over 95% of our sales reps make over $100k/year,” because they’d set the quota at $25k/quarter and fired anyone who didn’t make quota in the first three quarters. So it was technically true that virtually all sales reps made that much, but the part that never got filled in was “out of how many that tried?”

Always look for the secret denominator. Look for what isn’t being counted.

You loved the place you went, but you hated the plane ride.

You thought the meal tasted delicious, but you disagreed with which pots they made it in.

You loved the present you got, but hated the bow.

I have a rule about process. Your own process matters tremendously; much more than the end result. With other people or external things, their end result matters much more than their process.

Caring about someone else’s process is called training, and it’s worth money. I wouldn’t do it unless that person was paying me or was my kid, generally speaking. If someone else is doing something for you, it’s usually precisely because it’s inefficient for you to do it yourself.

You pay a restaurant to cook for you. Even if you’re an expert chef, it wouldn’t make sense for you to go back there and oversee the process of your meal being prepared. You’re making future decisions based on the results.

This is especially true with what we’ll call “Heisenberg Results.” Those are results where measuring the process actually changes the results! Obviously that chef wouldn’t make as good a meal with you hovering over them.

Don’t worry about the bow – worry about what’s in the box.

The earlier I write, the better my writing tends to be. This is a strange contradiction for me since I’m naturally such a night owl. But maybe that’s why – maybe it’s specifically the friction between my natural states that creates the right environment for good idea-sifting.

Another reason, however: at the beginning of the day, anything could happen. So I’m writing about potential. At the end of the day, everything has happened, so I’m looking for lessons and insights only from the discrete events that have occurred. Naturally, that’s a smaller pool of potential catalysts than all events that could occur.

Or maybe this post isn’t very good; after all, I’m writing it pretty late.

As often as I can, I like to attend my daughter’s karate lessons. I’m always present for her tests, demonstrations and other events, but I also like to watch at least one practice per week. In the beginning, this was just about observing my daughter’s behavior and other such mundane parental things, but that’s long since passed. She rocks, and she doesn’t do it for me. After the first time she broke a board, I beamingly told her I was proud of her. She didn’t thank me. Instead, wise beyond her years, she said “I’m proud of myself.”

So nowadays, I watch for two reasons. One, because I think it’s important to be an active participant in my child’s adventures. And two, because I’m so freakin’ impressed and fascinated by it all!

Tonight, they deviated from their normal routine a bit to do a really challenging drill. A very light foam block was placed atop a pillar that was about the height of the average kid in her class. The pillar was also pretty light and was not secured to anything. The kids stood on one side, and on the other side a small circle was placed on the ground, directly adjacent to the pillar.

The kids had to use their feet to push the foam block off the pillar and have it land in the circle. They couldn’t knock over the pillar.

“Him Cho Chung” means “Control of Power.”

So picture my daughter. Eight years old. She’s standing on one foot, chambering a kick with her other – but she can’t actually kick, or this super-light foam block will go flying. No, she has to reach out (maintaining her balance so she doesn’t kick over the pillar!) and gently push this foam block over until it slides off the pillar and into the circle on the other side, and then pull her foot back without disrupting the pillar.

They had to repeat this until they could do it three times. I was on the edge of my seat the whole time.

In our adult lives, we’re rarely bulls in china shops. “Too much power” doesn’t usually mean breaking something (although in some real ways, it can mean that). What it usually does mean for us is more insidious – it means expending resources you didn’t need to. And resources are scarce. If you accomplish a goal with 300% more juice than you needed, that’s a lot wasted. Being able to control your power is synonymous with being able to husband your resources.

Sometimes, as with the drill my daughter did today, controlling your power actually takes more effort than throwing a full-strength (but quick) kick. But that’s because it’s practice. You do it to get good at it, to understand it. And then in life, you do exactly what you need to accomplish your goal, saving the rest in reserve for the next one.

Just like she did when she got all three blocks in the circle.

Let me tell you a strange story. I promise in advance that this story is true – this isn’t like an allegory or anything. These are real events.

When I was a young man, I knew this guy – his name wasn’t Frank, but I’m going to call him Frank to maintain anonymity. Frank had a very bad stutter. He was a nice enough guy, pretty funny actually, but that stutter really tripped him up quite a bit in social situations. Most people didn’t really get to know the smart, funny guy he was because of it.

Frank was also involved in local community theater. That’s the way I heard it, “involved in,” so naturally I assumed some sort of technical aspect. But nope! Dude got on stage. One night I went to see one of his shows – they were putting on “Damn Yankees.”

Frank was Mr. Applegate.

(For those unfamiliar with the play, Mr. Applegate is the devil, and the script calls for him to be a smooth-talking swindler. He’s a main character.)

Frank was absolutely brilliant. Not a stutter in sight. He was so smooth and convincing I forgot who I was looking at. I talked to him afterwards to tell him what a great job he had done and he replied “Th-th-th-th-thanks.”

Now, Frank and I were close enough (and at the time I was tactless enough) for me to hazard out the question of how he was able to avoid stuttering while he was on stage. His response was bafflingly simple: Mr. Applegate didn’t have a stutter.

I was pretty blown away by this. Obviously I’m no speech pathologist, but I said to him: “You should just pretend you’re always performing in a play, only you’re playing the character of ‘Frank, but With No Stutter.’ Just never drop character.”

That wasn’t the lightning-bolt breakthrough I had hoped it was. But interestingly enough, Frank did tell me later that thinking in those terms was part of what helped him eventually overcome his stutter. He began mentally picturing the words in advance, saying “What would I sound like if I didn’t have a stutter?” At first he traded his stutter for a significantly slower speech pattern, but with practice it became as quick as anyone else’s.

That power of visualization can be applicable in all sorts of scenarios. Our emotional and mental barriers are real, but they aren’t physical barriers. If someone is terrified of heights, their legs still have the capability to ascend stairs; their fingers can still push elevator buttons; their hands can still buy airplane tickets. As I realized with Frank, it’s not a perfect on/off switch, not a lightning-bolt moment that perfectly solves the problem, but it is a helpful tool to make progress.

Start with a simple idea: “If there was a person exactly like me in every way, except they weren’t afraid of heights, what would it look like if they walked across this bridge?” Start with that visualization and get closer to it every time.

Imagine a person just like you, except they accomplished the goal that’s in front of them. What did that look like?

I don’t think there is any profession that comes close to sales in terms of the constant quest for improving your craft.

Every professional cares about getting better at what they do, of course. Teachers try to be better teachers, carpenters try to be better carpenters, doctors try to be better doctors. But it’s nothing like salespeople. With salespeople it’s constant, it’s relentless, it’s part of the very blood of the profession. They want to do it. It’s part of the very competitive, immediate-results-driven nature of the business.

This might be part of another divide I see in the professional world. This perceived divide is repeated in almost every company, across almost every sector. And the divide is that there are two kinds of people – salespeople, and everyone else.

For a variety of reasons, non-salespeople view salespeople as a very peculiar kind of alien. They make their living doing things that seem absolutely horrifying. And as a result, most people don’t include any sort of sales skills into their professional skill set, even if they’re otherwise very well-rounded and even though those skills are universally helpful.

The problem with this, of course, is that even non-salespeople have to sell stuff on occasion. You might not be selling a used car or paper products, but you may have to sell an idea. Do you know what “bedside manner” is? It’s sales skill for medical professionals. Not every doctor that opens their own practice is successful, and some of those failures don’t stem from lack of medical ability but from lack of sales ability. Just because you’re a doctor doesn’t mean patients have to come to you!

That means that every single professional should have some sales skills. But most sales training and sales information documents are aimed very squarely at the professional salesperson, and they’re (as I said) a very peculiar alien. Most sales training is aimed at people who want to sell, and thus want to get better at it. Most people that aren’t professional salespeople, however, don’t even want to sell in the first place. Some of them are afraid of it, some people actively think it’s bad! People that think those things won’t get much from traditional sales training.

So here are some real meat-and-potatoes tips for non-salespeople to get better at selling. These are NOT expert-level tips, and they won’t be of much use to even novice salespeople. But they can grab a LOT of low-hanging fruit for people who aren’t sales pros but sometimes need to ask for that signature.

1. Earn the right to make your pitch. Before you come anywhere close to a sales scenario, decide for yourself what would let you be able to ask for something without feeling “cheesy” or “aggressive” or however else you think of salespeople. Think in terms of free samples, or examples, or up-front value. For instance, if you’re a graphic designer, maybe you don’t feel comfortable just talking to a potential customer of the company you work for and pitching your services right away. But what if you did an hour-long consultation where you provided real actionable value and demonstrated your skills – for free? If you’ve done an hour of work, do you feel like an honest payment for that time is a few minutes of their attention while you present your client model? If so, then just always do that before asking for the sale. You’ll feel more confident. Basically, put yourself in a position where you feel like you’ve done enough favors for the other person that you’d feel comfortable asking them for a small favor in return. A ride somewhere, a meal – or listening to a sales pitch.
2. Sell to a hypothetical person instead of who you’re talking to. A common complaint I hear from non-salespeople is that they don’t like what they feel is an “aggressive” conversational track. So instead of pitching what you do to the person in front of you, talk instead about the modal person you help, and then connect it to them at the end. For instance, something like: “The type of client who gets the most value from our graphic design service is a business that has a need for branding across multiple channels, both online and off. If a client really needs their branded content to pop no matter what format it’s in, then they really benefit from our cross-channel expertise and years of design experience. So if that sounds like you, we should definitely talk more.”
3. Tell people in advance that you’re going to sell by promising that you won’t until some set threshold is met. For instance, if you’re about to deliver a one-hour free demo to an individual or group, you can start by saying “Hello everyone! We’re going to do a deep-dive in today’s topic. In case you were worried, I promise to do absolutely zero selling for the first 45 minutes, and then we’re going to do a check-in to make sure everyone feels like they’ve gotten their value out of today’s talk. After that we’ll talk about how you can use our product for the future!”

These tips should help clear some of the mental hurdles that keep you from engaging in a light sales process. If you’re an engineer, designer, etc. – sometimes you’re doing a webinar, a product demo, answering potential client questions about your subject matter expertise, etc. If you can do that and sell a little, you’ll be so much better off than if you leave it entirely to the salespeople to close the deal.

After all, those people are weird, aren’t they?

Imagine three bricks, placed end-to-end on a table.

You could pick up all three bricks without touching the middle one. All you have to do is hold onto the two on the ends, and press them inward against the middle one. As long as you’re applying enough pressure, you can pick up all three bricks.

In fact, you could do this with more than 3! Assuming your arms are long enough and you’re strong enough, you could put 2, 3, maybe 4 bricks in the middle and still pick up the whole line by just pressing inward on the outermost two.

The more bricks you have, the more pressure is required, of course.

So here you are holding like six bricks total, straining and sweating, supporting all this weight with your outstretched arms and keeping everything stable only through maintaining a constant application of intense pressure.

And then someone comes along and tells you to relax. That you’re working too hard, that you should just breathe a little. Maybe meditate. They see the look on your face and think “this person is going to give themselves a heart attack, they need to slow down a little.” And with all the best intentions, they try to get you to just de-stress a little.

BANG! CRASH! SMASH!

The whole thing comes down. That was load-bearing stress. It was keeping the whole system up. Your mental and emotional stability was being held in check like liquid oxygen, only because of strong external pressure. There was nothing under those bricks – as soon as constant pressure wasn’t being applied to them, nothing was keeping them in the air.

So if this is you, and you’re the one in the position, you really have three choices:

1. Just… let the bricks crash? That looks like different things to different people depending on how this analogy is working for you, but it’s probably never good. It probably means, at a minimum, a mental breakdown.
2. Keep the pressure up forever. You can do it, right? I mean, it’s not really forever. It’s like 40 or 50 years, tops.
3. Find something to put under those bricks so you can ease up on the pressure gradually and nothing will collapse.

Number 3 sounds like the best option, right? Here’s the thing – imagine you really were physically holding the bricks like I described above. Now imagine that while supporting this, someone asked you to go look around for a table or something to put them down on. You have to suddenly concentrate on yet another task, you have to move around while still maintaining the balance, you have to risk bumping into stuff. In the short term, #3 might actually be much harder than #2.

So lots of people just default down to #1.

The real solution is no longer available. The real solution is #0: “Don’t pick up all those bricks like that to begin with, idiot. What did you think would happen?”

If you have to move bricks, that’s the real advice. Pick them up one, maybe two at a time, and then find someplace to put them down. Someplace stable, and then you can go get some more and put them next to the first couple. And then you could build a whole house or something, brick by brick.

I have a term I sometimes use in professional contexts, and I realized the other day that few people actually know what I’m talking about when I refer to a particular individual as The Rabbit.

Here’s what I mean when I call someone “The Rabbit.” In greyhound races, all the dogs are motivated to race around the track because they’re chasing a mechanical hare on a rail that runs around the inside of that track. The dogs aren’t really racing against each other, they’re all just chasing the mechanical hare and one of them does it faster than the rest of them.

In any contest between people, sometimes someone will emerge (in my mind) as The Rabbit. The Rabbit is the absolute clear winner; everyone else is competing for second. (The greyhounds can beat each other, but none of them can actually catch the mechanical hare.) But The Rabbit is more than just a clear first-place leader. The Rabbit refers to someone who is a clear first-place leader and inspires others in the competition to be better because of them.

In every sales office there’s a top seller. But there’s not always “The Rabbit.” In order to earn that term (one of high praise!), they not only have to be the top seller, they also have to represent something aspirational to the rest of the team. The rest of the team has to look up to this person, want to be more like them, even want to beat their record – but they like them. They chase them out of admiration.

I’ve seen plenty of professional teams where the top performer was a huge jerk that no one liked, no one wanted to learn from, and had no interest in motivating or leading others. Those people don’t rise through the ranks, they don’t become leaders.

Why? Because the essential qualities that make you The Rabbit remain even when you’re not in the competition any more. You can lead others even when your managerial duties keep you from being in the same race as the people you’re leading. You can’t do that if you were never The Rabbit to begin with.

The most essential tool of leadership is this: lead by example. Whatever you wish your team to have, you have to have more. If any of the greyhounds were actually faster than the hare, the dog wouldn’t pass it and keep running – it would catch it, and the race would halt. The Rabbit sets the pace.

Whenever I discover that someone has a radically different viewpoint or opinion than my own on some particular topic, a few things always happen in my head, in roughly this order:

First, I double-check the disagreement to make sure it’s real. Sometimes there are miscommunications, differing definitions of terms, etc. If someone else’s position is radically different from my own, I like to be certain about it.

The next thing that happens is that I give some serious consideration to whether my own viewpoint should change. Philosophical positions have a sort of gravity to them, and when I encounter one of particularly deep conviction I think it’s hubris to not at least consider the possibility that I’m the incorrect one. I like to think I have good reasons to hold the positions that I do, but part of what gives me that confidence is avoiding echo chambers and listening to dissent.

Assuming I choose to remain in my own position, however, the next thing that happens is that I briefly entertain the notion of trying to sway the other person out of theirs. The instinct to do so is strong, but I generally fight down that instinct and resist the temptation to argue.

So then comes the last step, the most enjoyable one – I look for ways to profit from the disagreement.

Not just for me! I’m always looking for win/win scenarios. Opportunities to help each other and both gain more than we spent in terms of juice. The thing is, that’s actually less likely to happen with someone who is in agreement with you on most things. When you find someone who has a very different mindset than you, there are all sorts of things you can do for each other to take advantage of each other’s strengths and their ability to counteract your own weaknesses.

So don’t dismiss people who disagree with you. Don’t bother trying to change their minds too much, either. Just look for the ways you can each profit from the friction. Life is more interesting that way.

Imagine you were about to embark on some endeavor, but before you put in your first iota of work, you were magically granted a choice between two scenarios:

1. A 90% chance of success, but if you fail you’ll be pretty miserable and it could hurt your ability to learn from the failure or be motivated to try again. Or–
2. A 75% chance of success, but whether you succeed or fail you’ll be happy.

The reason I’m thinking about this particular choice is that I’ve come up against two philosophical concepts, both of which seem sound to me, but are in conflict with one another. I want to either reconcile the two or, failing that, decide on which I think is more helpful.

Concept #1 is a concept rooted in Stocism, which generally tracks pretty well to my normal operating procedures. The concept is that no matter what you try to accomplish, you should try your absolute best – but even in doing so, at least some percentage of the outcome is up to fate. Doing everything right increases your chances for success, but doesn’t guarantee it. So knowing that, you should be okay with the idea of failing because if it’s external to your control then worrying about it is a path of stress and madness. In this way, you can keep your focus 100% on what you can control, which is a more beneficial use of that attention. You take the right actions, and let the outcomes take care of themselves.

Concept #2 is a psychological concept that says once we mentally have a Plan B, we decrease our chances of succeeding at Plan A. For example, if you say “I really want to get all my laundry done today, but if that doesn’t happen, I at least want to get one load washed,” then you’re very likely to only get one load washed. Once the easier path to Outcome B presents itself, you’ll take that path. So a way to stay motivated is to remove any options but success for yourself. This may give you the best chance at success, but you’ve also taken away your safety net – both emotionally and very likely physically as well.

So therein lies the conflict. Pushing yourself so hard that you “burn the boats” may increase your chances of success, but they also dramatically increase the mental penalty for failure. (Sometimes the physical penalty as well, but ultimately this is a post about the mental state associated with this choice.) Whereas allowing yourself to be emotionally okay with failure is definitely healthier if you fail, but also increases the chance of that failure occurring in the first place.

There’s almost certainly a mathematical solution, but I don’t have tight enough data on the variables. If I knew exactly the difference in percentage chance of success between the two mental states, and could quantify exactly the increased mental harm from failure in the difference, and could exactly measure the increased benefits gained from X% more successes over my lifetime… well, if I could do all that I wouldn’t be a mortal man.

So instead, I seek a philosophical solution. On the surface, the question seems almost trivially simple to me: Which is better – to be more successful but less happy overall, or happy no matter what with a little less success? If that were really the question, it seems like anyone with two brain cells to rub together would pick being happy. What good is success if you’re not happy with it – and what use is the marginal extra success if you’re happy no matter what?

But I don’t think the question is that simple. For one, I have children. Children I care about deeply and to whom I want to bequeath a legacy of success. I want them to be set up for every advantage that it’s within my power to grant. I would sacrifice a large degree of my own happiness, present and future, to secure more for them – and as a parent, I’ve already done so plenty! So in one way, choosing a mental state that gives me more happiness overall but less overall success is like trading away their future happiness for my own present happiness.

Then, I think about whether or not any advantages I grant my children will make them happier in the long run – it may make them more successful, but if success doesn’t translate into happiness, then what benefit am I really granting them? Am I sacrificing present happiness for… no one’s happiness, mine or theirs?

But then, I start to question whether success doesn’t really translate into happiness. I know that people with yachts aren’t necessarily happier than people with holes in their shoes. I’ve never been made happier by material things like that. But I am much, much happier when I have less to stress about, and success certainly removes a lot of stressors. I can worry about my children’s future happiness all I want, but today I have to feed them.

And then, another thought pops into my head. About my parents. You see, my own children are too young yet for this to be a realistic question for their consideration, but it’s a valuable question none the less: How much does my happiness increase the happiness of my children?

If my parents gave me a million dollars, it would definitely change things for me. But if doing so caused them to be miserable, I’d hate it. I’d give the million right back if it made them happy again. So assuming my children ultimately grow to feel about me the way I feel about my own parents, then they’d value me being happier over me being more successful, even if that means they themselves have less.

But then, the other voice argues: it’s selfish of me to claim to want to be happier because it will ultimately make my children happier, when you certainly don’t know that’s the case. And besides, one of the values you want to instill in your children is always to work hard, strive, push–

–am I telling them to sacrifice happiness for success?

This is a departure from my normal posts. I don’t have an answer, or even a theory. This might be a question I work through for years. It might be a central theme of my entire relationship with my children. I don’t always know what’s best. But I’m always trying to figure it out, I promise.