Are You Talking to a Mentor, Peer, or Trainee
Over the years I have heard of this idea of labeling people as += or -.
The +, plus, people are people you can learn from. They are your mentors even if they would not agree to that label. Sometimes they are your boss or even their boss.
The =, equal, people are your peers. These are folks at your level in an organization with whom you should get along and collaborate. They are equal to you.
Lastly, the -, minus, people are people new to the organization or your group and need to be helped to learn the way of your group. They could be the team members that are junior to you.
For a moment stop and think of three people around you that would fit these roles…
Now imagine a perfect world in which you are working for a company in which meritocracy is the way you get ahead. A place where you will be judged at all times by the plusses, equals, and minuses. A place where your future depends on all of them.
How would you approach a mentor? This is a person that knows more than you OR is at least in a higher-level role than you. You have labeled them as mentors so you should strive to listen to them at least 80% of the time. 20% of your time should be used to clarify and challenge their ideas.
What do you do with a peer? They are equal to you and will have their opinions formed based on their experience in the company and with their group interest. You both work for the same company and for the best of the company you both want to do the right thing. Ideally, this is a 50/50 relationship. Or at least close to that. Your strategy should be to listen about 50% of the time and challenge and push back on 50% of their ideas.
The last group is the trainees. You are seen as a leader to them whether they chose you or not. They require your help and guidance. This puts you in the 80% speaking and 20% listening mode. You are coaching BUT also listening that they are understanding what you are giving them over time. And hopefully over time that 20 creeps up towards 50%.
Does this idea seem very simplistic?
I agree that the idea is simple BUT we often fail to execute it properly. We rarely work in a pure meritocracy where we are judged based on our contributions and ideas. Often politics get in the way. That is what makes the simple so powerful.
If you know that you are speaking to a mentor then the last thing you want to do is waste their time. If you think you need an hour, focus to only use 30 minutes. If you have 10 questions, narrow them down to a few. If your slide deck has 20 slides then trim it down to 10 or fewer. You want to be seen as someone who values their time and for them to want to give you time. This is how you learn from people who are mentors without assuming that label.
Equal relationships in most organizations are the most challenging. You want to be seen as the person that should be moved past this level BUT the only way to get that is for you to be a great equal partner. You want to make the rest of your equals better for you to do better.
Lastly, let us not forget about our trainees. Why do you need to give away your most valuable time to them? Well, what if they become your boss? Would you rather work for a competent boss than for someone who was able to play the political games better than you and advances? Trust me on this one, it is not fun working for an incompetent boss.
I listened to a podcast the other day and the guest, Ray Dalio, talked about the meritocracy with which he operates his company. Bridgewater is an idealistic and very successful hedge fund company. They are years ahead of most organizations and have taught themselves how to handle brutal feedback. Most people in most organizations can not handle the truth, especially if delivered bluntly.
So until you work for a perfect company, identify the +,=,- people around you and work to maximize the relationships and your interactions.
My four cents…
