Dan Erwin

7 Behaviors That Keep Women From Getting Ahead

Over the past two years, this blog (published in April, 2010) has been number one in readership, reaping well over 25,000 unique visits. Numerous bloggers have referred to the blog, even plagiarizing the hell out of it (that’s fine with me). It’s also the most commented upon blog with extremely negative and even more extremely positive comments. The commenters engaged in several heated discussions with each other, positioning themselves within their own ideology.

Initially, I responded to some of the comments, but as time went on I realized that the discussion didn’t need my input.

So, I’m recycling it because of its popularity. . . and because of its obvious relevance to the workforce.

It strikes me that I need to explain why a male would write for females so directly. One of the reasons is that more than a quarter of my clients were women, many of whom stated that they wanted to work with a man who understood gender differences. The fact that our three daughters are also professionals plays into my personal interests. Still, as a scholar in the field of organizational and interpersonal communication, gender differences have been a hot topic for years, a topic that has always intrigued me.

You’ll notice that the blog is supported by a significant amount of research. Indeed, many of the topics have been systematically studied by many scholars. Second, I have tried to be as practical as possible, making the recommendations immediately useful.

_______________________

On numerous occasions over the years, I've coached women managers and execs. Recently, while going through my file on influence management, I stumbled on an old article by Mary Ellen Drummond entitled, Seven Things We Do That Keep Us From Getting Ahead, from a now defunct (?) magazine called Women Managers. Although these recommendations don't apply to a few female execs that I've worked with, they certainly apply to a large number. Drummond doesn't mention the basis for her conclusions, but because of my studies in nonverbal research I'm well aware that a number of the recommendations have a research basis. This information seems to go in cycles in business circles, but I've seen a number of recent articles on personal presentation. I'm also aware that the top business schools, including Booth, Kellogg, Harvard and Stanford give time in their program for personal presentation, usually in leadership development programs that focus on interpersonal communication.

I've found that typically, because of their socialization, women are not aware of these issues. The issues surface out of the assumption that business is a man's world, and that if a woman wants to succeed, she'll need to mimic some of the male behaviors. (Although I've seen and read all kinds of responses to that assumption, I recommend a great deal of flexibility in these issues. FYI: I've noticed more than a few men that need help with their business behaviors.)

Since what you don't know can hurt you, here are some things to think about and perhaps get some feedback on.

1. Women do not take up enough physical space. This is not a matter of size, but how you hold yourself when standing. If you expect to be perceived as a powerful person, stand with your feet apart, and perhaps your hands on your hips. Drummond recommends the steeple gesture, placing your hands so that just your fingertips are touching. This forces the palms apart and makes your arms take up more space whether standing or sitting. This is a classic negotiating posture, so watch for it when observing others.

Although Drummond doesn't mention this, it's a well-researched fact that when men and women all sit down at a large table, women take up far less room. Men put papers and books over as much as twice the space as women. I recommend that women spread out on the business table just like the men. Take ownership of a huge area of space. The difference often has a powerful impact on the discussion.

2. Women nod their heads when listening. A man nods his head only to show agreement, while women nod to show they're listening. Plenty of women in executive suites have been schooled to avoid this. Present yourself as a powerful person, not a nice lady. Just last week, I took my wife to see an endocrinologist at the university clinic. Prior to seeing the physician, the nurse took information and was nodding her head, encouraging my wife and me to talk. Then the physician, a nationally known woman walked into the room. The difference was shocking. Though smiling and warm, she was totally in charge from the time the door opened. She asked questions, but didn't nod. She interrupted me a couple times, probing for information. Once I acceded to her authority, the conversation became much more familiar. It was a hilarious experience for this communication scholar, but also a very powerful way for the physician to assert her authority. I had nothing but kudos and trust of her insights by the end of the session. Well done!

3. Women tilt their heads when they talk. Check this out and notice that women tilt their heads when listening and talking, without even knowing it. It is not a power position from which to speak. So keep your head up, chin forward and untilted, and relax your shoulders backward, not hunched tightly forward, when you want to speak. You want others to listen to you.

4. Women introduce themselves too soon. Research shows that no one listens to what's being said in the first 5 to 7 seconds of meeting new people. They're too busy visually checking you out, and they pay little to no attention to what's being said. That's why we forget the names of people we've just met. We weren't listening. So, when first meeting someone, explain what you do, the company you work for, and then, finally your name.

5. Women's voices rise at the ends of sentences. It makes a woman sound like she's asking a question and asking for assent instead of making a statement. There is a geographical component to this. Women from the Upper Midwest are terrible at this. Sometimes I just want to yell at the phone to get them to stop it. My wife, who's from Detroit, has never done that. My daughters? Not in a thousand years. I've seen them roll their eyes at a woman doing this. My middle daughter, in a playful mood, will mock someone doing it. When we moved to Minnesota and she was in the fourth grade, someone asked why she talked like she did--mouth open, and no questioning at the end of sentences. Her response? "Why would I want to talk like you?" Ummmm. Just to set you straight, she has a terrific number of friends, including a large number of Harvard, MIT researchers who think that when it comes to research protocols and animals, she's god.

6. Women fidget. Although I think this is somewhat dated, the research shows that when men enter a conference room, they make 12 major movements. Women make 27. Many of these involve pulling out a chair and sitting down, but then women start adjusting their clothes and jewelry. The more movements you make in business settings, the less powerful you seem to your colleagues. Beware what you do when you enter a room, and keep your movements to a minimum.

7. Women let men finish sentences for them. Fading out at the end of a sentence is more common for women than men, so is being interrupted. You need to complete your sentences and your ideas. So, keep talking, a bit louder and hold up your finger to signal you're not finished. Never, never, never let men get away with interrupting you. On occasion, you can also interrupt right back to make your point. And keep talking. As Drummond says, stick to your guns and your sentences.

These bad habits are all learned. They're not natural. The good habits can also be learned. So women, don't let the men take advantage of you. Frankly, I lose my respect for a woman who lets a man take advantage of her. I raised my daughters to know better! FYI: I was never interested in raising "nice girls." Our objective was to raise intelligent, achieving females who could make some serious contributions to this world. Abrasive candor is a given. I've always taken the comment that my daughters or my wife could be difficult to be a compliment. It was expected.

Photo fm Flickr.com

The Authenticity and Effectiveness of Flattery

To a shocking degree, mentors and the training folk fail to develop the exceptionally important practice of ingratiation, pejoratively known as “brown-nosing,” for their trainees. A surprising number of people believe you should keep your head down, your nose clean and take what life throws at you. Yet the truth of the matter is that the world is sometimes not a very nice or fair place, and you’ll pay for that naiveté.

In a recent blog on managing up, How to "wow' your boss, I noted that ingratiation was one of the key strategies for managing up. Because of a number of emails regarding my post, I’ve decided to enlarge on the subject of ingratiation.

Indeed, studies show the unwillingness to engage in ingratiation, the term researchers use for flattery, sucking-up, brown-nosing and a host of other expletives as a motivational inducement, often results in career and life failure. Acting like everyone gets what he deserves is liable to mean that you’ll miss out on an awful lot: work satisfaction, gaining more favorable evaluations, better leadership opportunities, personal motivation, and even more tips if you’re a hair stylist or waiter. Of course, there are a number of possible reasons for this failure, the most obvious being sheer ignorance and forgetfulness. The traditional adage has a lot of believers: “He gets paid for this. Why should I compliment him?” Even more look down their nose at ingratiation, viewing it as inappropriate and beneath their dignity, questioning its ethical foundation.

Ingratiation, the ultimate art of emotional intelligence, is to become more attractive and favorable to another by deliberate communication strategies. Surprisingly, the psychological findings are that if you fail to use this interpersonal tool, you are not only limiting your own power base and overall career and life success, but also inhibiting the achievements of its recipients. So brown-nosing is not only good for you, it’s also extremely good for its targets.

Why does ingratiation work?
Research, dating back as far as 1963, has found three explanations for the effectiveness of ingratiation. Ingratiation tends to increase liking. As my readers know, the joint powers of liking and competency are the single most important characteristics in the persuasion toolkit. Likable people who are also competent have a lock on the rewards of career and life.

Ingratiation can also create a strong sense of similarity. Studies show that perceived similarity between people, what rhetoricians call mutual identity, is a door-opener for effective communication and persuasion. Most any effective salesperson, walking into a client’s office, searches immediately for similar interests to grease the conversation. Similarities are not only ice-breakers, but also relationship-builders.

Research reveals that positive labeling of a person, otherwise known as stereotyping, can result in significantly positive consequences. We know that negative stereotypes, like thief, sex deviant, card shark, or cheat, affect the self-concept and behavior of a person. But a study at Yale, by Robert Kraut, was designed to test whether ingratiating with (positive) stereotypes or labels can also lead to a change in self-concept. Specifically, Kraut wanted to find out whether labeling a person as charitable and generous had a stronger impact than negative labeling as a “noncontributory.” He found that positive stereotyping caused more powerful results, even, than the negative. So flattery produces changes in the target’s self-concept that, in turn, lead to changes in the target’s behavior. In short, flatter a person regarding a positive behavior, and the person will not only live up to the flattery, but give you more.

Three categories of ingratiation
The original studies of ingratiation by Edward Jones (1963) identified three basic types or categories of flattery. They are reflected by the psychological research on ingratiation. The first and most obvious category is paying compliments. “I have a lot of admiration for your leadership skills. You really get the job done.” A derivative of this category is having a third party deliver the compliment. “Dan thinks your leadership skills are just what this firm needs.”

The second form of flattery is opinion conformity. This involves agreeing with the target’s statement, ideas, and views. A variation of this technique is to initially disagree, then yield, creating the impression that the target has changed your mind. “You know, although at first I rejected your solution to that problem, I’ve decided you’re really correct.”

The third category involves good, old-fashioned bragging, talking about one’s own expertise or experience to influence another’s evaluation of oneself. The first two categories focus the flattery on the target directly, for the purpose of gaining power with that target. In contrast, the third category increases liking and respect by focusing on oneself. One of my best friends, a well-placed clergyman, commented to me last summer that he didn’t mean to be name-dropping. Ha! But while on vacation in London last Spring, he “spent three hours in a private conversation with Prince Charles.” Now that’s how to push the envelope on gaining personal favor by name-dropping. Though most would not view bragging or name-dropping as a form of brown-nosing, it’s clearly a means of gaining favorable acceptance from the other, the very heart of ingratiation.

So you don’t like to use flattery?
Is ingratiation an unethical influence strategy? Only if the ingratiator believes the flattery or positive social labels used are false. If the ingratiator believes in the praise he is offering, there’s no ethical problem in focusing on the positive side of things. Ingratiation is a highly sophisticated form of street smarts. Yeah, I know. Everyone claims to hate brownnosers--unless the brownnosing is directed at them.

But, a lot more than ordinary business skills are necessary to get ahead in today’s highly competitive workplace. Indeed, it’s often necessary to bend the rules of fair play or ignore them completely if you want to succeed. Complain all you want about the lack of justice, but it’s inevitable that you’re going to have to be vigilant and proactive to ensure your own success.

Indeed, contrary to conventional wisdom, hard work and high performance won’t guarantee a promotion or even career success. In his latest book, Power, Jeff Pfeffer warns of the weak link between job performance and career outcomes. Indeed, systematic research reveals that job performance doesn’t guarantee you a promotion. High performance may actually hurt you because your boss wants to keep you in your high-performing role. Furthermore, high performance may not even be that important for keeping your job. In sum, high performance doesn’t do much for your career or for job security. You’re going to have to do something else. And that something else is to make your bosses feel better about themselves by apple-polishing.

So, ingratiation is an important skill in the toolkit for career success. Although it takes time and practice to become astute in its use, ingratiation is a means of persuasion, a motivational inducement that can significantly modify a person’s feelings, moods and emotions. It can be a highly successful tool for jump starting your boss’ drive to support you and your career. It is performance, coupled with the political skill of ingratiation, which will help you rise through the ranks.

Flickr photo: lyk3 On3 tym3

The Most Frustrating, Confusing, Dangerous, Single Word in Business and Journalism

It’s amazing how a single, coordinating conjunction can impact our behavior and thinking. To a surprising degree, the majority of people don’t realize the power of this single word. Once that conjunction is pronounced or written, they become putty in the hands of the user. Indeed, a single word can be used to persuade us, even against our interests, through what Edward Bernays, the founder of public relations, called the “engineering of consent.”

How does a single word gain such power over us? Simple. Our memories are faulty. Our perceptions are partial or biased. Our interpretations of the same events differ. And we draw differing conclusions from experiences. Because of these limitations, we are vulnerable and open to the word of another. A single word exploits our faulty memories, our limited perceptions, our prejudices, inferences and predictions. Understanding how this term can slip up on you will help you avoid work fears, show you how to turn a conversation around, give balance to your understanding of important financial or political matters and think more critically about what’s going on. 

I’m not referring to that overly familiar, favorite four letter “f . . . “ expletive that displays the limits of dumb, movie-action characters’ gray matter.  Instead, I’m referring to that single, damnable, three-letter conjunction, “but.”

Think I’m making too much out of a conjunction? Here’s an exercise for you. Finish each sentence after the conjunction but with your own experiences or ideas and then analyze your emotions from that test.

You did a good job, but. . .

I’d like to go out with you, but. . .

The President’s new health care policy is a start, but. . .

It’s a possible strategy, but. . .

Newt Gingrich is very intelligent, but. . .

Jean can usually be counted on to support you, but. . .

Some meanings    

The conjunction has a storied background, coming out of the Old English, the Old High German and even the Old Norse. As language has evolved, the word takes on two related meanings. First, it’s a quick way to say that something is true (or not true), except for the fact. . . “You did a good job on this project, but it really lacks pizzaz.”  

The conjunction also is used in opposition to a first statement. “Your broker acts as though he’s really very smart, but his results don’t support that.” “The defendant is innocent, but pleads guilty to avoid the risk of greater punishment.” Both definitions show how the conjunction creates a conflict, qualifying and reframing the previous statement by placing limitations upon the initial sentence substance.   

Persuasion strategy

As I’ve described the approach to using the conjunction, the persuasion process is a form of what we call sequential persuasion. When applied to sales, it’s a sneaky way of getting your foot into the doorway. Some salespeople mention your neighbors by name, some ask for a glass of water, or some promise they’re not going to try to sell you anything.

When the sequential model is applied to our conjunction situation, it’s compressed into a single sentence. It begins with a statement that you may agree or disagree with, disrupts that statement and then reframes the issue. Journalists, of course, can’t focus on the individual. So they make a widely recognized statement, disrupt it with the conjunction, and then reframe the issue.

A page of Jeff Pfeffer’s book, Power, happened to be open as I was writing. He summarizes his first chapter with a blatant use of the power of disruption by conjunction and reframing. He argues that power and influence entail doing a good job and making certain those in power notice you, “but performance by itself is seldom sufficient, and in some instances, may not even be necessary.”  

Extensive research supports this process. In a series of studies, Davis and Knowles (1999) researched different methods for the sale of Christmas cards sold by a charitable organization. Sometimes the experimenter would include a subtle error, such as “the price is 300 pennies. . .  I mean 3 dollars.” Informing the participants the cards are a bargain increased the likelihood of purchases, but only if the statement followed the reference to 300 pennies. In fact, this slip virtually doubled sales in some situations.

Ferris, Das and Pruyn (2004) also verified the worthwhileness of this technique. Furthermore, they found that technique often amplified its benefits. In study after study, confusion techniques have been shown to distract attention from the earlier statement. Additional research dating from as late as 2007 found that disruption techniques are exceptionally successful in changing attitudes. The disrupt/reframe approach cultivates a more candid, trusting relationship. In general, people like to demonstrate they are consistent over time and, therefore, like to acquiesce to subsequent information or demands. In short, the disrupt-then-reframe tactic diverts people from resisting the new idea or request.

More than awareness

It’s obviously important to learn about persuasion because it enhances your own knowledge and awareness of the various processes. Knowledge is power, as they say.

More significantly, learning how the conjunction but and the disruption/reframe techniques work serves a defensive function. I say this with full awareness that people tend to underestimate the influence of persuasion on themselves and overestimate its effects on others, a process known as the third-person effect. Thus, you may be more defenseless than you realize.

When the strategy is being used on you, put your brain in gear. One strategy is to go back to the first clause of the sentence and deal with it before you get suckered by the disrupt/reframe technique.

Take one of the sentences from above where your boss tells you, “You did a good job on this project, but I need more timeliness in the future.” Thank your boss for the feedback, and go back to the first clause. “I recognize the project was late, but what, specifically, was especially effective on this project?” You’re after more information, but you’re also disrupting your boss’s agenda. Get him to discuss your fine work, perhaps even explaining why the work took more time than anticipated or the number of priorities you’re dealing with. And then go back to the subject of timeliness, apologizing, and checking with him and his priorities procedures, all of which involve the timeliness issue. (Notice that I used disruption/reframing to deal with another’s disruption/reframing.)

When I encounter the technique in the statements of journalists or pundits regarding a subject of interest to me, the bells go off. My thinking goes to the entire subject, not merely the reframing. That approach to critical thinking is highly informative, enabling me to be more accurate in both my thinking and decision making.

The conjunction is frustrating because it often catches you off guard. Confusing, because you have to handle multiple ideas simultaneously. And dangerous, because it’s a persuasive strategy designed to lead you astray.

The conjunction but belongs to the same category of language as the well understood by the way (BTW). They’re both signals that we need to watch very carefully.

Photo: Flickr.com, Canadian

What the 21st Century Career Looks Like

Twnety-five years ago if you had significant technical skills you could count on a good, well-paying job. That was especially true in manufacturing. But even in other vocations, little more than a well-developed technology was all that was required to rise in the organization and get a good-paying job. Of course the introduction of desk-top computing in the mid 1980s started to change that. Over the next ten years it became clear that everyone in business had to understand and be able to use the digital tools. The US economy was beginning to travel beyond the industrial age. 

The most significant changes were still to come. Working as a consultant at some of the leading edge American corporations, the changes were regularly called to my attention by 1990. And they were straightforward. Not only must you have a strong technical competency as part of your background, but you will need both analytic and social competencies. If you're a manager in IT at a firm like the old Pillsbury, you need to be able to manage and communicate with cross-functional team members. 

Although my clients at leading companies like 3M, Honeywell, Pillsbury and American Express made me very aware of those needs, 90% of US workers and managers were either unaware or found the demands frustrating or even terrifying. 

The salary differential first surfaced in a thorough-going research report from the Dallas Fed as recent as 2003. They identified a talent hierarchy, ranking 6 competencies underlying careers in the following order, from the bottom up: muscle power, manual dexterity, formulaic intelligence, analytic reasoning, imagination/creativity and people skills.The greatest future needs were for people skills, even more than the creative and anlytic skills.

Recently Richard Florida reported on this very subject in the October Atlantic on essay, Where the skills are. Although the article ostensibly describes and locates America's smartest cities, tucked into his essay is an absolutely fascinating and illuminating salary report on careers driven by the analytic and social competencies. Here are the salary stats, based on his study of the US Bureau of Labor detailed information on more than 800 occupations:

• Breaking up each of the vocations by required skills, he found that those in the top quarter as measured by required analytic skill, pay $25,600 more than those in the lowest quarter.
• In shocking contrast, those vocations in the top quartile requiring social skill pay $34,600 more than those in the lowest quarter.

Jobs requiring analytic skills are heavily concentrated in the larger metro areas. And jobs requiring the highest level of social skill are the most concentrated in the very largest metro areas--where, combined with the high prevalence of anlytic skill, they underpin faster rates of innovation and growth. 

So, you ask what do social skills have to do with innovation and creativity? Great question. Innovation without social competencies never gets to the drawing board. In fact, it's quite appropriate to say that if you and your team can't sell your idea and your innovation, it'll never get funded or manufactured. 

Let's clarify one important issue. Social intelligence is more than emotional intelligence or mere sociability. Social intelligence includes persuasion, social perceptiveness, the capacity to bring the right people together on a project, the ability to help develop other people, and a keen sense of empathy.

Merely being a "good communicator" won't cut the mustard any longer. There are no naturals with the competencies of social intelligence. Florida pulls together his ideas this way: Cities can't work as inovative engines unless they are populated by people who can effectively promulgate, and marshall support for new ideas. 

The Most Valued Career Expertise: BP Says Communication Skills

It was no surprise to learn that Tony Hayward is out as CEO and Bob Dudley is in.  Sure, Dudley has a long history of financial success with BP groups, and he's really smart.  But when the chips are down it's often about communication skills.  Dudley is a master communicator.

He's been interviewed on PBS on numerous occasions.  In every instance, he's warm, relational, supportive, reticent to make promises he can't fulfill, and let's the interviewer know that he sympathizes with all of us over the Gulf disaster.  He puts across the message that BP will do everything to resolve this crisis for all of us, and will do everything possible to work with the US government. 

WSJ interpreted the issue from a different perspective.  The writer concluded that BP needed an American at the head of the company in order to more effectively communicate with the US population and the government. 

That's nonsense.  It wasn't that Tony Hayward was a Brit.  The problem was that he had his foot in his mouth and showed contempt for us in his behaviors. . . again and again.  If you watched David Cameron, the UK"s new PM, you know that he's a master at communicating.  The issue is not about country of origin, but communication skills.

Alumni research from the Stanford Business School found a high correlation between personal success and communication skills.  As a result, in 2007, when Stanford changed it's curriculum, communication became one of the four top competencies in focus.  This reflects the research from the Dallas Federal Bank which reworked a study of the national talent hierarchy in 2004.  Although the findings emphasized the need for technological skills, the best paid workers and the best work opportunities continue to be for those who have both technology expertise as well as people skills.  In still another report from Wharton, research found that "the ability to communicate well and other 'soft skills' are just as important as technological expertise when it comes to selling new ideas to investors or senior management."  In a previous blog, I elaborated on the importance and how-to of communication skills.

Fortunately, there are plenty of opportunities to see Robert Dudley in action.  Here's an interview with Judy Woodruff from The News Hour.  Notice that Dudley is very laid-back in his presentation--a typically analytical speaker.  That ought to be useful to the large number of businesspeople who confuse the need for exaggerated enthusiasm with effective communication.  In a crisis, a person's ability to lay out the situation and its possibilities in simple, lean language can be a plus.  Dudley persuades with a bit of personal vulnerability, directness and honesty.  He's careful to undercommunicate--to say as little as possible and only answer the questions that are asked.  No foot in the mouth.

In today's world the key is to success is technology competency of some sort, AND oral and written skills. 

On Breaking Fingers and Pulling Toenails

One of the more intriguing assessments of a politican that I've read in some time was Lexington's analysis of Nancy Pelosi in the March 20th edition of the Economist. 

The article, though written before the passing of the health care bill, does an astute analysis of Mrs. Pelosi's strengths and weaknesses, and suggests that she may the most powerful woman in American history.  Reading the analysis, which describes both her strengths and weaknesses in great detail, I could not help but remember an exceedingly high-placed executive in one of America's Fortune 100 companies. 

 But first, the analysis of Mrs. Pelosi.

Though her family is not quite Democratic royalty, like the Kennedy's or the Clinton's, they certainly belong to the Democratic aristocracy.  Her father was both congressman and mayor of Baltimore and her brother was also mayor of Baltimore.  Despite all that political background, she is an uninspiring speaker, unpopular throughout most of the country (except, of course, in San Francisco), without great substantive skills. Lexington suggests less ability than Sarah Palin, but having listened to extended conversations of both, I view that as nonsense.  Palin can't put a sentence together.  

The Economist also blunders in its comparison of Pelosi to Newt Gingrich, who they suggest, had far more interesting thoughts as Speaker.  In spite of his PhD in history, Gingrich drew conclusions from American intellectual history that were less than inspiring, even ordinary.  Gingrich, like Pelosi, showed himself able to access the ideas of others, an ability made necessary by the time-consuming tasks of the Speaker.  Still, the ability to use the team's smarts is an admirable quality of both.

Pelosi has been learning her job since she was a child, answering the phone for her father, telling people who to call to get on welfare or how to get into the city hospital, presumably without funds or insurance.  And as the House vote showed, she knows how to keep the fractious Democrats in line, and is evidently far more disciplined that the former Democrat speaker, Dick Gephardt.  

But where Pelosi really excels is in her ability to build coalitions, to horse-trade, to negotiate, and to pull of the maneuvers that could bring in both Dennis Kucinich who wanted publicly sponsored insurance, and Bart Stupak, the strong Democratic anti-abortionist.  Throughout the month before and during the passing of the bill, I found myself both fascinated by her political action and almost unbelievably frustrated by the public's total lack of knowledge about the normal horse-trading that takes place in the passing of any major bill.  The notion of political action, the kind of compromising and trading, and ugly parliamentary maneuvering that have taken place in our nation for hundreds of years and that are the process by which we have become a great democracy, seems almost totally outside the purvey of much of the public.  

Well, whatever . . . Pelosi has demonstrated the ability to get reelected on a regular basis, and to manage the U. S. House of Congress, an almost impossible feat in a world of instant communication.  That difficulty, with what some political illiterates see as dishonest manuvering, has a name:  the art of the possible.

Successful political horse-traders know how to assess every member of their party, to call in favors, and to break fingers and pull toenails.  You can be damned certain that her rolodex is among the largest and most detailed in the political world, perhaps in the entire world.  She knows how to get things done, and is totally fearless in the use of her power.  Her expertise, as she has since demonstrated is impeccable, much to the chagrin of her opponents.

If you've paid attention to Pelosi and the House, you understand that her achievements and power are built almost solely by her own electioneering and by her ability to manage organizational politics.  On occasion the same is true with very senior executives.  Many businesspeople think that to become an exec you have to have an in-depth knowledge of one or two disciplines, know how to manage your people and your boss, work successfully in cross-disciplinary settings, be able to formulate and execute both tactically and strategically, and know your customers exceptionally well.  That is certainly not incorrect, but there are other ways to achieve.

More than ten years ago I consulted to one of the most highly placed women in American business, a firm known the world over.  She was a mediocre manager, non-strategic, not a good read of her people, lacked an MBA and hadn't quite finished her bachelor's, yet she was the executive over a division responsible for more than $6B income per year.  From all that I knew, her power made little sense.  After a few months, I tracked down a director who knew her very well, and was willing to share some confidences with me.  With a laugh he explained.  Whenever she needed help, which was often, she knew to either access the help internally, or buy it externally.  But the more prominent expertise was her sales ability.  Most of her division's income was business to business, not consumer.  And that exec, I learned, had the ability to pull together a fifty to two-hundred fifty million dollar deal with highly placed strategic customers.  When a corporation has a sales person like that, it makes everything available, including a a senior executive role and the use of the corporate jet for anyplace in the world. Both Pelosi and that exec had a very narrow, but very deep set of people skills.

In this economy, the best paid and most secure businesspeople will have a comparable set of people skills. 

The article from the Economist is found here:  Nancy Pelosi's Challenge.  

A New Understanding of Reality for Paul Krugman

Having lived and worked in three very different worlds, and having grown up in Kentucky, Michigan and Minnesota, I'd have to be terribly naive not to understand that cultures differ in values, style, priorities and relationships.  Getting things done in a small setting can be difficult though possible.  But getting things done with two parties, a boat load of left and right extremists, and a few moderates, is very, very difficult.

So it was both amusing and intriguing to read what Paul Krugman, the Nobel prizewinning economist had to say after nearly a full year of Obama's presidency:

Now that we have people whose goals I share in power, I've seen what it actually takes to make policy change happen.  It's pretty revelatory.  It's one thing to do opinion pieces about the way things ought to be; it's another thing to think about, O.K., given the makeup of the U.S. Senate, given the difficulties of getting people on board and of communicating stuff to the public what can you actually do?

What can a president do?  He has to take what he can get!

Quotation of the Week: Meryl Streep

Recently, Meryl Streep was interviewed by the Harvard Professor, Henry Louis Gates, for a four-part PBS series about family roots.  In the interview, Mr. Gates tells Ms. Streep that on one side her roots go back to the founding fathers and a Quaker who left his church rather than cease agitating for independence from the British. 

Streep, mockingly responds:

I know it should make me feel even more important than I already am.

It takes a lot of self-confidence and chutzpa to come up with a classic line like that.  When I read it aloud to some friends, it brought howls of laughter. 

Self-deprecation:  communication that expresses something negative about its originator without being called for in the context by others, disparagement of one's own ability.

HEADS UP!  Humorous self-deprecation can be a highly useful rhetorical device in business communication.  Furthermore, humorous self-deprecation is a serious subject that can connect you with your audience. Typically, it has two important consequences:

1. It can dilute emotions of anger, frustration, even sadness.
2. Its affects are imperious, powerful and can't be ignored.

FYI:  Research shows that speakers who use tasteful, self-deprecating humor are rated far higher by all listeners than speakers who avoid its use.  Of course, that kind of humor requires a great deal of self-confidence.  At the very least, it requires us not to take ourselves too seriously.

In my previous life, I worked to develop self-deprecating one-liners, though I used them sparingly.  It still shocks me to have someone I've known for years comment on a self-deprecating one-liner long after I assumed it would have been forgotten.  It always comes with a smile of respect and liking. 

And by the way, respect and liking have been shown to be among the most powerful "weapons" of social influence.  Self-deprecation used sparingly and appropriately dominates conversations.  It enhances our credibility.  For nearly three centuries, scholars from Aristotle to the 21st century have looked at the factors of influence. Credibility is always the most powerful form of persuasion, far more than good reasons or the artistic use of emotions. 

Why is Meryl Streep such a great, influential actor?  It is not merely her acting skills, but first and foremost her genuine humanness, illuminated by hilarious self-deprecation.  There's a moral for all of us in her humorous self-deprecation.

Why Doesn't Your Boss Listen To You?

In addition to the fact that you may not understand the business, the firm's strategy, or have the trust of your boss, there are plenty other reasons why your boss doesn't listen.

Steve Tobak of BNET is always worth a thoughtful read and his list of ten reasons why your boss doesn't listen is a good reality check.  

I have another suggestion.  If you want your boss to listen to you, learn how to write a managing up memo.  You'll find the instructions spelled out in detail here.  Thinking through a managing up memo will help clarify your thinking and gain a better handle on making a successful pitch.

The Soft Approach to Persuasion

A recent, fascinating piece of persuasion research by Zakary Tormala of Stanford surfaces some very useful information on the process of persuasion.   The research clearly demonstrates that experts are more persuasive when they seem tentative about their conclusions.  In situations where the questioner perceives the other to be an expert and quite knowledgable about a subject, it pays off for the expert to express minor doubts about their own opinion. 

Rather than present himself/herself as very certain about the subject or issue, why does it pay to be  tentative about one's response?  The research shows that people do a "cognitive double take" when the perceived expertise is mismatched with their level of certainty.  As a result the inquirer becomes more intrigued, interested and involved in the issue, which helps the reviewer's message get across. 

In contrast, the opposite is true with novices.  Novices grow more persuasive with increasing certainty. 

The NY Times details one of the research methods: 

In one experiment, college students were randomly assigned one of four variations of a restaurant review, praising a local Italian spot. In some versions, the reviewer was described as a famous food critic; in others, he was a technology worker at a local college with a penchant for fast food. Each of the critics expressed positive certainty about the restaurant’s virtues in one variation, and tentative praise in another. Asked to evaluate the restaurant, the students who read the expert’s review liked it much better when he seemed tentative; the opposite was true of the novice.

When I see research like this, research which sounds quirky, I typically check out the methodology first.  Then, just as significantly, I want to know how this study fits into overall research theory.  This research actually ties into classic persuasion theory which shows that increasing involvement and interest in a subject, where it is well-argued, can more often result in conversion (the persuasion term for acceptance and commitment to an idea).   As a scholar in the field of persuasion, I suspect that the study conclusions are highly valid.  (How's that for tentativeness from an expert?)

I'm asked about areas of my behavioral expertise quite often.  A client will ask what I think about such and such.  If I'm quite certain, but I want the client drawn into the issue, I'll add a couple minor caveats, or assume a very thoughtful tone.  It nearly always draws the client into the conversation, provides for a persuasion experience as well as a dialog or teaching opportunity. 

A few weeks ago, one of my long term, senior clients wanted to know what I thought about a certain tactical maneuver.  I knew that if I was blunt, he'd either accept it wholesale without thinking about it or reject my notion.  So I said to him, slowly, thoughtfully and carefully (I'm a fast talker) that it was an "intriguing idea." 

What you're telling me, he responded, is that I'm "full of bullshit?"  I snickered, but he immediately engaged in the pros and cons of his idea, a useful discussion that probably wouldn't have taken place without my tentative response.

But you don't have to be a behavioral scholar to use these findings.  It may be something as simple as restaurant food, trip experiences, or your boss's relationships with his subordinates. 

Sure, you have to be calculating.  Sure, you have to know what's being asked.  But often, if you answer too quickly, you'll lose out on both the conversation as well as the decision process.  I've learned not to be in a hurry to respond when people ask for my expertise. 

So when you're approached and perceived to be an expert in a subject, tentativeness works better than certainty.  But when you're a novice, certainty works better than tentativeness.