Dan Erwin

A Hitman and a Saint

A questionable ethic?
A few years ago, after developing a relationship with the CIO of a major American corporation and successfully working with a number of his subordinates, I was faced with a challenge. Another consultant, call him John, was edging into my info tech territory from corporate marketing. As soon as I saw what was happening, I set up an appointment with the CIO. I assassinated John with truthful rhetoric and precise data. It was a barrage of sophisticated, critical, agitating rhetoric by which I intended to maintain control. By no stretch of the imagination did I wear my usual nice-guy hat. The next day, the CIO canned John’s ass.

While hard to accept and admit, on occasion it’s necessary to become hitmen because of threats to our career by others. Indeed, plenty of people go into business unprepared for a larger reality that can be supportive, constructive and fun, but occasionally requires them to work with somebody who is dangerous to their career. They may be highly deceptive rivals, indifferent and lazy assholes who won’t carry their weight on a project, or clueless incompetents who need to be brought to their senses.

Religiously ethical?
But my consulting experience reveals that a surprising majority of people hold an ethical and/or religious commitment to life that plays havoc with their feelings. Feelings that certainly would keep them from becoming the mean and calculating hitman depicted above.

As an ordained minister, a former parish pastor and seminary professor, it’s imperative to point out that these quaint religious ideas often sabotage not only your career, but also your life. And even more significantly, these “nice guy” feelings lack a rich understanding of what it means to be fully human. In short, the baseline of normalcy in the “religious” reality structure is often profoundly dysfunctional and false. A serious confusion exists between what people think they should be and what actually is. And it’s understandable that many haven’t come to terms with those differences given the predominant, though skewed, religious perspective.

In stark contrast to much I hear today about organizational “nice guys,” the biblical text paints the person of faith as a mix of saint, sinner and hitman (and, yes, hitwomen) taking on the competition. They are not lily-white, idealistic or naïve nice guys. They work in the same human, screwed-up organizations we work in today. Joseph, he of the “amazing technicolor coat,” engages in deception, manipulation and trickery. He frames his younger brother, tossing him (temporarily) in jail to demonstrate his cruel power. But Joseph also rescues his entire dysfunctional family, including his jealous older brothers who conspired to have him murdered. King David screws his general’s wife and has him murdered to cover his behavior, and engages in trickery and political skullduggery throughout his reign. But he also guides, loves and protects his people. Neither David nor Joseph could ever be considered innocent or naïve. David is punished for his murder, yet the biblical text affirms the godly faithfulness of both Joseph and David. Intriguingly, those ethics differ significantly from the religiosity I hear from many. These characters know how and when to become hitmen, willing to take on others to achieve their objectives.

The biblical ethic is about what business folk would call big picture stuff: radical justice, the common good and food for all, including the outsider, the poor, the widow, the foreigner and the sick and homeless. Its devil word is “oppression.” And the text doesn’t fool around with small potatoes. There’s little to nothing about such things as my trickery of another edgy consultant. Fact of the matter, the biblical text confirms trickery as the action of a person with entre to the establishment, a person who’s both fully human and powerful. I suspect, therefore, that Yahweh got a good laugh out of the whole comedy. And I laughed all the way to the bank, knowing full well that I’ll still win some and lose some.

Shifting the paradigm
At the heart of this blog is an attempt to shift the paradigm regarding business relationships and personal success. As my experience revealed, the reality is far larger and more complex than many are willing to admit. Talk about the current fad of servant leadership all you wish, but reality is not just about nice guys. So I emphasized the biblical reality, not because I’m especially religious, but because it provides a phenomenally valid reality structure: a perspective that can lead to mastery of one’s career, but more significantly one’s life.

In short, reality demands that if we intend to succeed in business and life, we must be willing to use our human power. Stanford’s Jeff Pfeffer has dealt directly with this issue in his classrooms and his consulting for many years. In his latest book, Power, he analyzes the resistance of many folk to even try to become powerful. His analysis is worth its weight in gold. Even in his Stanford MBA classrooms, students find the necessity of power tactics and strategies phenomenally difficult to accept. Why is that? Both Pfeffer and I think it’s because of the wacko reality structure subscribed to by most of the population. Most accurately, he writes that we

conspire in (our) own deception about the organizational world in which (we) live. That’s because people prefer to believe that the world is a just and fair place and that everyone gets what he or she deserves. And since people tend to think they themselves are deserving, they come to think that if they just do a good job and behave appropriately, things will take care of themselves. Moreover, when they observe others doing things they consider to be inappropriate, self-aggrandizing, or “pushing the envelope,” most people do not see anything to be learned, believing that even if those people are successful at the moment, in the end they will be brought down.

Pfeffer goes on to reveal that this naiveté keeps people from learning from difficult situations and especially from people whom we don’t like or respect. Furthermore, it anesthetizes us from the need to be proactive in building a power base and dealing with the inevitable competition. Pfeffer summarizes the research, and concludes that reality is far different than we thought. It demands that we engage in power-building activities, without which we are seriously limiting our potential for both survival and success.

The messy deed
Stanford’s Bob Sutton is another of those writers who takes on a full-orbed reality. But he narrows his focus to organizational assholes in his book, The No Asshole Theory. Toward the end he devotes a chapter to the realistic, but painful task of becoming a “temporary, strategic asshole.” Sutton writes that his book “would be naïve and incomplete if I didn’t talk about the upside of acting like an asshole.”

Unfortunately, even if you aren’t a certified asshole, and even if you despise people who deserve the label and avoid them like the plague, there are times when it is useful to play the part of a temporary asshole to get something that you need or deserve. Polite people who never complain or argue are delightful to be around, but these doormats are often victims of nasty, indifferent, or greedy people. There is much (research-based) evidence that the squeaky wheel does get the grease.

The victim, who Sutton calls a doormat, completely ignores reality.

Hitman activity
What this means is that at least 98% of the time my colleagues can be trusted not to knife me. I can be a nice guy working with other nice guys. But I’m also aware that there are times when I fuck up and when my colleagues fuck up and given half the chance, may fuck me, forcing me to become a hitman. Significantly, I’ve found that my lack of innocence about reality relieves me of all kinds of life and career anxieties. When you know what you’re going to be dealing with, you’ve got a leg up on the situation. But note also, that full-orbed, biblical reality of life and organizations inevitably keeps me from being jaundiced and terribly cynical.

The ethics of my decision to occasionally take on the activity of a hitman are not black and white, but gray. And this is highly reflective of reality. It demands of me that I stay alert for the sociopath while not becoming one. It reminds me also that sociopaths screw themselves over because people won’t want to work with them. So, when faced with a jerk, an asshole or an untrustworthy competitor, stand your ground. Draw several lines in the sand about work expectations, responsibilities and scope of authority and take him on. Don’t be afraid of rhetorical trickery. Otherwise, without those rather sophisticated activities, your rise in the ranks will come to a halt. That’s not only smart power politics, but it’s also appropriate ethically and religiously.

Picture fm flickr.com: by emorse04

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

A Tour de Force: "Obama Explained," by James Fallows

Just how much power does the presidency really offer? Any president, not just Obama, but Roosevelt, Eisenhower or Reagan? The March issue of the Atlantic’s article on the political, social and economic powers of the presidency is the finest piece of analysis we’ll see in a long time. It continues to amaze me that so many of the expectations about a president, any president, are bogus. Can a president actually create jobs in the short-term? Six months to a year-and-a- half? That’s a completely counterfeit notion from the get-go. Can the president create jobs on a long term basis through policy decisions? You bet your sweet bippy he can.

James Fallows sets about to answer that big set of presidential questions--and does an absolutely masterful job. His article is a superb case of reality deflowering stupid ideals and politics-as-usual. This is as close to civic accuracy as you’re going to see in a long time.

Sobering realities
Take for example, Fallows statement, well into the article, regarding the “sobering realities of the modern White House.”

The sobering realities of the modern White House are: All presidents are unsuited to office, and therefore all presidents fail in certain crucial aspects of the job. All betray their supporters and provoke bitter criticism from their own side at some point in their term. And all are mis-assessed while in office, for reasons that typically depend more on luck and historical accident than on factors within their control.

Maybe that shouldn’t be, or maybe you don’t like that, but them’s the facts, buddy.

Big Surprises
What are the biggest surprises any new president faces? Here’s what one person with extensive nation-level experience said: The biggest surprise for any new president is the strain placed upon the “decision-making muscle,” since the choices that come upon him every day are precisely those the rest of the government has not been able to resolve. The question for someone whose only real executive training has been the management of his campaign is “how quickly that muscle will develop and improve”; as it is developing, the instincts and institutional memory of those around him inevitably have great effect. Obama frequently emphasizes how many troubles he faced as soon as he took office. The real problem, for an inexperienced president, is that he had to make so many big decisions so fast. How tough to get on Wall Street; how hard to push for extra stimulus; how much time to give Congress to mull health-care plans; how much to trust the Republicans to cooperate; how long to delay on energy and environmental plans—these are just some of the choices Obama had to make about domestic affairs.

Faced with tough opposition
What’s the role of the opposition? Fallows goes back to a letter that James H. Rowe, a Harvard –trained lawyer who had been Oliver Wendell Holmes’s last law clerk, and after World War II was a young official at the Bureau of the Budget, wrote to President Harry Truman soon after the midterm elections of 1946. In that election, Republicans gained 55 seats in the House and 12 in the Senate, to take control of Congress. The “simple fact” about most deals with a congressional opposition is that they “just won’t work under the American two-party system.”

How does Fallows read this letter?

And so Rowe offers his recommendation. With legislative ambitions blocked, with many appointments left to languish, with rear-guard battles under way to uphold vetoes and fend off investigation, a president should resort to the only tool that is uniquely his: the ability to speak to all of the public. He should prepare the ground by sounding reasonable and conciliatory, in light of an unquenchable if unrealistic belief that parties should be able to get along. (“Public demand for bipartisan cooperation will probably continue. The realpolitik of the situation requires that there be some gestures toward cooperation.”) Then, with his bona fides established, the president can move into the next election, making a clear case for his side.

Imbibing this article and its spirit is an exceedingly worthwhile experience. You can download the entire Atlantic article here: Obama Explained. It’ll provide a backdrop for the rest of this year—and hopefully, the coming four years of the Obama presidency.

A Poignant Memorial to Vaclav Havel

With Havel, the message mattered but it was words themselves that penetrated the heart.

                              --Madeleine Albright

Although I regularly read the obituaries of leaders in the New York Times, when I finished Albright’s memorial to Vaclav Havel, “the principled president,” I performed a unique act. I sat in front of my computer glued to her words, tears flowing down my face and clapped. I cannot remember doing such a thing. It was an automatic response, much like the silence followed by an overwhelming ovation after a great musical performance. 

Admittedly, Albright had one of the few, truly magnificent leaders of the past fifty years in her sights. But this memorial focused upon Havel’s principled uniqueness while emphasizing his surprising, earthy, gutsy, poetic humanity. Facing the disintegration of the Soviet Union, he pleads with the Western world to assist the Russians. Albright’s panegyric emphasizes the contradictions in Havel, redefines what it means to be fully human and marked by contradiction. Invited to the US Congress, Havel does not celebrate the Czech Cold War triumph, but pleads for us to reexamine our moral values.

Summarizing the life work of Havel, Albright concludes with a reprise that speaks to us in our fragmented world.

Of the man who hates, Havel wrote, “He is incapable of making a joke, only of bitter ridicule . . . . Only those who can laugh at themselves can laugh authentically.”

As for ideals about governance, he concluded that “We may approach democracy as we would a horizon, and do so in ways that may be better or worse, but it can never be fully attained.” Summing up, he declared himself neither an optimist (“because I am not sure everything ends well,”) nor a pessimist (“because I am not sure everything ends badly”) but, instead, “a realist who carries hope, and hope is the belief that freedom and justice have meaning . . . and that liberty is always worth the trouble.”

Photo: Flickr.com, edition_of_one

How to Build a Great Work Relationship with Your Boss

Work relationships are learnable.

The work relationship between you and your boss is one of your most important investments. Your boss is key to your future and the primary source for the resources you need to get your job done. That being the case, it's an important reminder that your boss is also the one who can help you prioritize your jobs. Finally, your boss is the one who can best link you to the rest of the organization. In sum, more than anyone else, your boss can either help or hinder your career. 

So how can you go about building a great work relationship with your boss? The best way is by means of an informal social contract. But first, I want to disabuse you of some widespread, totally false notions regarding boss-subordinate relationships in all kinds of contexts. 

Whatever your boss’s style, typically it’s up to you to establish and manage the lines of communication. The first error many workers make is that they somehow believe that it’s their boss’s responsibility to communicate to them and create the work relationship. That’s a hangover from the old hierarchical mythology of the last century. It’s not true, never was true, and it won’t work that way. Furthermore, information rarely flows down. In short, if you want to know what your boss thinks, needs or wants, you’re going to have to find out for yourself. And if you think your boss is operating outside reality, you’re going to have to figure out how to tell him. 

Finally—and make certain you understand this—if you want to be noticed for your performance, influence the dimensions by which your boss will measure you, manage the powers that be and enhance the egos of those above you, the starting place is a great work relationship with your boss. [All three of these competencies are quite learnable. You’ll find a blog on influence here, one on managing up, and another on enhancing egos. Check my personalized Googler for more blogs on the subjects. It’s rare to meet anyone with these competencies, but today’s complex, diverse workforce makes them both more needful and more valuable.] In short, no one gets ahead in business without the ability to smartly suck-up to their boss (all without, hopefully, compromising their values too much). I would argue that it’s true in education, government, especially the non-profits and the church/temple/mosque ministry—and often in our own families. My brother always got in trouble with my mother—which meant he got in trouble with my dad—because he didn’t know how to suck up to mother. I learned early on, and realized that once I did the few things she really needed, I could do whatever the hell I wanted.  As a former family counselor, I should say that there are some healthy parents, but that they are few in number. 

Now back to that business of building a great work relationship with your boss. Years ago I adapted a relationship process from the work of Ed Schein, one of the world’s top experts in organizational behavior, now emeritus professor at MIT. Though originally a process for team relationships, it also works exceptionally well when applied to the boss-subordinate relationship. Indeed, bosses have requested me to coach their subordinates into the process. There’s no reason that bosses can’t manage down and teach the process to their subordinates, in spite of the fact that it is a managing-up strategy—but they just plain don’t like to spend their time communicating down. The successful bosses spend their time building a great work relationship with their own boss. 

The relationship between a boss and direct report is always rather straightforward. They need to build a work relationship, establish an emotional climate that facilitates getting things done effectively and develop a set of work methods. The underlying social and communication forces that shape the working dynamic are significantly overlooked in most boss-subordinate relationships. These work “methods,” what I call “infrastructure,” support the achievement of decision making and business processes and provide the underlying relationship logic.  Bosses and workers make all kinds of assumptions about their relationship, but this is one way of getting those assumptions on the table, talking about them, and enhancing the relationship. 

The easiest way to talk about these issues is to arrange a conversation in which you want to talk about or confirm your understanding of what your boss really wants from you. After all, you know that if your boss looks good, then you’ll look good. You’d be surprised how often you can say those actual words, get a laugh from your boss, and get all the information you need from him.  The conversations should include one or more of the following questions (you may find that your boss wants to spend the whole time on the first question you ask.  OK. Finish the other questions later. It may take several sessions.) 

How do you set mutually shared goals?

How do you prefer to solve problems?

What kind of information do you typically need to make decisions, and how do you go about it?

How do we ensure follow-through and completion of tasks?

How can we best collaborate in our efforts?

How will we keep our lines of communication open?

How do we manage our differences most effectively?

Again: These are best discussed early in a relationship. But my clients have initiated these conversations at all stages of their relationship with their boss. Although there are occasions in which this entire infrastructure has been covered in one extensive conversation—and bosses have asked for that—a conversation may include only one or two of the issues at a time. They do not need to be discussed in any special order. 

Furthermore, once you’ve gotten the information from your boss, and she thinks you understand, your boss may break her rules. That means you’ll have to renegotiate the issue once more. Renegotiation is normal for these relationships. As often as not, you won’t realize that your boss has stepped outside his agreed-upon rules until you’ve slept on it. Then you need to get right back to her, talk about the issue some more, renegotiate . . .  or whatever. And keep her happy. It should be obvious that if your boss is happy with you, you’re liable to be happy with her. 

I should also add that I’ve worked this process with 75 to 100 bosses and subordinates at some of the best companies in the world, and, without exception, they all love it. 

P.S. I note that Rosabeth Moss Kanter, the resident brain at Harvard Business School, argues similarly about boss failure, although fixing the relationship seems to be a more limited agenda.

Photo: Flickr, Hira10

Quotation of the Week: Ross Douthat

In place of reckless meritocrats, we don’t need feckless know-nothings. We need intelligent leaders with a sense of their own limits, experienced people whose lives have taught them caution. We still need the best and brightest, but we need them to have somehow learned humility along the way.

-–Ross Douthat, NYTimes columnist 

All this, and from one of our astute, rather maturely insightful Gen-Y columnist. 

Just the other day I commented to one of my brilliant young friends that his parents had given him the gift of just enough insecurity. Facing phenomenal success in his work, that insecurity provides two especially meaningful personal characteristics, alluded to by Dothat, for today’s world: curiosity and humility. 

Curiosity: That desire to know and understand that shows itself best in the actions of both evaluating and appreciating knowledge and wisdom. 

Admittedly, insecurity can sideline us when it reaches into the depths of the soul and constricts our ability to respond to life. But insecurity can also motivate us to become more careful and thoughtful as we go about adding to our store of knowledge and wisdom. It can emphasize the practice of what Kahnemann calls “slow thinking.” One of the hazards we face in difficult decisions is our penchant for the easier one, often without realizing it. Slow thinking, in contrast, not only tells us to become more deliberative in our decision making, but it also emphasizes the necessity of figuring out what our brains are doing as they think. Curiosity, driven by insecurity, has a strong tendency to move in the direction of slow thinking—all for the good. 

Humility: Not merely that lack of boastfulness or arrogance, but a calculated sense of imperfection that makes us willing to listen to others and celebrate the potential and worth of their insights. It is not the smarmy, manipulative ingratiation that actually exists solely for the purpose of attention and further power. 

What initiated Dothat’s article was the recent failure of American meritocracy exemplified by Jon Corzine. Dothat’s insight regarding the American meritocracy serves as warning for those of us privileged by our intelligence. 

But this sudden fall from grace doesn’t make Corzine’s life story any less emblematic of our meritocratic era. Indeed, his rise, recklessness and ruin are all of a piece. For decades, the United States has been opening paths to privilege for its brightest and most determined young people, culling the best and the brightest from Illinois and Mississippi and Montana and placing them in positions of power in Manhattan and Washington. By elevating the children of farmers and janitors as well as lawyers and stockbrokers, we’ve created what seems like the most capable, hardworking, high-I.Q. elite in all of human history.

And for the last 10 years, we’ve watched this same elite lead us off a cliff — mostly by being too smart for its own good.

The article serves as an apt warning, as well as a partial explanation of the existence of the Tea Party.

Research Confirms It: Nice Guys Really Do Finish Last

A long line of research showing that leaders who pay attention to their people, treat them with dignity and base decisions on accurate information are among the most effective--at least at mid-manager levels. Their people celebrate their fairness as a leader. They love working for managers like that.

But an absolutely intriguing piece of research by Wiesenfeld, Rothman and Galinsky finds that these leaders typically fall behind in their own careers. The research report in the July-August HBR included lab studies as well as responses from hundreds of corporate decision makers and employees began with the old question, "Should leaders be loved or feared?" But it went on asking, "Can you have both respect and power?"

The studies showed that when it comes time for promotion, the candidates who get the job typically demonstrate a "toughness" about them. And the research found that to be the case in a wide variety of industries. That set of behaviors did not benefit managers who are especially fair with their employees. The obvious conclusion is that you can't have both respect and power, so choose your poison. (Actually, you've probably long-since chosen your poison. It was shaped over time by your life experiences.)

The researchers did find in follow-up studies that those beloved managers can gain power, although that may be a difficult path upward. Of course, promoting the tough guy may not necessarily be the right move for the organization. So organizations need to look closely at the issue of whom they're promoting.

This is the kind of research you may not like to see or admit. Still, reflecting on their conclusion and my own consulting experiences, I was drawn to the findings of David McClelland and his learned needs theory, emphasizing achievement, affiliation or power. McClelland's research supports the study of fair bosses falling behind.

My experience reveals that the really fair guys, whom people love to work for, tend to be highly affiliative in their orientation. That is, they need harmonious relationships with other people and need to be accepted by others. They also tend to conform to the norms of their work group. As I thought through nearly 500 executive clients that I've worked with over the years on a long-term basis, few of them are especially affiliative. Indeed, I can point to only eight or ten that achieved at senior-vice president and the C-Office. Clearly this is anecdotal evidence and should be treated as such, but it supports the findings of the studies on fair bosses.

In contrast, by far the bulk of the senior execs tend to be oriented to power, not affiliation or achievement. Following McClelland's theory, the power may be personal, oriented to directing others. The kind that can be quite undesirable and manifest itself in the manager you don't want to work for. But the bulk of execs at senior levels in the better companies demonstrate a high need for institutional power. They want to organizative the efforts of their people to enhance the goals of the organization.

One client, newly promoted to VP in a major consumer products company, left me with a fascinating comment. The CEO, she said, was "utterly ruthless." But, she went on, "that gives me a lot of comfort because I know our company will always do well in competition with other organizations." I knew the CEO personally. A nice guy with a velvet covered fist. I had a lot of respect for him and agreed with her assessment. I had watched him fire a couple of his close friends who weren't delivering up-to-snuff. It was a wise move for the company.

You can only conclude that if you're a fair manager or boss, you're probably shooting yourself in the foot. There's a ceiling over you that's liable to be pretty impenetrable. Respect and liking can get you a long way, but probably not into the C-Office suites.

The study, however, did give hope to those "fair bosses" who want to learn the intricacies of power management. Power, like negotiation, leadership, and communication is a learnable skill. It takes time, but it's doable. However, it'll inevitably result in a different balance of relationships with your subordinates.

How to Win a Turf Battle With . . . NONVERBALS.

Turf battles can be among the most frustrating experiences for many workers.  Recently a Gen-Y friend in marketing research (let's call her Jan), learned a great lesson about the power of the nonverbal. Just three years into her career, she began a team project about a subject with which she was unfamiliar. The second week, having difficulty understanding the details of the project, one of the team members said to Jan, "Forget it. I'll do it." Jan was particularly frustrated because when she asked for help and information from that colleague, she took the issue away from Jan rather than coach.  On the third occasion that it happened, Jan essentially backed out and handed the project to her colleague.  After sleeping on what had happened, she decided that she blundered, losing control of her own responsibility and negatively impacting her reputation and career.

Organizations are inherently and fundamentally problematic. Interpersonal competition, politics and turf battles are inevitable. They present us with situations that are difficult to solve and even tortuous to define or manage. They force us to choose how we are going to act and talk.  It's those decisions that determine whether we will acquire and maintain power or not, much less succeed or fail. Many situations require us to pay close attention to the impression we make as we talk and respond to others. We are all on stage more than we want to believe. If you wait for the organization to support and help you through those difficult, ambiguous situations, you're liable to have a long wait. Plenty of research suggests that organizations don't care very much about you personally.

When I asked Jan about her actions, she admitted to me that she acted shyly, confessing that she didn't know how to execute, that she was embarrassed, and felt extremely uncomfortable.  In short, she made a weak and inhibited impression before her colleagues, portraying herself as victim rather than in charge. 

 
Sometimes your actual knowledge base, as well as your actual power, are quite ambiguous.  In such settings, the impression of taking charge, even by displaying anger, can be very useful. Studies by Stanford's Larissa Tiedens reveal that those who show anger and determination rather than negative emotions will be seen as dominant, strong, competent and smart, but less nice or warm. And it is our nonverbals that first signal our emotional state.

Jan was ready for the next meeting. She dressed up a bit, made certain her hair was neat, put on a minimal but appropriate amount of makeup, and walked into the room like she owned it. She took more space at the table, sat up straight,eye-balled her colleagues, moved directly in front of her troublesome colleague and ratcheted up the vocal intensity (not the pitch level), making clear-cut, informational demands with an obvious expectation that others would respond to her request. Although willing to confront her colleague, she did not have to, because the nonverbal messages clearly drew boundaries. On one occasion Jan actually interrupted her colleague, another useful strategic maneuver.  Her peer became immediately helpful, did not attempt to intervene, and offered help when asked directly. For Jan, the experience was a classic example of the power of constructive self-presentation--and totally nonverbal.

Jan is learning the lesson that many still have to learn: the world is not always fair. Those who intend to succeed will have to promote themselves and fight for their own interests. Nonverbal talk, in and of itself, can be used to create impressions of power, authority, credibility and even personal attractiveness. Indeed, nonverbal talk, as Jan's behavior brought home, can signal a person's expectations and bring about the behavior that conforms to those expectations.

Photo from Flickr, by WildImages

How Women Can Use Anger to Their Advantage

Over the years women and their emotions have taken a beating in the workplace.  You know the accusations: women are shrill, emotional and teary.  Having worked with some very tough females over the years, I've never been willing to believe all the malarkey about women and emotions.  I've also noticed a lot of those emotions to be typical of men.  However, whatever your experience or beliefs about women and emotions, current research indicates fairly clearly that women can often benefit from the use of anger.

Most of us are familiar with the anger antics of Rahm Emmanuel, former Illinois legislator, former Chief of Staff for Obama, and now the mayor Chicago.   I kept a copy of Ryan Lizza's New Yorker article on the theatrics of the colorful, obscene Emmanuel just for the sake of some needy clients.  In the article, Lizza points out that Emmanuel seems to employ his volcanic moments for effect.  One of Emmanuel's old friends, Stanley Greenberg, argues that the new mayor's antics from the past have always been helpful. 

Sending the fish to the pollster that he thought had failed sent a message about how public he can be about his displeasure, and showed that he’s willing to step beyond the normal bounds, that he’s willing to be outrageous and he doesn’t suffer fools. He doesn’t mind bad publicity. It’s part of his cachet, it’s part of why he’s able to be effective.

The research by Stanford's Larissa Tiedens shows quite clearly that people like Emmanuel who express anger are seen as dominant, strong, competent, and smart.  Tiedens found that not only do you receive more status and power, and appear more competent, but others are reluctant to cross you.  The question, however, is whether this research also applies to women.

It would seem that when applied to women, the research is a mixed bag.  Women who acted angry received less status and power than men.  Another study suggested that since women are presumed to be more affiliative than men, men get more out of their anger than women. 

In his new book, Power, Jeff Pfeffers asked Larissa Tiedens about the issue.  Tiedens found no gender differences in any of the studies she and her colleagues have run.  Tellingly, she suggested that women often show their anger in more "submissive" ways--folding their arms on their chest, raising the pitch of their voice or even crying.  Those displays don't work so well.  Instead, Tiedens maintains that forceful displays of anger that put others on the defensive are "effective for both men and women."  That's been my experience and also the reputation of numerous women managers and execs with whom I've interacted over the years.

So how can women use anger to their advantage? 

In my blog on authentic versus masked leadership, I argued along with Warren Bennis that there are numerous occasions in which acting and theatrics are a part of the business of leadership.  Indeed, building upon social psych research we are all a collection of different masks, tied to different social settings.  In still another blog I pointed out that leadership always requires a bit of theatricality.  There are numerous situations where acting the part is most appropriate. 

What this means is that the wise ones align their masks with personal and organizational objectives.  And for women, I recommend very strongly that they add anger drama to their toolkit.  Obviously some of you are going to have to make some adjustments in your attitudes toward yourself and toward your roles.  But more and more successful people understand that organizational communication requires an understanding of what we call Organizational Realpolitik.  Realpolitik is political science terminology for achieving personal objectives through the use of power and practical matters.  It has some indebtedness to Machiavellian philosophy, and contrary to the overweening emphasis on authenticity, it's an absolute necessity in the real world. 

Secondly, you need to add some acting skills to your toolkit.  Try them, practice anger in front of a mirror, get feedback from your significant others, but do it.

Theatrics is a given in the toolkit of successful professionals.  That includes lawyers, physicians, businesspeople, and yes, ministers, priests, rabbis and imams. 

Will Job Performance Guarantee Job Security?

In April last year, I wrote a blog focusing on how important it is to manage your boss.  One of my readers, recently asked an astute question out of that blog.  Here's his query:  If you are talented and intelligent then there is no need to impress your boss as your job performance will automatically impress your boss and I think he/she would love to support you in your career. Correct me if I am wrong. 

Here in the Upper Midwest my reader would find agreement with his idea.  There's a long history of belief that performance is the final arbiter of security and job success.  Anything else tends to be looked at with a jaundiced eye.  For example, when I suggest that a person's boss may be clueless about performance, or may want to keep you right where you are because of your performance, the person quickly moves to a political statement.  It takes one of two forms.  Either, "I don't believe in playing politics," or, "I don't believe in sucking up." 

Once and for all, the truth of the matter is that your performance has very little to do with job security or job opportunity.  There's a very weak link between your performance and your career success.  This always goes down hard.  People want to believe in justice, and this is not fair.  But this is an idea that you need to forget.  Business doesn't work that way. Job performance will not guarantee job security.

In Jeff Pfeffer's marvelous new book on power, he puts it succintly: The data shows that performance doesn't matter that much for what happens to most people in most organizations.  Extensive and systematic research reveals that performance doesn't guarantee either a promotion or a raise, and it may not even keep you from losing your job.  

So what really does guarantee job security, promotions and raises?  To quote Pfeffer's studies and summary of the research: You need to be noticed, influence the dimensions used to measure your accomplishments, and mostly make sure you are effective at managing those in power--which requires the ability to enhance the ego of those above you.