Workplace Revelations

I retired from the Federal Government (U.S. Department of Energy) 3 years ago this month. I had not ever thought I would retire right at my 30-year mark, but events conspired to make it the right time.  In the months leading up to my decision, I tried to be as introspective and methodical as possible.  Through this process, I came up with some key observations about the work world. These have just been reinforced by the labor force realignment that Covid-19 is generating. Here are my top insights (in no order of importance):

I never met anyone who was perfect at their job

Sometimes I got down on myself when I failed to do something in my job perfectly. Yet when I took the time to think about people I viewed as great at their jobs, I realized that everyone has at least one shortcoming. These could include: not following through on promised actions, not being on time with deliverables or meetings, not having specific insights or knowledge that I expected them to know, not having clear communication, etc. I found it comforting that one could be spectacularly successful and respected and still have flaws.

Don’t take yourself too seriously

Self-deprecation and being friendly, open and generous in most interactions will always serve you, unless you are in a super serious situation, like meeting with CEO-level folks or testifying before a court or an official governmental body.

Similarly, sharing information helps to build trust and professional esteem, contrary to those who mistakenly believe hoarding information gives them the upper hand. When I went out of my way to share information and context, colleagues were extremely appreciative and provided more avenues for me to share my expertise. While the instinct may be to keep information from others to improve one’s status as “one who knows,” I’ve never seen information hoarders do well in the end.

Apply chess to key interactions

Being strategic and thinking two or more steps ahead sets one up for success, especially in potentially difficult or complex situations. When I was going into a performance review or important meeting, I prepared by thinking through every point I wanted to make, what I expected reactions to be, and then developed convincing responses to each potential retort.  I would jot down these “chess plays,” even on a scrap of paper. This could go several rounds depending on the situation. Doing this groundwork also helps alleviate the anxiety that comes with such meetings.   

Insecurity is at the heart of poor management

With the many managers I had, I found those that are insecure as a person or in their position tend to be the most unreasonable, harm morale, can be unjustifiably vindictive and make the worst bosses. My best managers held extremely high standards but provided good direction, empowered but did not micromanage staff, were available when obstacles or confusion arose, gave others their due credit, and had the guts to protect and defend staff from senseless demands and higher up drama. I also had my share of insecure managers who were so self-absorbed that they could not see how lifting everyone up would improve their own performance and reputation. Managers who exude authenticity — even if demanding, prickly or unorganized — are preferred to insecure types.

It’s okay to fake it

As a non-technical person in a very technical organization, I sometimes had to pretend that I understood the technology more than I did. But because I was not an electrical or other engineer, I could relate to what a layman would not understand about energy. I would often be the one to provide Energy 101’s for other Federal agencies or other organizations since I understood that you have to start at a basic level and not imply knowledge that I knew most non-industry folks did not possess. While I wasn’t fully versed in the complexity of energy technologies, I still knew enough in many settings to be the expert in the room.

Being collegial and cooperative is a superpower

I never worked on an issue or deliverable that did not benefit from working cooperatively with others. Teams almost always do better when they consider multiple perspectives and approaches. Contrary to what bosses think, nothing could really get done without getting others at the staff level to buy in. There was too much to do, and so it took individual relationships, born of previous teamwork experiences, traveling together (a thing of the past?) or hanging out at lunch or after work, to get the cooperative level of effort needed. These close-knit collaborations turn out to be exponentially helpful, whether for future work collaborations, as a sounding board, and/or for job (or social) referrals or references.

When I served as a Special Assistant to a senior manager, I learned that being as useful and deferential as possible to those reporting to my boss would help me gain their trust, accomplish whatever task I was engaged in and maintain my bona fides when I went back to the trenches. Acting imperious, as some close to power do, can be disastrous when one returns to the common ranks.

Plus, it’s more fun to work with collaborative, approachable colleagues.

Empathy and non-conventional views need to be considered when addressing key policy challenges

In my years at DOE, economists and modelers most often approached questions in very dispassionate ways, which helped to preserve their perceived neutrality and economics’ place in science. However, relying exclusively on known data or prevailing assumptions can lead to misplaced results, especially in a policy context.

There were many times when we tried to get economic modelers in the Energy Information Administration (DOE’s statistical arm) to make bolder future assumptions about renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies, beyond their standard “advanced” scenario of 10% better than current performance or cost. They too often dismissed non-conventional possibilities, thereby completely missing massive innovations and cost reductions in solar, wind, transportation and buildings that in reality hit the market years in advance of their projected analyses. Having more inclusive assumptions and results might have impacted related policy decisions, which in turn could have accelerated progress even more.

For me personally, I had more than a few of my traditional economist colleagues question my purchasing of an early Toyota Prius hybrid vehicle. It might not have made economic sense at the time, but my motivation was not simply economic. Rather, it was tied to sending a message to the then George W. Bush Administration that I and many others cared about reducing dependence on fossil fuels.  The energy saving attribute of the Prius was not easily appreciated or accounted for in economic models.

During the Obama Administration, the prevailing view was that there were too few workers in building trades, such as welders. In a very instructive (for me) meeting with the AFL-CIO, they made the case that trades wages had declined so much that workers weren’t willing to accept substantially lower salaries compared to what they had made in the past. Had the US Government taken this perspective more to heart, really addressing the aggrieved working class who has suffered most due to globalization, I doubt Trump would have convinced so many blue-collar workers to align with him and against their own economic interests, given his wealthy-first policies.

Luckily, we’re at the point where economists, modelers and decision makers finally are appreciating the labor issues and shortages we’re seeing today. They are also finally baking in changing attitudes toward climate change and economic and environmental justice – attitudes that had not been well characterized in traditional economic and policy-making analyses. Hopefully very soon, Congress will pass desperately needed legislation to address these existential issues.

The biggest revelation: Our limited human brain

A huge revelation for me was when I realized that we humans are just animals that have major deficiencies even given our immense intellectual abilities. This was reinforced during the 2009-2011 period – during the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act – when decisions about spending billions of dollars had to be made by the 1-2 people at the top, creating severe bottlenecks that delayed action. While bureaucratic processes were partly to blame, the real delays came from the inability of one or two brains to take in so much information and make quick decisions. It was not a reflection of the abilities of the people making the decisions but of their limited human (animal) brain power.

Despite our materialistic preeminence, we continue to display actions and ineptitudes that demonstrate how many commonalities, limits and dependencies we have with other parts of the animal and natural world. We’ve been driven to our knees by a microscopic virus. Note the vulnerability of our food supply to the still unknown syndrome that is harming bees. Our limited human brain is evident when we see how many Americans are fixated on their individual right to reject Covid vaccinations, illogically and selfishly ignoring the substantial risk that they will contract the Delta variant, pass it on to others and possibly die. While the prevailing notion may be that we are the dominate species, humans are showing how frail we really are.

While my insights are tied to my time in government, I hope most will resonate for those in business, other organizations or no longer in the work world. Looking back at your work experiences, what revelations have you made? I’d love to hear them and your reactions to mine.

Recent Media recommendations:

I was inspired to write this blog from listening to Ezra Klein’s podcast episode: This Conversation with Richard Powers is a Gift

Maria Shriver’s latest Sunday Paper blurb. I highly recommend subscribing to this (it’s free). She’s incredibly insightful and deep.