What are you people up to?

So Glen Beck has had his rally.  Bully for him. Pun definitely intended.

I guess what troubles me is the tone. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even Glen Beck.  Everyone is entitled to even be hateful.  But as much as I get the whole, 'freedom of speech' bit, when we say things and take a tone that is divisive and downright nasty, we need to be careful.  That goes for both Beck the bully and the Palin the puerile.

I don't mind that you don't agree with the President, but don't also 'repugiate' (Sarah's word for repudiate) the consequences of your words.  There are people out there who are angry, frightened and maybe a little desperate.  And they all have the right to own a gun.  Those are not the people you want to be revving up with anti-government, 'reload' rhetoric.  It's all well and good (it's neither 'well' nor 'good' but that's the expression) to say what you want to say, but you don't also get to distance yourself from the consequences of your sayings.

A Youtube clip of people at the DC rally on Saturday 28 August, 2010, showed one man saying that he expected the President to be coming for his gun (why only he could tell you).  He went on to say that the President could have it, one bullet at a time.  Now, I get that he is free to say whatever he will, but that constitutes a threat does it not?  And that is inappropriate.  It matters not how little love you have for a person.  Making threats, how ever veiled is just not on.  Moreover, Sarah and Glen can hardly pretend that they bear no part in the animus that seems to be taking over the political discourse. They are not solely to blame, but certainly, some of the blame has their names on it.  Sarah in particular, with her penchant for her 'reload' utterance, needs to be particularly careful.  Should anything happen to anyone in power, from the lowliest State representative to the highest elected official, she should be aware that there will be calls for investigations and her precious career as an 'influencer' will come to the end it so richly deserves.

I have no problem with Sarah and Glen having a perspective.  I have no problem with them wishing to 'restore American honor'.  I just wish their perspective were based on (i) something approaching reality; (ii) something approaching rationality; (iii) or perhaps, something approaching some sense that we all matter.  Where were the calls for the restoration of 'honor' when the Bush Administration was using waterboarding to get information out of enemy combatants?  Where were the calls for the restoration of honor when the servicemen and women headed off to the trumped up war?  Where were the calls for the restoration of honor when Ret. Gen. Colin Powell himself had to distance himself from the Bush Administration?  No call for restoration then, or when Bush let the people of New Orleans drown at home.  Suddenly now though, with a man of color in the White House, and an effort afoot to give everyone health care, now we need to restore honor?  I just hope that while they are busy 'restoring' stuff that they please try not to restore second class citizenship for those of us who don't look like them.  Or perhaps that is precisely the thing they wish to restore?  One certainly has to wonder.

I get that the notion of social justice makes Glen and Sarah nervous.  To them and others, it seems to signal that 'others' might actually gain access either to the corridors of power or the halls of education or the wards of hospitals.  It fascinates me that conservative (Christians) would swallow this un-Christian thinking that seeks to limit others' access to the means of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but clearly my understanding of Christ and Christianity is somehow flawed.  That's ok.  I like my way better.

The Happy Medium

I wonder about social media.  Everyone is selling something, an idea, a get rich quick scheme, a weight loss thing, a service.  I just wonder though, with everyone selling, who's buying?

 

Americans have gone from being citizens to being consumers now to being salespeople.  Where's the happy medium where some buy and some sell, with each group doing so some of the time? Instead we seem to be in this weird place where everyone's selling all the time.  I saw an article yesterday about the competition for our eyeballs.  My attitude frankly, is that you can have my eyeballs but my mind you won't get not at any price.  Sorry.  Gotta draw the line somewhere.

The pendulum in this society seems to swing from one extreme to the next.  We've gone from too many buyers mostly buying what they can't really afford, to too many sellers, mostly selling 'product' of dubious value.  A healthy economy it would seem to me, is a mix, a happy medium as it were, where there are sellers and buyers aplenty, making available and consuming products of known and reliable value;  where there is some order to the disorder of the marketplace and where the rules of engagement are well known.  I don't get the sense that there are rules, or that they are particularly well known, but maybe I just don't see the order in the chaos.  Seems more like a festival celebrating Bacchus (the Greek god of confusion) to me.  The market looks to be a bit of a bacchanal to me.

I appreciate that the modus operandi here is to allow the markets to sort themselves out and perhaps that works, but there seems to me to be a lot of noise out there masquerading as 'marketing' for products no better than one of Dr. Dulcamara's* potions. Acai berry anyone?

==========>

*Dr. Dulcamara: a character in Gaetano Donizetti's opera, L'Elisir D'Amore (The Elixir of Love).  Dulcamara is a quack whose great claim to fame is that he sells said elixir to the tenor lead (Nemorino) which the tenor hopes will help him to win the heart of Adina (the soprano character).  Nemorino does win the girl, but it's not on account of the potion, though I doubt anyone would be able to convince Dulcamara that he wasn't responsible for Nemorino's success.

Stuck in Kansas

Let me start off by saying that I don't hate them all, but I do hate enough of the 48 Laws of Power to write an entire blog post about them.

With all due respect to the authors of the 48 Laws of Power [Robert Greene and Joost Elffers] some of their suggestions, some of their recommendations turn my stomach and frankly explain why there is so much jockeying for position and ill-treatment of staff in the American workplace.  But let me not get ahead of myself.  Let me start at the very beginning, a very good place to start.....

Again, all due respect to the authors, I do wonder whether some of what's included in those laws isn't part of the problem with American business today?  I mean, Law #17: Keep others in suspended terror? (I guess now we know why folk sometimes run amok at work huh.)  Or what about this one:  Law #6: Court attention at all cost (reality TV anyone?); or worse still, Law #7: get others to do the work for you, but always take the credit.  WOW!

I'm no expert, but I wonder if less game playing might result in more productivity?  I wonder if less attention-seeking might result in more actual attention-getting (for the right reasons)? I wonder if less time spent on trying to "crush your enemy totally" (Law #15) might result in a more cooperative environment where, I don't know, WORK might actually get done? 

Had the authors of the Laws of Power offered up the simple caveat that one needs to actually achieve something, work hard at something, offer something to one's organization, I could possibly get behind the Laws of Power.  Possibly, but not probably.  The truth of the matter is that much of the machination that the Laws suggest is the lazy man's approach to getting ahead.  It's not about achievement, it's about what I can steal from another and pass off as my own. Perhaps that is indeed a law of power and perhaps I'm Dorothy and need to come to the realization that I'm not in Kansas anymore.  All I know is this: every time there is a major catastrophe in the business world - think Toyota's massive recall, BP's massive oil spill, Arlington National Cemetery's massive grave mix up - there's a Machiavellian climber sitting at the top of the food chain, scratching his/her head wondering how ever it all got so mucked up.  Others may wonder, but I've got it figured out, it's because they used (all too successfully) some set of laws for game-playing instead of the laws of work-doing, to get ahead.

I realize that there are people out there whose orientation is towards climbing the social, professional and economic ladders.  I have nothing against that.  I'd like to climb a bit myself, but to focus so fixedly on the climb leads to behaviors that make workplaces awful, awful places to be.  Which explains why folk do terrible things to coworkers when they simply can't take it any more.

I have a suspicion that the authors of the laws are zero sum guys.  They believe that the universe is finite and whatever you get means that necessarily there's that much less for me.  I'm not that way myself, and no matter the challenges I face on a baily dasis (yes I said "baily dasis", it's a Spoonerism), I will continue to believe that your prosperity does not interfere with mine.  I don't, therefore, have to climb over you like a veritable crab in a barrel, to be able to find my way.  But that's just me.  Clearly, my name is Dorothy and I'm still in Kansas.

Unbreak my heart

Actually, that should read, "unexamine my life".  I'm stepping back from all the navel-gazing and intense review of the world around me, and trying for the unexamined life.  Wish me luck!  This may only last a few hours, but we shall see.  One immediate consequence is pretty obvious: this life approach doesn't provide much text for a blog post.  :-)

Tight, expensive shoes

For the last several years, I've recently realized, I've been living a kind of 'tight shoes ' life.  What's that?  That's when you spend good money on a pair of shoes that you loved in the store but then, the first time you wear them out, "Yikes!" pain, pain and more pain.  But instead of tossing them out, you hold on to them hoping against all reason, that things will be better next time around.  They aren't, but still you won't throw them away.  So now, you're investing emotional capital into something that you know in your heart of hearts, will never yield the benefits you had hoped for. 

For me, my relocation to the United States has been a beautiful pair of very, very tight shoes.  I often wonder if I made the right choice to come to this country where, increasingly, I find my brand of logic doesn't seem to *fit*; where my approach to being doesn't appear to *rhyme*; where, quite frankly, I just can't find a good rhythm.  This is not to suggest that there are no others thinking along the same lines as I am, living as I do or walking in my rhythm,  just that I haven't met too many of them.  Moreover, it's not so much the way that I think that's problematic, it's that I don't feel compelled to wish another ill because they don't think as I do.  I'm finding the rancor of debate to be a little jarring and disquieting to the spirit.....and mine is a spirit that ain't that quiet to start with. 

Just the other day, I was saying to someone that I find myself increasingly at cross purposes with the rhythm of this society.  I just don't feel like a fit.  Years ago, when I first arrived, I would simply say that I knew who I was in my home country in a way that I didn't here.  For anyone who has never lived abroad this may seem a strange sentence, but the reality is that the food is different, the flavors, the colors and Lord knows, the portion sizes(!!!) are different.  Then, you get used to that, and then you have to worry about something else.  How you stand, how you carry yourself, how your accent sounds when you're angry or agitated.  All these things play in to the way others see you and often, impressions are everything here.

I am bone deep WEARY of people telling me that I intimidate them.  HOW?  No one really has an answer to this question, but it seems to boil down to one thing: by showing up.  They won't tell you that, but that's pretty much it.  You say nothing, you smile, you stand up straight (I'm 5' 7" and like a 3 inch heel), problem.  You hold your head up high, you speak clearly, you have a point of view and you're not afraid to share it and suddenly it's "You're intimidating".  Jeez.  I have a suggestion.  Why not wait until I use the word "counter-intuitive" in a sentence before you get intimidated?  Why not wait until I say something interesting, intelligent and unexpected before you get het up?  I mean, if I'm going to be branded as 'intimidating' why not actually let me DO something that intimidates?  Let's try that for a minute and then I'll say it with you...."You're intimidating".

Can you tell this one has got old?

My dear Mr. Slater

I'm wondering about Mr. Slater's rant on a recent Jet Blue flight, but more than that, I'm wondering about the nation's response to it.  I'm not sure which is more telling, the initial transactions (the head bump by the passenger or the response to said bump), or the cultlike following Mr. Slater has attracted.  I'm wondering: are we all so miserable at work that someone else's mad rant and storming out of the 'office' is cause for applause?  I'm just wondering.

Did Mr. Slater have a real grievance?  Absolutely.  The passenger was ill-mannered and should have at least offered an apology for bumping Mr. Slater in the head with her bag.  Of course, she offered no apology (because service people are not entitled to basic respect, but that's an issue for another day) and so Mr. Slater probably worn down by one too many ill-mannered passengers, blew a gasket.

So here's my big question: what is it that is happening in organizations that is causing employees to be simmering pots of rage?  It seems to me that the only reason this thing could have resonated so deeply with the populace, is that people are unable to speak their piece in peace in their work environments.  More than that I think that people are being bullied and harassed in awful ways at work and consequently, they are longing for a hero, someone who says one day, "Enough with this crap! I'm done!", enter Mr. Slater with his Facebook fan page with one hundred thousand plus fans. 

If I were an HR practitioner, I'd be looking at the events of the last couple of days and asking myself whether there was something bubbling under the surface at my organization as well.  I'd be asking myself whether my company had any staff who, given the challenging economic times coupled with the stresses of family life, might be on the verge of an explosion of their own. I'd be asking the question and talking to other HR people in the organization to get a sense of whether anyone else felt this was something we needed to be acting on.

My feeling is that Jet Blue was lucky.  Mr. Slater only cursed out a passenger and deployed a safety device unnecessarily.  Other employees under the same pressures might express their distress in ways that could endanger lives.  I'm just saying.

The wave of approval for Mr. Slater's actions is very telling.  Is anyone listening to the story the response is telling us?  I sure hope so.

Exponential curves

I had the pleasure of attending a meeting of other between opportunities 40+ year olds recently.  What fascinated me was the moment in the presentation when "HR departments" and "HR people" were briefly discussed.  Clearly, the vibe I've been getting about recruitment is one that may well be shared more broadly.

The speaker, a woman with 30+ years' experience in Strategic Communications and Marketing was speaking on creating a Marketing plan for one's job search.  During the course of her discussion, she mentioned in passing that even now (30 years after graduating from university), she is sometimes asked about the relevance of her History undergraduate degree and her graduate work (also in History), to her career choice.  I ask you, at what point does the degree cease to matter?  After 30 years doing the work successfully, and rising to the position of VP of Marketing and Public Relations, isn't the degree a moot point?

This raises a question in my mind about the quality of interviewing that's taking place.  I sometimes wonder  whether organizations recognize that a candidate who has a breadth of knowledge in areas outside the specific narrow focus of the company is actually a great find.  All that 'other' knowledge is available to be brought to bear on current problems/challenges within your organization.  All that 'other' knowledge opens up an entirely different way of looking at and solving problems.  Who wouldn't want that?  It seems to me that the challenges organizations and countries face, well from that fact that there isn't enough THINKING going on and when I say 'thinking' I don't mean identical thinking, I mean different thinking, outside-the-norm thinking.  DOING has trumped THINKING and I'm here to plead (a small voice crying out in the wilderness) for thought.

Thought, my fine friends, is where it's at.  I know that to the impatient investor it doesn't seem to generate much, but that's because we've believed the hype that everything is supposed to generate an immediate return on investment.  Sometimes, especially early on, ROI is almost imperceptible to the eye and harder still to measure but the benefits of thought should be viewed as lying on an exponential curve.  If you remember your high school algebra, an exponential curve starts off practically flat and runs close to the x-axis for a time.  Later though, a marvelous thing happens, the curve shoots up into the air, and if you have a really big sheet of graph paper, off into infinity. 

a typical exponential curve (courtesy Photobucket)

So spend a little time thinking, and if you're an organization looking to hire, hire a thinker or two.  You may find that your organization is better off as a consequence.  Doers do.  Thinkers, think and then do and when they do, hang on tight because the curve is about to take off.

First come, first served? Bad idea.

Several years ago, I was invited to be a member of a team for a competition.  I agreed to participate but there were issues, primary among them, a complete lack of external ownership or leadership of the team.  In the absence of external leadership, we tried to establish some internal direction of our own.  Unfortunately, one member of the team (the person who had been called first and presumably saw himself as the leader) flatly refused participate in any preparatory work with the rest of us. We tried several times to encourage him to join us in prep meetings, but he was always too busy.  

The young gentleman never met with us.  When the rest of the team met, we determined that he couldn't be part of the A team.  Given that he had never met with us and got a sense of how we worked, we felt it in the best interests of the team that he serve in a minor role.  Once we got to the competition venue, we tried to tell him this gently but he didn't take it well.  We made the tactical error of delivering this information in a public place (a very bad idea) and he had a royal meltdown.  The wine he had had at dinner probably didn't help his reaction, but let's just say that the way he carried on was quite embarrassing.  He was so pissed, he changed his flight arrangments and returned home the next morning.  Apparently, if he wasn't to be on the A team, he wouldn't play at all. 

Now, this is where the story got interesting because he ran home and reported us.  I have no idea what details he might have reported, but when we got back, we were called in to be upbraided.  The Director advised me that she was extremely disturbed at our treatment of him.  I, being genetically opposed to being upbraided unfairly (an ailment from which I am slowly recovering), asked her whether in his reporting he had advised her of our repeated attempts to have him join us to prepare (and his repeated refusals).  Pause, "Uh, no."  I asked whether he had, in his reportings, advised her of his behavior in the public space of the hotel, when we tried to explain why he would need to serve as alternate as a consequence of his refusal to prepare jointly.  "Uh, no." she replied.  So he had shared only the version of the story that made him look like the wronged party and she, instead of getting the other side, had leapt to a conclusion and doled out punishment without first doing any independent research.

What I learned that day was simply this: first come, first served; first spoke is first believed.  Moreover, having spoken first, you must have been telling the truth.  Why would you hustle to report a lie?  In fact though, it is the liars who have the most to gain by reporting first and inferring truth from eagerness to report is a most unwise approach to management.  The job of management is to troubleshoot interpersonal conflicts that affect team dynamics.  Instead of doing that, what I've found (and this has happened to me more than once now), is that rather than troubleshoot, managers sometimes just take the path of least resistance. 

'First spoke, first believed' is rubbish.  It's a lazy way of dealing with the inevitable conflicts and challenges that will arise on any team.  To presume that the first to speak is telling the truth is to forget human nature.  Children who tell tales usually do so in an effort to protect themselves from the consequences of their own malfeasance.  We should assume that the same is true of adult employees who have not only face to save, but jobs and lifestyles to preserve.  Managers would also do well to consider that he/she who does not report, may have much to report as well, but (s)he chooses to handle conflict by using his/her words, not by running to the teacher.