Perception is Reality, or is It?

This concept is not new, but it is core to much of what I will speak of in this as well as other related blog posts. I believe this is an important concept for everyone to understand. The first time I was introduced to this concept was when I was a young law enforcement officer. It was explained to me that people perceive things in very different ways. That everyone has a “filter” on what they see or hear. The concept being that any number of people who see and hear the same thing will perceive the situation differently and describe it differently.

I observed many times this “filter” in action during training as well during the execution of my job. The more traumatic or emotional the situation the larger the variances of what is perceived. One of my firsthand examples was a training session with a room full of young law enforcement explorers. The instructor was standing at the front of the room and beginning to talk about the training he was going to provide that evening. From a side door a fellow officer walked in wearing civilian clothing and a lightweight jacket. He yelled out, “Hey you!” As everyone turned to watch him, he raised a handgun and fired three shots. The instructor tumbled to the ground while everyone stared in shock. The shooter then darted out of the room.

Shortly after the shooting I walked into the classroom. The instructor stood back up and smiled at the crowd of shocked students. The looks on all the young men and women was priceless, shock and confusion on their faces mixed with relief at seeing the instructor stand. We began asking each of them one by one what they had observed. At least half of the students thought it was I that had walked into the room and “shot” the instructor. The description of the culprit varied wildly from person to person, some allowing what others said to influence their perception of the event.

This thought of a “filter” applies to anything we do and see. Each of us perceives things differently due to who we are. By whom we are I mean what makes us tick, are we focused on visual inputs or audio ones. Do we have training and experience in analyzing situations to get to the “real truth”. So, whenever someone describes something to you don’t take everything on face value. You must gleam the truth from what you are being told or at least parts of it. Therefore, often during an investigation you interview multiple witnesses, when you have the luxury have having more than one, to be able to look for commonalities of what they are saying and put the puzzle together.

The second realization with regards to perception being reality was with personal performance. I can recall sitting in astonishment many times as I saw others around me get promoted or receive raises while I received nothing. My astonishment was with my personal perception that I was working harder, smarter than those that were getting promoted, why was I being overlooked? Was there a behavior problem with me or some other factor that prevented me from moving ahead?

This mystery plagued me for some time. The first thing I did was try to make sure I was not looking through my own “perception filter”. After I had done that and concluded that in many cases I was correct that I was doing more or better work than at least a good portion of those that had moved forward while I stood still, I went to the next phase. If I was doing a better job and did not have any character flaws that affected me negatively, why was I not being promoted? I realized the issue was not with what I knew or what I did, but what my managers and those above them perceived I did.

A good example of this was a project I was working on in LATAM for Cisco. I was running a project rolling our IP Telephony (Phone service using the same data wiring that computers use) to all the companies’ offices in Latin America. I had a manager that forced me to write better and to put out a weekly update on the project. I kept this report updated and made sure it had the right content in the right format for those that were reading it, not an easy task as those reading it ranged from engineers to directors in the company.

My report went out on a regular basis and contained updates to any issues and milestones of the project. I also went the extra mile to make sure management at each site we upgraded was happy before we moved them into day 2 support. I held regular meetings to go over any open issues that also included my management chain. Along the way I also learned to modify the content of the report to the different audiences / stake holders that were reading it. An example of this was when a senior engineer questions that a portion of work had been done that I had called out. She did so because a reboot needed to occur of a local server before it showed up correctly as done. I explained to her that the reboot was planned for that night but that the server was in fact added to the domain. After that I made sure to include technical details like that somewhere in the report as well. One must always take one’s entire audience into account.

Soon I started to receive acknowledgement from management up through director level for all the work I had been doing. I pondered this for some time and realized that I was not doing “better” engineering or project management work than I had in the past. What I was doing was communicating what I was doing to those above and around me. Their perception was that I was doing the work I knew I was doing as such I was getting acknowledged for it.

Can this principle be twisted around? Can one communicate out and make people perceive you are doing more than you are? The short answer to this is YES. To me this is a violation of my personal ethics but perhaps more important to some is that in the long run it will catch up to you and hurt your career. I have seen many advance their careers using this very technique that some refer to it as “smoke and mirrors”. Advancing this way often alienates those around you which will end up causing repercussions later to those that employ this method. Admittedly it does not always happen quickly but at some point, there is a realization that the individual has risen pass his ability to perform.

Managers should be aware of this “smoke and mirrors” method of advancement. Even though I always feel you should trust those that work for you, that does not mean you close your eyes. Senior managers should always analyze the situation before giving out rewards or punishments, Amazon would refer to their Dive Deep principle in this regard. One should always be sure of the merit of what you are doing before you act. Of course, often worse than taking a wrong action is taking no action at all. Look at the facts of what you know, make sure the decision you make is the best decision you can make in a reward and punishment situation, if you are uncertain stop gather more data and then evaluate again.

It is also important to think about what your peers and those that work for you think. I have heard the phrase and have used it myself a million times “It is not important what others think as long as you are doing the right thing!” And this phrase does apply in certain situations in life where you must make the best decision for yourself. But what your peers and those that work for you think is very important. Their perception of what you do can either help or harm your future.

A good example of this was a situation I ran into many years ago. A coworker of mine always left work at four PM if not sooner. Everyone else was there until five or later. Others as well as I would see her leave every day because she parked in front of the windows to our office. While we were working, we would see her get into her car and pull away. At some point I was in our manager’s office having a one on one. He asked me what I thought of her work. I went on to explain that she was doing well, that she still had a lot of growing to do. And then I mentioned that it was bothering me that she was leaving early what seemed every day. My manager instead of taking that at face value asked me to explain. So, I explained the times I saw her leave and why I thought that was early. He responded with information I did not know that she was coming in very early to work on reporting for our manager and that she was limited due to her contract status to put in a certain number of hours a day. Note that my manager used good coaching in this situation and asked open ended questions something that will be covered elsewhere.

I was shocked at the revelation before me. I had applied a “perception filter” on what I thought of my coworker leaving early. I had not even considered that I might not know the entire picture that she might be coming in earlier than me. I quickly realized the error I made and felt bad for it. Since then, I have always tried to take any possibility into account and not discount those possibilities without some proof. What I had perceived about her leaving at four could have affected her. If our manager had not been aware of the details my comments could have very well affected her performance review.

I recall thinking over the situation for some time. I am sure it was a matter of minutes, but it seemed to take forever in my mind as I went over everything. I realized that maybe I could help her understand what I had just understood. That by making a simple change that should not be necessary it could help her relationship with her peers. I went to her and explained the situation. I told her that it might be smart to park on the left side of the parking lot because it was not in full view of our office windows. That I understood that she was doing nothing wrong, but that it might help the “perception” others had of the situation. Ever since then I have always been vocal when others would bring something like this up insuring, I point out what I knew to be true or that we did not really have enough information to make that conclusion, that other factors unseen might be at play.

I had this exact experience while working at Amazon. Amazon had hired me to run and “revamp” their corporate global helpdesk. One of the challenges that was explained to me both during the interview process and later after I was hired was that the team in Scotland was way underperforming the team in the US and Singapore. Two executives at different times mentioned we should scrap the team and rehire or to move our operations out of Scotland. I advised that we needed to understand why they were performing worse from our metrics views than the other team’s first. Then once we understood I would put together an action plan and execute it.

To get a good picture of what was going on I dove into the data provided to understand what it showed by also talking to team members and customers on site. I then met with team members to discuss the findings and ask their opinions one on one. By the end of my short investigation, it was clear to me that the challenges the team faced were mostly created by the team structure, operational processes, documentation, and training that had been provided to them by the organization as such the responsibility of their low performance was with leadership and not the individuals. As such the original perception was incorrect and management agreed when I presented my findings. If we had proceeded with the approach that the executive had brought up, we would have solved nothing. One needs to understand the problem you face before you can put a plan in place that will resolve it.

Later in my career as a manager I have given lots of thought to not only what my peers think of me but those that work for me. Is it important that my employee agree with my decision? It is always best of course if they do, but that will not always be the case. What is important is they understand why you are making the decision you are making. Does this mean you owe them an explanation for everything you do? No, but when making decisions that affect them or their work it is always best to include why you have made that decision. This helps clear up any perception issues that may exist.

A manager will succeed not merely by his own effort but by the effort of those that work for him. If employees do not have a positive perception of their manager, they will not be happy. This bad perception will go on to create bad team performance and will reflect on the manager himself/herself and his/her chances at progression (If that is something that is desired). Therefore, thinking of the employee’s perception around decisions is critical. You may find that once you start considering this facet of decision making it changes the way you execute on your decisions or even the decision itself.

The first example I will give is around a brilliant engineer who thought he knew what was best regardless of the situation. This engineer used the “smoke and mirrors” technique mentioned earlier. His ego got in the way of him really listening to those that “where not as good as he was.” He was a brilliant engineer with lots of potential. Technically in many areas he was head and shoulders above those around him. However, he just would not listen because he “knew better.”

One day he was making changes to a customer’s network in the middle of the day. His perception was that what he was doing created no risk for the network. He was aware of the policies put in place that no changes could occur except during a maintenance window. However, he chose to ignore this because this was a “minor” change and there was no risk, or so he thought. While he was preparing to make the change senior management became aware of what he was about to do. Management went to him and told him not to make the change during the day. He agreed he would not make the change then.

For whatever the reason he decided minutes later that the manager did not know what he was talking about. That the rules against changes should not apply to what he was about to do. After all his perception was there was no risk to what he was going to do, and he just wanted to get it done. In the past this attitude had served him well getting things done faster than others even if his methods were not per policy or process. He decided to go ahead and make the change. Soon after the change was made there was an outage in the customer’s network.

As the outage was investigated, he did not admit to making any change. It turned out he had applied the change to the wrong server and caused the outage. He quickly backed out the change but said nothing to anyone. The investigation soon pointed to what had happened. Over the next few weeks everyone wondered what was going to happen to him. The conversations that occurred behind closed doors where not shared with anyone else on the team.

Soon we all heard that he was transferring to another organization within the company. Oddly enough many perceived that the new organization he was going into was a reward. The truth is that he had been interviewing for the other position and made his decision with a little push from our management to go ahead and make the move. Did anything with regards to the incident go in his file? What is known is that on his last day with the group we had a sendoff at a very expensive restaurant for lunch. For those who were more familiar with the circumstances around his departure this was puzzling.

This event would come back to haunt us time and time again as people reflected on their “perception” of that send off and the events around it. Almost a year later another engineer who followed process and who was of the same caliber took a position elsewhere in the company. Management tried to convince them to stay with our group as we truly needed their skills and abilities. They however were convinced that what was best for them was to move to the new team. Their sendoff party was a few deli sandwiches catered in at the last moment and a few six pack of sodas at the end of his last day. Many times, they brought up how disappointed they were at the sendoff and made comparisons to the sendoff of the engineer that had caused the outage. They pointed to this being another example of why they were leaving that group.

You can see from both these incidents how what employees “perceive” can affect a lot more than what one would initially think. Thinking through situations and the effects of those decisions is important. This does not mean one should not make a decision due to worry about what everyone will think, as that often is worse than making an imperfect decision. However, we should give careful thought as leaders to how the decisions we make will be perceived.

It could be argued that what the person leaving the group perceives is not important. Why waste effort on them since they are moving on. As many of you probably know this is a small world and we tend to run into people repeatedly in our careers. We also should be aware if the person leaving perceives something badly it is more than likely that others on your team feel the same way. This can also be applied to individuals interviewing with your company and team. You want them to leave with a positive perception. At Amazon I saw this applied to interviews which they took very seriously, and it was my experience that I was wowed by the interview process so much that it did play into my decision of taking the offer. Ignoring such things can lead to bad morale and attrition.

In short what people perceive around us is very important. It is not good enough that we know and like the actions we are taking, but that those around us perceive the same. This applies to both work and one’s personal life. It is part of human nature and has been so since the beginning of time. So, take the time to think through what you have done and what you are about to do. Also question and analyze what you perceive. However, never allow over analysis to prevent you from acting when it is required, as taking no action is still and action and as such can be perceived. Perception is reality, even if it is not.