8 Habits That Are Making Your Work Life Harder

If you get decent value from making to-do lists, you'll get huge returns—in productivity, in improved relationships, and in your personal well-being—from adding these items to your not to-do list:

Every day, make the commitment not to:

 

1. Check my phone while I'm talking to someone.

You've done it. You've played the, "Is that your phone? Oh, it must be mine," game. You've tried the you-think-sly-but-actually-really-obvious downwards glance. You've done the, "Wait, let me answer this text..." thing.

 

Maybe you didn't even say, "Wait." You just stopped talking, stopped paying attention, and did it.

Want to stand out? Want to be that person everyone loves because they make you feel, when they're talking to you, like you're the most important person in the world?

 

Stop checking your phone. It doesn't notice when you aren't paying attention.

Other people? They notice. And they care.

 

2. Multitask during a meeting.

The easiest way to be the smartest person in the room is to be the person who pays the most attention to the room.

 

You'll be amazed by what you can learn, both about the topic of the meeting and about the people in the meeting if you stop multitasking and start paying close attention. You'll flush out and understand hidden agendas, you'll spot opportunities to build bridges, and you'll find ways to make yourself indispensable to the people who matter.

 

It's easy, because you'll be the only one trying. And you'll be the only one succeeding on multiple levels.

 

3. Think about people who don't make any difference in my life.

Trust me: The inhabitants of planet Kardashian are okay without you.

But your family, your friends, your employees—all the people that really matter to you—are not. Give them your time and attention.

They're the ones who deserve it.

 

4. Use multiple notifications.

You don't need to know the instant you get an email. Or a text. Or a tweet. Or anything else that pops up on your phone or computer.

 

If something is important enough for you to do, it's important enough for you to do without interruptions. Focus totally on what you're doing. Then, on a schedule you set—instead of a schedule you let everyone else set--play prairie dog and pop your head up to see what's happening.

 

And then get right back to work. Focusing on what you are doing is a lot more important than focusing on other people might be doing. They can wait. You, and what is truly important to you, cannot.

 

5. Let the past dictate the future.

Mistakes are valuable. Learn from them. Then let them go.

 

Easier said than done? It all depends on your perspective. When something goes wrong, turn it into an opportunity to learn something you didn't know—especially about yourself.

 

When something goes wrong for someone else, turn it into an opportunity to be gracious, forgiving, and understanding.

 

The past is just training. The past should definitely inform but in no way define you—unless you let it.

 

6. Wait until I'm sure I will succeed.

You can never feel sure you will succeed at something new, but you can always feel sure you are committed to giving something your best. And you can always feel sure you will try again if you fail.

Stop waiting. You have a lot less to lose than you think, and everything to gain.

 

7. Talk behind someone's back.

If only because being the focus of gossip sucks. (And so do the people who gossip.)

If you've talked to more than one person about something Joe is doing, wouldn't everyone be better off if you stepped up and actually talked to Joe about it? And if it's "not your place" to talk to Joe, it's probably not your place to talk about Joe.

 

Spend your time on productive conversations. You'll get a lot more done—and you'll gain a lot more respect.

 

8. Say "yes" when I really mean "no."

Refusing a request from colleagues, customers, or even friends is really hard. But rarely does saying no go as badly as you expect. Most people will understand, and if they don't, should you care too much about what they think?

 

When you say no, at least you'll only feel bad for a few moments. When you say yes to something you really don't want to do you might feel bad for a long time—or at least as long as it takes you to do what you didn't want to do in the first place.

 

This story was originally published by Inc.

Read more: http://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/8-things-you-should-not-do-every-day.html#ixzz2QYEw3kxX

15 Things Overachievers Do

Superachievers do things differently than the rest of us. They don't always have everything in common, but they have some underlying traits that they share. Below are a few characteristics that they are prone to have in common:

 

1. They use lists. High achievers organize their thinking with lists, they organize their time with lists, and when they want to spur their creativity, the best tool they have is to force themselves out of the comfort of their list.

 

2. They use pharmaceuticals. Adderall is de rigueur for the high-powered jobs in high-powered cities to the point that there is a shortage of available Adderall, (and a site to monitor the shortage). Pharmaceutical frenzy is nothing new for gen-yers who used prescription drugs to get a leg up on everything. New York magazine’s ode to Xanax lets you diagnose the type of overachiever you are with the type of pharmaceutical you like best.

 

3. They let doors shut all the time. Overachievers know their mom was lying when she said they could be anything. So it’s not that big a deal when they see doors shut. They pick a specialty, they give stuff up to get stuff, they know adult life is about making tough choices.

 

4. They talk about their weaknesses. Not in a stupid way, like, “I wish I could not be so perfect.” But in a real way, because every strength comes with weaknesses and we’re not good at everything. Overachievers know they aren’t being hired for their weakness, so they let people know that they see themselves clearly by talking about weaknesses.

 

5. They work for free. Internships that are (illegally) unpaid, startups that are not (yet) funded, speeches and blog posts that help you do the (unavoidable) work of building your brand. These are all acceptable paths to greatness, you just need to know when it’s okay to work for free.

 

6. They drop out of school. Most powerful people go to the same small group of schools. For all other schools, college is a ponzi scheme. Besides, today the top-tier schools are set up to favor homeschoolers over kids who go to conventional school. And don’t even get me started on grad school: it’s so bad for your career that you’ll have to leave it off your resume.

 

7. They get tons of coaching. High-performers get coaching—they pay for it themselves, and their companies pay for some as well, because corporations know that high-potential employees only get to full potential with coaching. Also, people who are on their way to the top ranks enlist mentors to help them get there. (What’s the difference between a mentor and a coach? The type of access you have.)

 

8. They get pregnant at 25. If they’re a woman, that is. It’s clear that only a very small, anomalous group of women can have a high-powered job when they have young kids. So women should make a plan to have kids early, and then they can position themselves for a high-powered job once their kids are all grown up.

 

9. They come out of the closet. If they’re gay. People who are openly gay at work do better than people who hide it. Probably because, people who hide that they’re gay cannot make true connections with people at work. The photographer Jeff Sheng has done amazing work around the importance of coming out. (Most recently, his Fearless project documents overachiever athletes coming out, and the photos in this post are from that project.)

 

10. They don’t talk about being well-rounded. Top performers are people who focused on something to get great at it. As kids, it means they stop learning to meet national standards because the standards create mediocre learners. And as adults it means you find a specialty so you remain employable.

 

11. They don’t get divorced. Sure, the divorce rate is really high. But not for rich, educated parents. (Example: divorce rate among Asian college graduates is around 1%.) Divorce decreases your resources by half. But more importantly, divorce selfishly messes up the kids’ lives, and overachiever parents want to raise overachiever kids.

 

12. They don’t write books. The book industry is dead. They have no control over distribution channels and they have no control over author publicity, so the value publishers add in the book business is pretty much zero. Amazon so completely dominates the book industry that Forbes declared that Amazon is now ripe for disruption—they are the publishing model to beat. So for now, if you have an idea, put it in a blog. Harvard Business Review says that people who are serious about ideas are blogging.

 

13. They don’t let themselves get fat. The Economist reports that obesity in the US is largely something that does not affect rich, educated people, (which is consistent with research that shows good-looking people make more money.)

 

14. They sell out. Usually I do a post at the end of the year that’s a list of the most popular posts of the year. But it’s so bad for SEO; I wanted to write something that would resonate even at the end of next year, too. So these are links to my favorite posts this year. Disguised. I didn’t get to this one, though: It’s the post with my favorite photo of 2012.

 

15. They steal stuff. Overachievers know they have tons of ideas so they don’t care if people steal some of theirs. Overachievers are more likely to bend the rules to make life easier for themselves. That’s why I stole the idea for this post from Thought Catalog.

Read more: http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2012/12/25/15-things-overachievers-do/#ixzz2Q53cFuaZ

Ease Your Stress By Using Simple Delegation Skills

Are you swamped? It’s easy these days to get overloaded since so many organizations are trimming back and focusing on doing more with less. That doesn’t mean you have to do it all. You might think you’re effective at juggling a ton of tasks, keeping your projects straight with a board full of sticky notes that cite status and completion data. But the truth is you’re probably not. And on top of that, if you’re doing it all what are your team members doing?

To be an effective team leader, it’s important you have strong delegation skills — not only to save your sanity, but to achieve the goals of the organization and help grow your team members’ skills. But you can’t jump on the delegation bandwagon without some proper planning no matter how much you have to do or you’ll end up with a disaster. Heed these guidelines for delegating properly and you’ll end up with less stress and plenty of successes under your belt.

First, let’s be clear what delegation means so we’re all on the same page. Wikipedia describes delegation as:

…the assignment of authority and responsibility to another person to carry out specific activities. However the person who delegated the work remains accountable for the outcome of the delegated work. Delegation empowers a subordinate to make decisions, i.e. it is a shift of decision-making authority from one organizational level to a lower one. Delegation, if properly done, is not abdication.

I agree with that definition except that delegation doesn’t always have to occur from a higher level employee to a lower level one. It can occur laterally or you can even delegate up a level — but those are topics for another day. Let’s get a good handle on the delegation skill before you tackle those.

There are some real advantages to delegating properly. The biggest benefit is that it frees up your time so you can spend it doing what you should be doing — leading your team. Also key is ensuring your team members are willing and able to take on tasks in your absence along with providing them with opportunities to stretch and grow.

Here’s what you need to do.

• Determine what to delegate — You can’t just grab something off your desk and give it to someone else to do. Take some time to define what you do. Start by making a list and then determine what you are willing to let go. You can delegate anything — easy tasks, tough tasks, tasks you hate to do, tasks that are better suited to other people.

• Pick the right team member for the job — Assess the skills and abilities of each team member. What are their strengths? Are they willing to grow? Do they have the time to take on a new task and be successful accomplishing it?

• Focus on outcomes, not steps – None of your team members will do a task exactly as you would. But that’s okay. What’s important is for you to define the end result in clear terms and then get out of the way.

• Delegate responsibility and authority – Clearly explain the scope and boundaries for the task. Ensure that you have identified the who, what, when and why behind the work that is to be done. Give the person the authority to make decisions and do what is necessary to be successful.

• Follow up – This is probably the most important step in successful delegation. Don’t just turn a team member loose with a new task. At the beginning set a follow up schedule so you can determine progress towards the goal and address any issues or road blocks that are getting in the way.

It may be tough at first to delegate tasks to others. You might have a tendency to want to micromanage by providing too much direction and review. It will be a delicate balancing act for you until you get used to it. But the benefits to you and your team members will be worth it.

What do you think? Have you tried making delegation an important part of your team leadership? Let’s talk about it.

Denise O'Berry

Denise O’Berry — aka the Team Doc — has been working with teams and team leadership in the public, non profit and private sectors for over twenty years.

2 Essential Rules You Should Keep In Mind When Resigning

You're preparing to leave your job, and it looks like you'll get a job offer any day now. When should you let your current employer know that you're going to leave, and how much notice should you give when you do?

You want to proceed carefully here. While it's an exciting time, there's potential for doing real harm if you misstep. There are two cardinal rules that govern when and how to tell your employer that you're resigning.

 

Cardinal Rule No. 1: Never Give Notice Until You Have Accepted a Formal Job Offer

Too many people give notice when they're "pretty sure" that an offer is coming their way, or when they've only received an informal offer. This can be a huge mistake, because offers fall through all the time. No matter how promising things look with a prospective employer, things can and do change. The company might have a hiring freeze, or a new manager might come in and cancel the position, or the company might hire an internal candidate at the last minute. And if that happens and you've already told your current boss that you're leaving, she's under no obligation to let you rescind that notice. Your current company may have already started moving forward with plans for filling your position, and you won't necessarily get it back.

 

What's more, not only should you never, ever count on an job offer until you actually have it, preferably in writing, but you shouldn't count on it until you've accepted it too. That's because it's possible that you won't be able to come to terms with the company on pay or benefits or start date, and your negotiations could fall apart. So you want to make sure not just that you have an offer, but that you've formally accepted that offer. Only then should you give notice at your current employer.

(The exception to this is if you have an excellent relationship with a boss who you know will take the news well and not push you out earlier than you're ready to leave. If you're lucky enough to be in that situation, you can feel safer giving your boss a heads up that you're thinking about leaving.)

 

Cardinal Rule No. 2: The Amount of Notice You Give

Most people know that professional convention requires them to give at least two weeks notice, but many people wonder about giving more. If circumstances allow you to give your company a more generous notice period, should you?

 

The answer depends 100 percent on how your manager and your company operate. How have they handled other employees who resign? Are people shown the door immediately? Pushed out earlier than they would have otherwise planned to leave? If so, it's safest to assume that the same may happen to you and give two weeks and nothing more. But if your employer has a track record of accommodating long notice periods, has been grateful to employees who provide long notice, and has generally shown that employees can feel safe being candid about their plans to leave, take your cues from that.

 

Of course, both of these rules would be unnecessary if employers handled departing employees differently. It's actually in employers' best interest to make it safe for employees to give longer notice periods, but too few of them do. As a result, employees need to make sure they protect themselves.

Read more: http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/outside-voices-careers/2013/04/01/how-much-notice-should-you-give-when-you-resign#ixzz2PEJSwzDV

The Incredible Rise Of Women In The Workplace

The Library Of Congress via Flickr

There's been a lot of debate recently concerning women in the workplace.
Whatever the argument is, one thing is certain: Women have come a long way since they began working outside their homes.

We compiled some photographs that show this amazing transition.

Use the pictures to tell a story with a narrative arc and specific factual information. Also we should include more than one picture after 1950 to make this a complete story. (We could also reframe this as just pictures of before the 1950s, but then need a more limited headline.)

1765: The first society of working women, the Daughter of Liberty, is organized to boycott British goods.

Library of Congress

1825: The United Tailoresses of New York, the first union for women formed to demand wage increase and struck the first all women labor strike.

Library of Congress

1845: The Female Labor Reform Association is formed by cotton mill workers to reduce working hours for women. A law that supported this was passed in 1852.

Library of Congress

1867: Cigar makers become the first national union to accept women and African Americans.

Library of Congress

1903: The National Women's Trade Union League is formed to advocate for better wages and working conditions for women. Mary Morton Kehew is elected president while Jane Addams is elected vice-president.

Library of Congress

1909: "Uprising of the 20,000" female workers in New York went on strike over poor sweatshop conditions.

Library of Congress

1912: Massachusetts adapts the first minimum wage law for women and minors.

Library of Congress

1916: Jeannette Rankin is the first women elected to the United States House of Representatives.

Jeannette Rankin

Library of Congress

1913: The Suffragist, referred to as “the only women's political newspaper in the United States" is published by the Congressional Union and National Woman's Party from 1913 to 1921.

Two women working in the offices of The Suffragist in 1916.

Library of Congress

1917: Women take on heavy industry and public service jobs during World War I, and expanding their roles in society.

Several women working in the Red Cross recruiting office in 1917.

Library of Congress

1920: The Women's Bureau of the Department of Labor is formed by an act of Congress.

Library of Congress

1933: Francis Perkins becomes the Secretary of Labor and first women named to a Cabinet position.

Francis Perkins poses with other labor department administrators in the White House.

Library of Congress

1936: Mary McLeod Bethune becomes the first African-American women to be appointed a presidential advisor by President FDR.

Library of Congress

1963: Congress passes a law mandating equal pay to women. The Equal Pay Act prohibited wage differences for workers based on sex.

1900-1920: A woman sits at her desk with a typewriter in an empty office.

Library of Congress

1900-1910: A woman working in the Rocky Mountain Fuel Company office in Colorado.

Library of Congress

1912: Massachusetts adapts the first minimum wage law for women and minors.

1904: A woman is photographed working alongside men at the Pan American Bank.

Library of Congress

1906: At least 50 women are working in this room at the recorder's office in Chicago, Ill.

Library of Congress

1920-1930: A woman is up to her neck with work in an office in Denver, Colo.

Library of Congress

1922: Three women working in an unidentified office in Washington, D.C. The woman on the left is operating an addressograph.

Library of Congress

1928: Women and men are working in a radio station office.

Library of Congress

1928: A woman is writing on a piece of paper while Mr. Moran, president of the Industrial Bank located in Chicago, Ill., speaks.

Library of Congress

1935: Five women stenographers smile for a picture while working in Seattle, Wash.

Seattle Municipal Archives/Flickr

1939-1945: These women are working at the NYSE.

AP Photo

1939-1945: These women are working with ammunitions for World War II.

Wikimedia Commons

1942: Women working on a bomber at the Douglas Aircraft Company in Long Beach, Calif.

Alfred Palmer / Library of Congress

1943: Women working in the Douglas aircraft plant at El Segundo, Calif.

Wikimedia Commons

1943: Enola O'Connell, widow and mother, was the only woman welder at Heil and Co., Milwaukee, Wis. at the time.

Library of Congress

1950s: A woman working on a teletype in a financial office.

EliteTrader

1950s: A trader woman using high speed tape and quotations.

Elite Trader

And the modern women at work today:

Statigram/hellojoyus

 

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/women-in-the-workplace-2013-3?op=1#ixzz2OZdHvi5Q

The Debate About 'Feminine Traits' At The Office Is Getting Absurd

It seems like everyone is arguing about whether feminine traits are a strength or weakness for executives.

Sheryl Sandberg says in her controversial book that women should embrace their "feminine emotions" even if this means crying at work. She says women need to stop pretending that they're not human at the office.

Ashleigh Shelby Rosette, an associate professor at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business, writes in The New York Times that the skills women naturally posses, such as "demonstrating respect and sensitivity" and "taking an interest in employees" elicit trust from employees, creating a more productive work environment.

But Alan Goldman, a professor of management at Arizona State University West disagrees in another Times articles called "Tough Guys Win For A Reason." Goldman, who consults Fortune 500 companies, says that "[d]espite current attempts at demonizing old-school male behavior, it continues to rule" and that the "veneer of male dominance" is what's going to earn you respect in the end. In short, women need to be more assertive and self-promoting because "distasteful male leadership works."

Shutterstock

So what's the answer? Should women at the office behave like men or like women?

We think this obsession with characterizing traits as "male" or "female" is getting absurd.

 

First of all, anyone who has taken a gender studies course in college will tell you that these terms are problematic. Calling assertiveness a male trait, for instance, references thousands of years of human history when women were not granted equal rights and were discouraged from asserting themselves. Thinking in these terms is not only meaningless, but it also reinforces sexist assumptions.

Second, it's ridiculous to think that anyone should choose between two positive traits. You don't have to decide whether to be a compassionate person or an aggressive person. A good executive, or person, exhibits a wide range of positive traits.

 

While the rise of women to the board room is a major opportunity to shake up old ways of doing things, it helps no one to cling to unenlightened gender norms.

 

Speaking of which, Google's Sergey Brin needs to stop calling smartphones emasculating. That's just stupid.

 

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/professor-women-too-feminine-to-be-ceos-2013-3#ixzz2OZbFBXZR

This Stay-At-Home Feminist Has No Interest In 'Having It All'

New York Magazine's new cover story inflames the debate over women "having it all." Reporter Lisa Miller talked to a few women who consider themselves feminist housewives, including Kelly Makino:  

 Kelly calls herself “a flaming liberal” and a feminist, too. “I want my daughter to be able to do anything she wants,” she says. “But I also want to say, ‘Have a career that you can walk away from at the drop of a hat.’” And she is not alone. Far from the Bible Belt’s conservative territories, in blue-state cities and suburbs, young, educated, married mothers find themselves not uninterested in the metaconversation about “having it all” but untouched by it.

 

Makino, 33, originally wanted to be a "power couple" with her husband, but has since changed her mind:

 

[She] believes that every household needs one primary caretaker, that women are, broadly speaking, better at that job than men, and that no amount of professional success could possibly console her if she felt her two young children—­Connor, 5, and Lillie, 4—were not being looked after the right way. The maternal instinct is a real thing, Kelly argues: Girls play with dolls from childhood, so “women are raised from the get-go to raise children successfully. When we are moms, we have a better toolbox.” Women, she believes, are conditioned to be more patient with children, to be better multitaskers, to be more tolerant of the quotidian grind of playdates and temper tantrums; “women,” she says, “keep it together better than guys do.”

 

Ultimately, Makino made the choice because she says it was too stressful and unhappy a life when she and her husband were both working and caring for kids.

 

Anne-Marie Slaughter makes this point in her popular article, "Why Women Can't Have It All," and ultimately blames the system.

 

Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg takes a different approach. She argues that we're in a "stalled revolution" and that women need to take more responsibility for their own success.

This debate is far from over, and probably never will be, until, in Sandberg's terms, we're in a 50/50 world.

 

Read the full New York Magazine article here.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-mag-feminist-housewife-story-2013-3#ixzz2NxYUIRhD

There's Only One Woman On Glassdoor's Best-Loved CEO List

Only one woman received enough support from her team to make Glassdoor's new list of the most-loved CEOs based on employee reviews.

Victoria Secret's Sharen Turney ranked number 42 out of 50 on the list.

How come none of the other powerful women running big companies made the list?

 

Sheryl Sandberg's notes in her recently published book "Lean In" that women are more critical of one another than men, and that successful females are actually less liked by their colleagues. But this isn't the case with Turney.

 

Victoria's Secret's employee reviews on Glassdoor mostly come from retail associates, who tend to be women, meaning Turney's appearance on the list can be attributed to a mostly female workforce.

Victoria's Secret prides itself on promoting female empowerment, and the fierce competition we often hear about between females in the workplace doesn't seem to be as big of an issue at the company, whose workforce is more than 90 percent female.

 

Lucy Kellaway, a popular British columnist and powerful woman herself, recently wrote a provocative piece at the Financial Times saying that the reason why successful women are less liked than their male counterparts is because the ones who make it "have to be more impressive and more fierce" and therefore, scarier.

 

But Kellaway says women should use it to their advantage: "I know all sorts of women who get their way because their bosses are too terrified to say no," she writes.

 

While being intentionally "scary" may help women rise to the top, it won't necessarily win them brownie points from their subordinates. As women become more prominent players in the workplace, perhaps it's time that society shed this idea that women can only be either "motherly" material or "scary" career-ambitious females.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-only-woman-on-best-liked-ceo-list-2013-3#ixzz2NxWYSHbV

Take Your 'Emotional Temperature' Before Making Decisions

Francesca Gino is a professor at Harvard Business School and has done a number of fascinating studies in social psychology exploring the sometimes crazy things that influence your behavior and the biases the human mind seems inherently prone to.

 

In her book "Sidetracked: Why Our Decisions Get Derailed, and How We Can Stick to the Plan" she compiles many of her findings and lays out a strategy for overcoming your brain’s common errors so you can make better decisions.

What are her recommendations?

 

Via "Sidetracked: Why Our Decisions Get Derailed, and How We Can Stick to the Plan":

• Raise your awareness. Because our views of how capable and competent we are as individuals are often overly positive, we rely too much on our own information and ignore the valuable opinions that others have to offer. By raising your awareness, you can keep your self-views in check and recognize when they may be taking you off track.

• Take your emotional temperature. Even when triggered by situations or events unrelated to the decision at hand, emotions can derail us. They can lead to inaccurate analyses of the information at hand, thus moving us away from our plan of producing correct analyses. By taking your emotional temperature, you can examine what your emotions are telling you and whether they are clouding your decisions.

• Zoom out. We often focus too narrowly on the decision at hand and our own views about it. As a result, we fail to see the bigger picture, including other people’s roles. By zooming out, you can include more relevant information in your decision-making process so that you can avoid derailment.

• Take the other party’s point of view. There is always another side to a story: the other person’s viewpoint. Failing to recognize the potential for a different perspective can prevent us from sticking to the plan. By taking the other side’s point of view, you can analyze the decision you face from another person’s perspective.

• Question your bonds. As social beings, we easily form connections with others based on subtle factors, such as sharing the same birthday. These connections may expand our networks, but they can also derail our decisions. By questioning your bonds, you can carefully reflect on your ties and similarities to those around you and consider whether these bonds are affecting your choices for the worse.

• Check your reference points. The people around us provide natural reference points to help us understand where we stand across a variety of dimensions, from attractiveness to performance. How we measure up in these comparisons matters and can easily result in derailment. By checking your reference points, you can uncover the real motives behind your decisions and re-adjust accordingly.

• Consider the source. We look at the effort others put into their decisions to evaluate the quality of those decisions. When evaluating the quality of decisions, we examine their outcomes. Finally, we also discount how situational factors led to a given outcome. These biases lead us to judge others inaccurately. By questioning your sources, you can carefully examine the information surrounding your decisions.

• Investigate and question the frame. We can view the same glass as half empty or half full. Similarly, we can frame our offers and messages to others in different ways. Simple changes in framing can have significant effects on our motivation to act. By investigating the frame, you can ask questions about the way tasks, rewards, and choices are structured and learn how to avoid decisions being derailed.

• Make your standards shine. Our plans commonly reflect our desire to be moral individuals and to listen to our moral compass. Yet, from the amount of lighting in a room to the amount of resources at our disposal, subtle forces can send us off course. By making your standards shine, you can remind yourself of the importance of keeping your standards salient and become more likely to stick with them.

Read more: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/bakadesuyo/~3/iAkS4ExoIwA/#ixzz2NrizXVaI

Awesome Career Advice From LinkedIn's Billionaire Founder

Reid Hoffman started his professional life with the intention of becoming an academic.

But then he realized: "in order to be a professional scholar, you have to dedicate a vast majority of your career to writing esoteric books that only 50 people will understand."

 

So instead, he got into the technology industry with a job at Apple, where he helped build eWorld, Apple's version of America Online.

 

Next, he started a company called SocialNet. It failed.

 

A friend of Hoffman's, Peter Thiel, recruited him to join a startup, PayPal. It sold to eBay in 2002.

Then Hoffman went on a long trip to Australia. There, he decided to create an Internet company.

It's still around.  It's LinkedIn.

 

Today, it's worth $19 billion – and Hoffman is its biggest shareholder. It's been a pretty impressive career. Want to know how Hoffman did it? Want to know the guiding principles he followed?

 

You're in luck.

Last year, Hoffman and an entrepreneur friend of his, Ben Casnocha, wrote a book together called "The Start-Up of You: Adapt to the Future, Invest in Yourself, and Transform Your Career."


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/career-advice-from-linkedins-founder-2013-3?op=1#ixzz2NQTM74dl

The 14 Best Exit Letters Of All Time

Groupon's Andrew Mason released a very honest exit letter yesterday after getting fired as CEO, where he talked about weight gain and Battletoads.

He began the letter by saying, "I've decided that I'd like to spend more time with my family. Just kidding — I was fired today."

 

It may have been a controversial style of saying "goodbye," but it isn't entirely unique.

Who could forget Greg Smith's op-ed piece in the NYT last year calling Goldman Sachs a "toxic and destructive" workplace? And Smith isn't the first banking executive to quit using the NYT's op-ed page either. We've compiled 14 epic quitting examples of all time.

Former Groupon CEO Andrew Mason caused a media stir when he bid farewell in a very public "goodbye" letter

Michael Seto / BI

 

After nearly five years as Groupon's CEO, Andrew Mason posted his "People of Groupon" farewell memo on Thursday, which begins very similarly to Conan O'Brien's "People of Earth" press release from 2010. Mason's letter is below:

(This is for Groupon employees, but I'm posting it publicly since it will leak anyway)

People of Groupon, After four and a half intense and wonderful years as CEO of Groupon, I've decided that I'd like to spend more time with my family. Just kidding - I was fired today. If you're wondering why... you haven't been paying attention. From controversial metrics in our S1 to our material weakness to two quarters of missing our own expectations and a stock price that's hovering around one quarter of our listing price, the events of the last year and a half speak for themselves. As CEO, I am accountable.

 

You are doing amazing things at Groupon, and you deserve the outside world to give you a second chance. I'm getting in the way of that. A fresh CEO earns you that chance. The board is aligned behind the strategy we've shared over the last few months, and I've never seen you working together more effectively as a global company - it's time to give Groupon a relief valve from the public noise.

For those who are concerned about me, please don't be - I love Groupon, and I'm terribly proud of what we've created. I'm OK with having failed at this part of the journey. If Groupon was Battletoads, it would be like I made it all the way to the Terra Tubes without dying on my first ever play through. I am so lucky to have had the opportunity to take the company this far with all of you. I'll now take some time to decompress (FYI I'm looking for a good fat camp to lose my Groupon 40, if anyone has a suggestion), and then maybe I'll figure out how to channel this experience into something productive.

 

If there's one piece of wisdom that this simple pilgrim would like to impart upon you: have the courage to start with the customer. My biggest regrets are the moments that I let a lack of data override my intuition on what's best for our customers. This leadership change gives you some breathing room to break bad habits and deliver sustainable customer happiness - don't waste the opportunity!

 

I will miss you terribly.

Love,

Andrew

Former Goldman Sachs exec told the whole world the bank is "toxic and destructive"

Goldman Sachs (via New York Times)

Greg Smith started his 12-year stint as an intern from Stanford University and accused Goldman of having a less-than-admirable working culture that places profits ahead of the interests of its clients in a NYT piece titled "Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs":

Today is my last day at Goldman Sachs. After almost 12 years at the firm — first as a summer intern while at Stanford, then in New York for 10 years, and now in London — I believe I have worked here long enough to understand the trajectory of its culture, its people and its identity. And I can honestly say that the environment now is as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it.

To put the problem in the simplest terms, the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money. Goldman Sachs is one of the world’s largest and most important investment banks and it is too integral to global finance to continue to act this way. The firm has veered so far from the place I joined right out of college that I can no longer in good conscience say that I identify with what it stands for.

It might sound surprising to a skeptical public, but culture was always a vital part of Goldman Sachs’s success. It revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients. The culture was the secret sauce that made this place great and allowed us to earn our clients’ trust for 143 years. It wasn’t just about making money; this alone will not sustain a firm for so long. It had something to do with pride and belief in the organization. I am sad to say that I look around today and see virtually no trace of the culture that made me love working for this firm for many years. I no longer have the pride, or the belief.

But this was not always the case. For more than a decade I recruited and mentored candidates through our grueling interview process. I was selected as one of 10 people (out of a firm of more than 30,000) to appear on our recruiting video, which is played on every college campus we visit around the world. In 2006 I managed the summer intern program in sales and trading in New York for the 80 college students who made the cut, out of the thousands who applied.

I knew it was time to leave when I realized I could no longer look students in the eye and tell them what a great place this was to work.

When the history books are written about Goldman Sachs, they may reflect that the current chief executive officer, Lloyd C. Blankfein, and the president, Gary D. Cohn, lost hold of the firm’s culture on their watch. I truly believe that this decline in the firm’s moral fiber represents the single most serious threat to its long-run survival.

Over the course of my career I have had the privilege of advising two of the largest hedge funds on the planet, five of the largest asset managers in the United States, and three of the most prominent sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East and Asia. My clients have a total asset base of more than a trillion dollars. I have always taken a lot of pride in advising my clients to do what I believe is right for them, even if it means less money for the firm. This view is becoming increasingly unpopular at Goldman Sachs. Another sign that it was time to leave.

How did we get here? The firm changed the way it thought about leadership. Leadership used to be about ideas, setting an example and doing the right thing. Today, if you make enough money for the firm (and are not currently an ax murderer) you will be promoted into a position of influence.

What are three quick ways to become a leader? a) Execute on the firm’s “axes,” which is Goldman-speak for persuading your clients to invest in the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit. b) “Hunt Elephants.” In English: get your clients — some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom aren’t — to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t like selling my clients a product that is wrong for them. c) Find yourself sitting in a seat where your job is to trade any illiquid, opaque product with a three-letter acronym.

Today, many of these leaders display a Goldman Sachs culture quotient of exactly zero percent. I attend derivatives sales meetings where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. It’s purely about how we can make the most possible money off of them. If you were an alien from Mars and sat in on one of these meetings, you would believe that a client’s success or progress was not part of the thought process at all.

It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off. Over the last 12 months I have seen five different managing directors refer to their own clients as “muppets,” sometimes over internal e-mail. Even after the S.E.C., Fabulous Fab, Abacus, God’s work, Carl Levin, Vampire Squids? No humility? I mean, come on. Integrity? It is eroding. I don’t know of any illegal behavior, but will people push the envelope and pitch lucrative and complicated products to clients even if they are not the simplest investments or the ones most directly aligned with the client’s goals? Absolutely. Every day, in fact.

It astounds me how little senior management gets a basic truth: If clients don’t trust you they will eventually stop doing business with you. It doesn’t matter how smart you are.

These days, the most common question I get from junior analysts about derivatives is, “How much money did we make off the client?” It bothers me every time I hear it, because it is a clear reflection of what they are observing from their leaders about the way they should behave. Now project 10 years into the future: You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the junior analyst sitting quietly in the corner of the room hearing about “muppets,” “ripping eyeballs out” and “getting paid” doesn’t exactly turn into a model citizen.

When I was a first-year analyst I didn’t know where the bathroom was, or how to tie my shoelaces. I was taught to be concerned with learning the ropes, finding out what a derivative was, understanding finance, getting to know our clients and what motivated them, learning how they defined success and what we could do to help them get there.

My proudest moments in life — getting a full scholarship to go from South Africa to Stanford University, being selected as a Rhodes Scholar national finalist, winning a bronze medal for table tennis at the Maccabiah Games in Israel, known as the Jewish Olympics — have all come through hard work, with no shortcuts. Goldman Sachs today has become too much about shortcuts and not enough about achievement. It just doesn’t feel right to me anymore.

I hope this can be a wake-up call to the board of directors. Make the client the focal point of your business again. Without clients you will not make money. In fact, you will not exist. Weed out the morally bankrupt people, no matter how much money they make for the firm. And get the culture right again, so people want to work here for the right reasons. People who care only about making money will not sustain this firm — or the trust of its clients — for very much longer.

Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein and COO Gary Cohn quickly responded in an internal memo which was posted in the WSJ's Deal Journal.

Top Merck employee posted a YouTube video where he sings and strips revealing the words "Do What You Love" on his bare chest

Inspired by an American Idol contestant singing Mariah Carey's "Treated Me Kind" in 2009, Kevin Nalty decided he could no longer be a consumer product director at Merck Pharmaceuticals and a YouTube comedian at the same time.

 

When his YouTube channel Nalts gained attention — earning 7.4 million views for a video titled "Farting in Public" — Merck offered Nalty the opportunity to resign.

Neil Berrett wrote a traditional resignation letter...on a giant sheet cake

Hunters Point Naval Shipyard

Wikipedia

Along with a formal resignation letter, W. Neil Berrett presented his employer Hunters Point Naval Shipyard with a big resignation cake in 2009.

 

A photo of the cake is posted on his flickr page.

The cake comes with a message:

Dear Mr. Bowers,

During the past three years, my tenure at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard has been nothing short of pure excitement, joy and whim.

However, I have decided to spend more time with my family and attend to health issues that have recently arisen. I am proud to have been part of such an outstanding team and I wish this organization only the finest in future endeavors.

Please accept this cake as notification that I am leaving my position with NWT on March 27.

Sincerely,

W. Neil Berrett

An AIG exec told the world that he got screwed when he only got $742,000 for his post-crisis work

When financiers get mad, they want public revenge.

In March 2009, Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president at AIG, resignation letter to chairman Edward Liddy was printed for all to read in a NYT piece titled "Dear A.I.G., I Quit":

 

DEAR Mr. Liddy,

It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products. I hope you take the time to read this entire letter. Before describing the details of my decision, I want to offer some context:

I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.

After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.

I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.

You and I have never met or spoken to each other, so I’d like to tell you about myself. I was raised by schoolteachers working multiple jobs in a world of closing steel mills. My hard work earned me acceptance to M.I.T., and the institute’s generous financial aid enabled me to attend. I had fulfilled my American dream.

I started at this company in 1998 as an equity trader, became the head of equity and commodity trading and, a couple of years before A.I.G.’s meltdown last September, was named the head of business development for commodities. Over this period the equity and commodity units were consistently profitable — in most years generating net profits of well over $100 million. Most recently, during the dismantling of A.I.G.-F.P., I was an integral player in the pending sale of its well-regarded commodity index business to UBS. As you know, business unit sales like this are crucial to A.I.G.’s effort to repay the American taxpayer.

The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.

I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country’s call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.

But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses. And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us. I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn’t defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut.

My guess is that in October, when you learned of these retention contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, being both ethical and useful, should be left to stand. That’s probably why A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions during that month that the company would “live up to its commitment” to honor the contract guarantees.

That may be why you decided to accelerate by three months more than a quarter of the amounts due under the contracts. That action signified to us your support, and was hardly something that one would do if he truly found the contracts “distasteful.”

That may also be why you authorized the balance of the payments on March 13.

At no time during the past six months that you have been leading A.I.G. did you ask us to revise, renegotiate or break these contracts — until several hours before your appearance last week before Congress.

I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It’s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made — tacit or otherwise — with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.

You’ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.

As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.

Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.’s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.’s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you.

The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press.

So what am I to do? There’s no easy answer. I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust. Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn’t disagree.

That is why I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn. This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.’s or the federal government’s budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need.

On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients.

This choice is right for me. I wish others at A.I.G.-F.P. luck finding peace with their difficult decision, and only hope their judgment is not clouded by fear.

Mr. Liddy, I wish you success in your commitment to return the money extended by the American government, and luck with the continued unwinding of the company’s diverse businesses — especially those remaining credit default swaps. I’ll continue over the short term to help make sure no balls are dropped, but after what’s happened this past week I can’t remain much longer — there is too much bad blood. I’m not sure how you will greet my resignation, but at least Attorney General Blumenthal should be relieved that I’ll leave under my own power and will not need to be “shoved out the door.”

Sincerely,

Jake DeSantis

A hedge fund manager tells the world he was only in it for the money

Andrew Lahde's viral letter appeared in the Financial Times on Oct. 17, 2008:

Today I write not to gloat. Given the pain that nearly everyone is experiencing, that would be entirely inappropriate. Nor am I writing to make further predictions, as most of my forecasts in previous letters have unfolded or are in the process of unfolding. Instead, I am writing to say goodbye.

Recently, on the front page of Section C of the Wall Street Journal, a hedge fund manager who was also closing up shop (a $300 million fund), was quoted as saying, “What I have learned about the hedge fund business is that I hate it.” I could not agree more with that statement. I was in this game for the money. The low hanging fruit, i.e. idiots whose parents paid for prep school, Yale, and then the Harvard MBA, was there for the taking. These people who were (often) truly not worthy of the education they received (or supposedly received) rose to the top of companies such as AIG, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and all levels of our government. All of this behavior supporting the Aristocracy only ended up making it easier for me to find people stupid enough to take the other side of my trades. God bless America.

There are far too many people for me to sincerely thank for my success. However, I do not want to sound like a Hollywood actor accepting an award. The money was reward enough. Furthermore, the endless list of those deserving thanks know who they are.

I will no longer manage money for other people or institutions. I have enough of my own wealth to manage. Some people, who think they have arrived at a reasonable estimate of my net worth, might be surprised that I would call it quits with such a small war chest. That is fine; I am content with my rewards. Moreover, I will let others try to amass nine, ten or eleven figure net worths. Meanwhile, their lives suck. Appointments back to back, booked solid for the next three months, they lookforward to their two week vacation in January during which they will likely be glued to their Blackberries or other such devices. What is the point? They will all be forgotten in fifty years anyway. Steve Balmer, Steven Cohen, and Larry Ellison will all be forgotten. I do not understand the legacy thing. Nearly everyone will be forgotten. Give up on leaving your mark. Throw the Blackberry away and enjoy life.

So this is it. With all due respect, I am dropping out. Please do not expect any type of reply to emails or voicemails within normal time frames or at all. Andy Springer and his company will be handling the dissolution of the fund. And don’t worry about my employees, they were always employed by Mr. Springer’s company and only one (who has been well-rewarded) will lose his job.

I have no interest in any deals in which anyone would like me to participate. I truly do not have a strong opinion about any market right now, other than to say that things will continue to get worse for some time, probably years. I am content sitting on the sidelines and waiting. After all, sitting and waiting is how we made money from the subprime debacle. I now have time to repair my health, which was destroyed by the stress I layered onto myself over the past two years, as well as my entire life – where I had to compete for spaces in universities and graduate schools, jobs and assets under management – with those who had all the advantages (rich parents) that I did not. May meritocracy be part of a new form of government, which needs to be established.

On the issue of the U.S. Government, I would like to make a modest proposal. First, I point out the obvious flaws, whereby legislation was repeatedly brought forth to Congress over the past eight years, which would have reigned in the predatory lending practices of now mostly defunct institutions. These institutions regularly filled the coffers of both parties in return for voting down all of this legislation designed to protect the common citizen. This is an outrage, yet no one seems to know or care about it. Since Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith passed, I would argue that there has been a dearth of worthy philosophers in this country, at least ones focused on improving government. Capitalism worked for two hundred years, but times change, and systems become corrupt. George Soros, a man of staggering wealth, has stated that he would like to be remembered as a philosopher. My suggestion is that this great man start and sponsor a forum for great minds to come together to create a new system of government that truly represents the common man’s interest, while at the same time creating rewards great enough to attract the best and brightest minds to serve in government roles without having to rely on corruption to further their interests or lifestyles. This forum could be similar to the one used to create the operating system, Linux, which competes with Microsoft’s near monopoly. I believe there is an answer, but for now the system is clearly broken.

Lastly, while I still have an audience, I would like to bring attention to an alternative food and energy source. You won’t see it included in BP’s, “Feel good. We are working on sustainable solutions,” television commercials, nor is it mentioned in ADM’s similar commercials. But hemp has been used for at least 5,000 years for cloth and food, as well as just about everything that is produced from petroleum products. Hemp is not marijuana and vice versa. Hemp is the male plant and it grows like a weed, hence the slang term. The original American flag was made of hemp fiber and our Constitution was printed on paper made of hemp. It was used as recently as World War II by the U.S. Government, and then promptly made illegal after the war was won. At a time when rhetoric is flying about becoming more self-sufficient in terms of energy, why is it illegal to grow this plant in this country? Ah, the female. The evil female plant – marijuana. It gets you high, it makes you laugh, it does not produce a hangover. Unlike alcohol, it does not result in bar fights or wife beating. So, why is this innocuous plant illegal? Is it a gateway drug? No, that would be alcohol, which is so heavily advertised in this country. My only conclusion as to why it is illegal, is that Corporate America, which owns Congress, would rather sell you Paxil, Zoloft, Xanax and other addictive drugs, than allow you to grow a plant in your home without some of the profits going into their coffers. This policy is ludicrous. It has surely contributed to our dependency on foreign energy sources. Our policies have other countries literally laughing at our stupidity, most notably Canada, as well as several European nations (both Eastern and Western). You would not know this by paying attention to U.S. media sources though, as they tend not to elaborate on who is laughing at the United States this week. Please people, let’s stop the rhetoric and start thinking about how we can truly become self-sufficient.

With that I say goodbye and good luck.

All the best,

Andrew Lahde

Eleanor Roosevelt resigned from the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) when it denied singer Marian Anderson, an African American, from performing at its Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C.

After the First Lady's resignation, the federal government invited Anderson to sing in a ceremony at the Lincoln Memorial. Roosevelt's letter is below:

After learning he'd get bumped by a new Jay Leno show, Conan O'Brien released this disapproving statement

O'Brien's press release from Jan. 12, 2010 says:

People of Earth:

In the last few days, I've been getting a lot of sympathy calls, and I want to start by making it clear that no one should waste a second feeling sorry for me. For 17 years, I've been getting paid to do what I love most and, in a world with real problems, I've been absurdly lucky. That said, I've been suddenly put in a very public predicament and my bosses are demanding an immediate decision.

Six years ago, I signed a contract with NBC to take over The Tonight Show in June of 2009. Like a lot of us, I grew up watching Johnny Carson every night and the chance to one day sit in that chair has meant everything to me. I worked long and hard to get that opportunity, passed up far more lucrative offers, and since 2004 I have spent literally hundreds of hours thinking of ways to extend the franchise long into the future. It was my mistaken belief that, like my predecessor, I would have the benefit of some time and, just as important, some degree of ratings support from the prime-time schedule. Building a lasting audience at 11:30 is impossible without both.

But sadly, we were never given that chance. After only seven months, with my Tonight Show in its infancy, NBC has decided to react to their terrible difficulties in prime-time by making a change in their long-established late night schedule.

Last Thursday, NBC executives told me they intended to move The Tonight Show to 12:05 to accommodate The Jay Leno Show at 11:35. For 60 years The Tonight Show has aired immediately following the late local news. I sincerely believe that delaying The Tonight Show into the next day to accommodate another comedy program will seriously damage what I consider to be the greatest franchise in the history of broadcasting. The Tonight Show at 12:05 simply isn't The Tonight Show. Also, if I accept this move I will be knocking the Late Night show, which I inherited from David Letterman and passed on to Jimmy Fallon, out of its long-held time slot. That would hurt the other NBC franchise that I love, and it would be unfair to Jimmy.

So it has come to this: I cannot express in words how much I enjoy hosting this program and what an enormous personal disappointment it is for me to consider losing it. My staff and I have worked unbelievably hard and we are very proud of our contribution to the legacy of The Tonight Show . But I cannot participate in what I honestly believe is its destruction. Some people will make the argument that with DVRs and the Internet a time slot doesn't matter. But with The Tonight Show, I believe nothing could matter more.

There has been speculation about my going to another network but, to set the record straight, I currently have no other offer and honestly have no idea what happens next. My hope is that NBC and I can resolve this quickly so that my staff, crew, and I can do a show we can be proud of, for a company that values our work.

Have a great day and, for the record, I am truly sorry about my hair; it's always been that way.

Yours,

Conan

Sun Micro's CEO Jonathan Schwartz tweeted this haiku

According to Ashlee Vance at The New York Times, Schwartz is an avid user of the web and became the first CEO of a major company to have a blog.

This guy handed over his letter with a smile, dropped the letter on the floor, and left followed by a marching band

23-year-old Joey DeFrancesco worked in room service for the Providence Rhode Island Hotel for three years and told Dave Jamieson at the Huffington Post that he's gotten a job somewhere else, but didn't say where.

TechCrunch writer blogged his resignation when Erick Schonfeld was named the new tech editor

Paul Carr's resignation was also his last post on TechCrunch:

I’ll get right to the point: this is my last post on TechCrunch. And it’s my resignation letter. The first resignation letter I’ve ever written, in fact. Usually I get fired.

To those who have been following the recent TechCrunch drama, this post won’t come as much of a surprise. A little over a week ago I wrote that, unless Mike Arrington was allowed to choose his own successor as editor of TechCrunch, I would no longer write for the site. Sure enough, this past Monday, a statement from AOL announced Erick Schonfeld as the new editor.

A lot of outside observers assume that Schonfeld, who has been with TechCrunch since 2007, was Mike’s choice to take over. But, in the interests of transparency, it’s important to clarify what really happened. The truth is, Erick was Arianna Huffington’s choice, not TechCrunch’s.

What I knew last week, but can only write now, is that while Heather, Mike and other senior editorial staffers were making a stand for the site’s editorial independence from The Huffington Post, Erick cut a side deal with Huffington to guarantee him the top job once Mike was gone.

The irony is that had Erick stayed strong for just a few days, he’d would have been appointed interim editor anyway, with Mike’s blessing. Mike and Heather were even considering Erick for the permanent position but had concerns about his ability to retain (in Fred Wilson’s words) TechCrunch’s “swagger“. Mike felt that current Senior Editor Sarah Lacy might be a better choice: she has the right personality — and sources — for the job and she actually lives in Silicon Valley (Erick is based in New York). Unfortunately she’s also away for four months, on maternity leave.

The curious thing is that Erick knew everyone at TechCrunch supported him, at least for the interim role. And yet when Arianna called, he answered. Mike and I spoke at the time and he gave me his take on the deal: “at the point Erick began negotiating with Arianna instead of standing firm with the rest of us, he became nothing more that Arianna’s pet. All hope for independence with him at the lead became lost”. (Mike asked me to keep our conversations confidential until the situation was resolved.)

Not three days after his appointment, Erick made his first ethics disclosure as TC’s new editor — insisting that Mike had played no part in the selection of TechCrunch Disrupt finalists. Bluntly put,that was not true — as Mike had to clarify in the comments…

“Erick… Please be careful making statements on my behalf. And remember that reader trust is what matters. You shouldn’t say “he was not involved in the final selection of these companies” just because it sounds nice. Since it isn’t true, you shouldn’t say it at all.”

One of these two men is your new ethical champion, Arianna. The other one is the guy you fired.

For what it’s worth — and this is the point in this post where I suspect Mike and I will part company — I still have a lot of time for Arianna Huffington. I was the first TechCrunch writer to celebrate her appointment as Editor in Chief of AOL and I still stand by much of what I wrote in my post welcomingOur Huffington Overlord. In this situation, though, I think she screwed up badly by allowing her growing personal animosity towards Mike — and, let’s be clear, this fight was almost entirely personal — to rule her head, ejecting Mike completely from the company he founded and installing his polar opposite as a puppet editor. As Barry Diller put it on Wednesday: “So now, he’s gone, and now they own this thing, which has no voice. Congratulations. What a good piece of business.”

Putting aside my professional feelings towards Erick — and I’ve been writing about those for a long time — the notion that a Silicon Valley blog should be run by a guy in New York is just ludicrous. As such, Huffington’s short-term victory is likely to prove a medium and long term disaster.

Still, even as I was writing the words above, I found my anger towards Erick fading. Despite the fact that he fucked over Mike and Heather — and, by extension, the whole of TechCrunch — I don’t think he’s a bad guy. There are times, in fact, when I positively like him: he works hard, crosses the t’s and is a fine, and experienced, analytical reporter. He’s just — what’s the word? — hapless. He is a man utterly devoid of ‘hap’. Hating him for being expertly played by Arianna Huffington is like hating a baby for crying on a long-haul flight. He doesn’t understand why people are mad at him, he just wants to be fed.

Towards the end of my last book I wrote about the importance of having loyalty to one’s friends and of knowing when to quit. The former principle literally saved my life while the latter I’ve never quite got the hang of — dragging out relationships, jobs, a drinking problem… sentences… to beyond snapping point. This time, though, I think I’ve learned my lesson. This past TechCrunch Disrupt was the best yet — a fitting tribute to Mike, and a lasting reminder of why he and Heather made (make) such a perfect team. Under Heather’s guidance the business of TechCrunch will continue to grow; and thanks to the site’s amazing editorial staff, the scoops and page views will keep on flowing both at home and abroad. But with Mike’s departure, the gonzo spirit that first drew me to TechCrunch — that desire to not just report the story, but to be part of it — has gone. And with it my confidence that if the shit starts flying, my editor will be there holding an umbrella. I really can’t over-emphasize how much Mike, as an editor, made writers feel like he had their back.

(Amusingly, I just looked back at my first ever column for TechCrunch and it contains this paragraph…

The Editorial independence thing was particularly important to me. TechCrunch is a publication that never shies away from a good story, which sometimes means it makes embarrassing or amusing mistakes. I called out these mistakes with glee when I was at the Guardian, and I see no reason why I should stop now. Or to put it another way, the next time Erick asks the question “Did Last.fm just hand over listening data to the RIAA?” I need to be able to say “no, you idiot” without fear of reprisals.)

Back in February, when Paul Miller quit AOL-owned Engadget, I smugly schooled him on the five rules of effective stunt resignation. Revisiting that list today, I think I pretty much nailed rules one through three (Go Out In A Blaze Of Glory, Have A Specific Grievance, Timing Is Everything). Which just leaves numbers four and five.

Since the Wall Street Journal reported my imminent resignation earlier in the week, plenty of folks have asked what I plan do next. Do I have another job already lined up? The answer is no. Once I hit “publish”, I’ll be without a regular writing gig for the first time in five years. This is both terrifying and exciting in equal measure. Sometimes you just have to hurl yourself off the cliff and see if anyone tries to catch you.

For all of my pseudo-martyrdom, though, the hard fact is that TechCrunch was my regular gig, but not my only one. My “real” job is writing books, usually about myself — and believe me, the last few weeks have offered enough material for an epic — and tragicomic — tale. Don’t be surprised if you hear more on that subject soon. (You do follow me on Twitter, right?)

In addition to book ideas, there are two other potentially very exciting things floating around in my head — either one of which might make for an exciting next chapter of my career. According to my own rules, though, I’ve got seven days of due diligence left before I need to say more. So I won’t.

Except this: thank you Mike. Thank you for always having my back, and please know I’ll always have yours. The worst days working for you were still more interesting and fun than the best days working for anyone else. I hope we’ll get the opportunity to do it again soon.

Thank you to Heather for setting the inspiration bar so high that no future boss will ever quite measure up. Thank you (not for the first time) to Sarah Lacy for being my eternal voice of reason, and to Jon Orlin for the unflagging support — you guys made my days in the office more fun than is healthy. Thank you, in fact, to the entire TechCrunch team for being wonderful colleagues, and great friends; I’m going to miss the shit out of working with all of you. (Except for Jack McKenna: fuck that guy.)

And thanks finally to all of the TechCrunch readers who made it through my columns these past two-plus years. I genuinely appreciate your eyeballs and your brains, and I’ll miss the vast majority of you very much indeed.

And yet. And yet.

*Click*

*Publish*

This may be the first ever tweeted resignation

On May 12, 2009, an opinion page editor for the Norwegian online news site ABC Nyheter tweeted that she had "cleaned out her desk and was ready for new challenges" after a meeting where she was informed she'd have more duties.

When Heidi Norby Lunde's employer found out, he asked her why she didn't speak to him about it before posting online. Soon after, Lunde was asked to be a host for "Studio 5," a Norwegian version of "The View."

"Doug" marched into the lunch room, climbed on a table, and unbuttoned his shirt, revealing the words "I Quit" written across his chest

He now runs the Web site "That Guy with the Glasses."

An unnamed designer resigns with a creative 'error' message

cracked

An unnamed designer quit his job by doing what he knows best: Creating messages on the web, except this one said "The designer you treat like shit has quit unexpectedly."

The "error" message even came with a "renegotiate" choice, reminding his employers that there is a way to keep their bold designer if they wished to do so.

BONUS: An infamous Jet Blue flight attendant made headlines with his 'sliding exit'

mahalodotcom via YouTube

Who could forget the Jet Blue flight attendant who flipped out when a passenger refused to stay seated on a 2010 flight to New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport?

Steven Slater exchanged a four-letter word with his defiant passenger before grabbing a beer and popping the lever for the plane's inflatable emergency chute. On his way out, he reportedly announced "That's it. I'm done."

Slater's former colleagues told David Gardner at the Daily Mail that Slater was having "a really bad day."

After his dramatic resignation, Slater was arrested for criminal mischief and reckless endangerment and sentenced to one-year of probation in Oct. 2011.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-13-best-resignation-letters-of-all-time-2013-3?op=1#ixzz2Ma2TPxhv