Mike Schneider, one of my coffee buddies from Mac (Macalester College) wrote this especially apropos limerick:
I want to keep my coffee buddies at ease
So this limerick will not mention disease
But it would be remiss
To not say that I miss
Sitting with you guys and shooting the breeze
Enjoy!
The answer is both curious and hilarious. I just got in from my local grocery where I noticed the toilet paper shelves were empty. Seeing a store employee, I asked him why people were buying so much. He shrugged and said he didn’t know. "Probably plenty in the warehouse." Because of my consulting business, I happened to know that there was at least one Kimberly Clarke plant in the next state over—Wisconsin. They make Scott and Cottonelle toilet paper as well as Kleenex. I’m pretty certain we don’t import any from China. I suspect, instead, that a lot of the Chinese forests have been felled long since, much like the Brits. But with all those nearby Wisconsin forests, I’m sure there’s no shortage for making paper of all sorts.
So why are people hoarding toilet paper? Lo and behold, several were curious about my question and did even more homework.
All kinds of journalists and specialists weighed in on the “problem.”
Australia has also suffered from panic buying of toilet paper despite plentiful domestic supply. A risk expert in the country explained it this way: “Stocking up on toilet paper is … a relatively cheap action, and people like to think that they are ‘doing something’ when they feel at risk.” I didn’t know that, but I’d need a lot of research to believe it.
Brian Cook, University of Melbourne, said that his suspicion is that it is how people react to stress: they want an element of comfort and security. This is an example of “zero risk bias,” in which people prefer to try to eliminate one type of possibly superficial risk entirely rather than do something that would reduce their total risk by a greater amount. Ummm, maybe.
“Fear is contagious,” says Steven Taylor, a professor of psychiatry at the University of British Columbia and author of the Psychology of Pandemics. “We pick up cues by looking to other people—it’s how stampedes happen in stadiums—so if you’re in a shopping centre and you see some people around you acting in a frightened way and stocking up, that’s going to have a fear contagion effect that causes other people to start over-purchasing.” Really?
In this rather fraught period of political campaigning, the New Yorker’s Adam Gopnik has chosen to write a thoughtful “review(?)” of Fergus Bordewich’s Congress at War. Since it’s Gopnik you can be very certain that his essay is going to be a lot more than mere review or summary. He does not let us down.
So, let’s not work over the essay, but with my comments on the first page of my download. I’ve read through it several times. Admittedly, the comments tell you about me, but they tell you a lot more about Gopnik. (You can’t write a response without telling your readers about yourself—consciously or unconsciously.)
In the upper right hand corner, I wrote and circled my comment—“absolutely brilliant—as usual.” Gopnik always fits in that category. That’s why I work at digesting everything he writes.
Further on down, I noted a reference to “subterranean socialism supporting business.” Of course, we had...
A new member of the Economist staff asked as he began to compose his first leading article for the magazine some years ago. “Pretend you are God,” a senior colleague replied. But since the deity regularly fails to comment directly on current affairs, as Stefan Collini amusingly wrote in the London Review of Books, that anxious recruit may have had difficulty putting this recommendation into practice. Though I’ve occasionally found errors and unreasonable bias in the Economist, it seems to happen far less in their magazine than others I regularly peruse. Or, they admit to their perspective. So, it has remained a weekly practice for more than forty years.
Over the past few decades the divine model has served the magazine exceptionally well. In 2017, the firm generated operating profits in excess of $70M alongside its related enterprises. This, despite being part of an industry where increasingly large losses are the norm. In fact, just a few days ago McClatchy, which operates the Miami Herald and The Kansas City Star among its 30 newsrooms in 14 states, announced it has filed for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy restructuring.
Still, my commitment to the Economist is not unusual, even in a world in which other sophisticated magazines have difficulty just staying alive, much less keeping readers for decades (except, of course, the New Yorker)...
I’ve always been fascinated by how words work--and what they can do to us. I’ve been especially intrigued over the past thirty years by questions—yeah, I’m a question nut! I actually have an entire shelf in my library on the discipline of questioning. My hobby is easily explained. Effective questions are a key to learning and growing. Which means that questions are how we make change. And inevitably, clients hire to me to help them make change.
So, I was glued to a recent column by the NYT’s Bret Stephens on a new book, The Secrets of Jewish Genius, which I took to be about creativity and problem solving. (FYI: I’m English and Scot--not Jewish.) I’ve long since learned that as soon as I begin to get into disciplines like economics, science, politics, psychology, psychiatry, human resources, fiction, music, etc. and etc., I start running into Jewish writers. Here’s just a brief list: Sigmund Freud, Benjamin Disraeli, Albert Einstein, Franz Kafka, Irving Kristol, Rudolf Serkin, Daniel Kahneman, Jeff Pfeffer, Abraham Maslow, Karl Marx, and Milton Friedman.
So, I was very curious about the answer to Stephens’ thesis question: “How is it that a people who never amounted even to one-third of 1 percent of the world’s population contributed so seminally to so many of its most pathbreaking ideas and innovations?”
Stephens deals with the “Jews are Smart” explanation, commenting that it obscures more than it illuminates. Instead, he chooses to deal with the question of why intelligence is matched by “bracing originality and high-minded purpose.”
The answer to his question is surprising: “Jewish genius operates differently (from other thinkers). It is prone to question the premise and rethink the concept: to ask why (or why not?) as often as how. . . Where Jews’ advantage more often lies is in thinking different.”
There are the two very, shockingly simple, important words that can add significantly to your creativity: why not?
Continue reading "Two 3-Letter Words for Problem Solving—and Creativity" »
This past Spring’s issue of the MIT Sloan Review (2017) had an intriguing article with the above title, minus the question marks. “This sounds interesting,” I thought. “Wonder what they’ll say?” At the conclusion of the third paragraph the authors wrote, “We’ve come to believe that problem formulation is the single most underrated skill in all of management practice.”
Good shot guys, but not quite. After thoughtfully re-reading the entire ten-page article, I concluded, that the article was exceptionally insightful from a process standpoint. But as far as being the “most underrated” skill, it’s nonsense. Uniquely, it offers me the opportunity to challenge common business priorities that need serious rethinking. But, reflecting for just a few moments more, I was reminded of a brilliant and thought-provoking set of articles edited by the eminent psychologist, Robert Sternberg, entitled “Why smart people can be so stupid.”
The authors of “Smart people. . .” come up with a number of reasons for their conclusion. In spite of the MIT quoted research, one of the most apropos reasons for stupidity is what can be termed the mindless assimilation of social (business) biases. With their impeccable MIT Harvard reputation, these patently smart people demonstrate a bias that is clearly that of the academy. If you read widely and analytically in business, it’s obvious that thinking about people competencies is controlled by organizational behaviorists with a solely psychological background. They look solely at thinking, but not at conversing. It explains too clearly what’s going on in the MIT article.
It’s an innocent limitation, but limiting conclusions to a single discipline, like psychology or organizational behavior, inevitably limits formulation and potentially creative solutions. Extensive research reveals that...
Continue reading "The Most Underrated Skill in Management??" »
Thankfully! I'm very happy about that change. The post, published in 2010, was written still earlier. At the time, my coaching revealed that it was absolutely necessary. This single post garnered more than 35,000 readers and something like 32 comments, half profoundly rejecting and the other half profoundly reinforcing. I published most of them on the site. When I got into executive coaching in 1984 there were very few women VP's, much less CEOs. One client, a CEO from a well-known consumer product company, talked to me at length about women in executive roles. I got McKinsey on my side and we encouraged them. After more than six years at the consumer firm in the mid-1990s, they gradually promoted eight or ten women to VP. Today, women have a significant role at that firm. Though plenty of firms are still male driven, that has been changing over the past ten years--and drastically. I should indicate--with a sense of pride--that my eldest daughter is a vice-president of a leading non-profit.
After reading this, I hope you can have a good laugh at me, and then add your own notes. You'll note my defensiveness in response to some of the early comments. Amusing, but ah well.
The post, originally published on April, 26, 2010, is entitled 7 Behaviors That Keep Women From Getting Ahead
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.)...
Continue reading "What I Wrote More Than Ten Years Ago Is Clearly Nonsense Today!!" »
There are actually two questions here: can charisma be learned, and will it positively impact business outcomes? Since I’ve worked over the years with clients to develop their charisma, I find the questions, well…amusing. Because the answers to both questions from those in the disciplines of rhetoric and communication is yes. Of course. We’ve known that for years. In fact, for centuries.
But what’s especially interesting about recent research (2011) by the psych and economics faculty at the University of Lausanne is that they look at the question from the perspective of economics in the European context, confirming the power of the discipline of charisma.
But there’s a lot more pragmatic stuff to be added to this research as well as most blogs and studies. The discipline of charisma is inevitably viewed from a public address format: a speaker addressing a group. But for career people, there are far more opportunities to practice and learn in a one-on-one or small group. Furthermore, it’s best to start adding charisma from your tool-kit early on, rather than waiting until you get a managerial promotion. It’s also far less intimidating to learn in a one-on-one or small group, than to wait until you’re a manager and have large group responsibilities.
Given my assumption, let’s ignore the research laundry list of tactics, and the unique opportunities provided by public address settings. Besides, if you gain the competencies in small groups, you can automatically transfer them to the public address context. So, skip those long lists of skills to gain the competency, and focus on just two very significant tactics that will set you on the path to charisma. Furthermore, with just a bit of reflection, these two skills for one-on-ones and small groups will readily open up other strategies..
Long before Alexander Hamilton arrived on the Broadway stage, he forecast the rise of a presidential demagogue. A trusted member of George Washington’s cabinet and Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton wrote the majority of the Federalist papers in his late twenties, finishing them by the time he was thirty-years-old. Not only did he pen this work—the fundamental interpretation of the Constitution--but he heavily influenced the ratification of the Constitution by bringing in the state of New York. And all this by the time he was thirty years old (especially for those of you who are so concerned about the age of today’s presidential candidates).
As a 35-year-old, here’s what he wrote about his fears and anticipation of a presidential conman on the golden escalator.
When a man unprincipled in private life, desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents . . . is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity—to join in the cry of danger to liberty—to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government and bringing it under suspicion—to flatter and fall in with all the nonsense of the zealots of the day—it may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may “ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.”
Although not all history is predictive, as a critical tool history sometimes...
I find that amusing. Especially when his competitors immediately go to his lack of Washington experience. There is absolutely no necessary correlation whatsoever between experience and expertise. That’s a well-researched conclusion.
My wife, an elementary school teacher, came home one day with an anecdote from a teachers’ workshop. The speaker told the story of someone wanting a position as elementary coach because she had twenty years of elementary school experience. Her principal refused, but later in an aside to his assistant commented that actually she didn’t have twenty years of experience. She just had twenty years of first year experience.
And still others will say that Mayor Pete...
Continue reading "So, Pete Buttigieg Annoys His Competition" »