Dan Erwin

Should Leaders Swear in the Workplace?

When I want it to stick, I give it to them loud and dirty.

--Gen. George S. Patton, WW II Commander

About once a year this topic comes up in a consulting gig.  Still, I was intrigued to see Harvard's Dan McGinn address the issue under the title, Do good leaders swear?  What initiated his blog was Obama's comment to NBC's Matt Lauer on the Today Show that he "intended to kick some ass" regarding the oil spill.  As expletives go, it was pretty mild.  I thought it was a response to the pundits' cry that Obama should get more emotional about his feelings.  But as McGinn notes, presidents don't normally use an expletive in formal interviews.  Presidents have long been known to use expletives in private.  JFK and LBJ were profligates, in private. 

Actually, Obama's use of the term appeared deliberate, an attempt to use profane language to connect with voter's anger.  

With my background as a rhetorician, I've become aware of how profane language "works."  Note, that I used the term "works."   Rhetoric is the study of how language works to achieve its objectives.  As a former Christian minister, I also bring a unique context to the issue.  For me, however, the purpose of language is to connect and identify with others in order to achieve my objectives.  Those objectives may be to inform or persuade.  And I look at cursing through those lens. 

Language to me is always instrumental and not magical.  Some, however, take a more magical perspective on language.  When, for example, they read in the bible that one should not use the "Lord's name in vain," they'd take that literally.  Orthodox members of religion usually take some language and images magically.  But they're not the only ones.  On one occasion my advisor for my Masters, a specialist in oral interpretation,  and I got into a conversation relating to the use of various versions of the bible in the church setting.  She was not at all a church-goer or even religious.  This would have been in the '60s, and though my church was evangelical, I did not normally use the King James, but rather preferred a more contemporary version in everyday language.  But, she suggested, the King James has such beautiful language.  It's magical.  That's precisely why I don't want to use it, I said.  It doesn't connect with today's world.  Although the Semitic world is far more versed in cussing, that language was omitted from both the Hebrew and Greek translations found in the King James.  The apostle Paul, for example, almost compulsively makes his points with the use of rhetorical questions and then an equivalent answer of "hell, no" throughout his epistles.  Yet that language never appears in English translation.  In each instance, Paul uses the expletive to forcefully drive home his agenda.

My approach to expletives or cussing flows out of that background.  Cussing has a number of useful functions, and I believe it is quite appropriate within certain contexts.  But cussing is instrumental, not magical.

First of all, the constant use of expletives that we see in the movies causes them to lose their usefulness.  You can only listen to "f____ you" so many times without it becoming meaningless and tiring.

Cussing can be used as an initiatory rite.  Dan McGinn's blog gives a hilarious example of such use.  In the most memorable scene of any academic paper I've read lately, (Stuart) Jenkins, after working in the packing department for a couple of months, uses nuclear-grade profanities to challenge an alpha-male co-worker, a guy named Ernest: "Well f-----g get on with it then, you lazy ----." Other workers gasped, but in fact, the incident led Jenkins to be invited to join group activities from which he'd previously been excluded. "[Jenkins] had identified the profane linguistic 'initiation rite' for inclusion in the packers' social group, and used it successfully," the authors concluded.

On numerous occasions I've used cussing for similar constructive purposes with new clients.  Clients with no personal experience of me, knowing from colleagues that I have a ministerial background, wonder about how to treat me.  One client, having gotten my name from an outside consultant, put his cards on the table in the first few minutes of our face-to-face meeting.  He indicated that he was feeling a bit oppressed by the culture, that he had saved some "f___ you" money, and wondered about the extent to which my ethics would apply to working with him.  I proceeded to use an expletive early on, a strategy which immediately and obviously bonded him to me.  As a result I consulted not only with him, but with nearly all the execs in the firm, a project that netted more than six years of work.  In other words, social swearing in a professional context can convey confidence and an immunity to what people think, and in return, people are attracted to those qualities in a leader.  Did the ends justify the means?  Yep.

Still on other occasions, cussing is used not only to bring focus to issues, but also to identify issues of value.  In a previous blog, I commented that one of my favorite clients understands my occasional use of ordinary language as cussing.  In a team setting, he once made what I viewed as a stupid-ass suggestion, to which I  commented, "that's an intriguing notion."  Understanding my term "intriguing" as an expletive, he came right back with, "so you think I'm full of shit.  Explain your reasoning."  The team howled with laughter and I proceeded to answer his request.  I'd argue that in some settings you have to use an expletive to gain attention or to get people to think.

My wife would say that I can be thick-skulled, and have to be hit hard with language to get the importance of some issues.  Indeed, I have only one memory of her use of an expletive in more than 50 years of marriage.  A use so shocking, that I immediately got her point.  Twenty-five years ago, when I finally decided to leave teaching to go into business, I muddled around with that idea a long time before making a decision.  Sitting on the couch one evening, I said that I'd finally decided to leave the seminary and go into business for myself.  Her response?  "It sure as hell took you a long time to make a damned obvious decision."  Two expletives in one sentence, and years later, I've not forgotten the import of her statement.  She got my attention.

It should be obvious from the above that swearing is context specific and works well only when you know and understand your audience.  You can misevaluate your audience, but I've found that there are occasions when the most appropriate and intelligent action is use swearing precisely because you know your audience will disapprove and you know you'll be able to gain and keep their attention.  It's a calculated action because some audiences so strongly disapprove of swearing (a common middle class allergy) that they can't think after you do it on them.

Research by Baruch and Jenkins, mentioned above, groups profanity into two types:  "social swearing" that's used in casual conversation and "annoyance swearing," the "Oh s--t" that surfaces in stress environments.  When I'm frustrated by some actions in private, I typically cuss.  I've found "nuts" inadequate for my feelings of frustration and much prefer "s---t."  However, I've also found it absolutely fascinating how my Kentucky, Methodist grandmother expressed her affection of me after I committed a humorous, smart alecky action.  Typically, and with a big smile, she'd say, "You little shit."  It was clearly a term of endearment.  Yet, I never remember her "cussing" and using that term. It was obviously not a magical swear word.

I should also say that I do not swear around my grandchildren, although I have a high school freshman now.  In a couple situations where I've alluded to a cuss word, I noticed that he really got it and smiled, maybe snickered at me.  One client in marketing research, a well-educated single mom (PhD in psychology) once asked me how to stop her junior high boys from swearing.  Their teacher had called her about the problem.  I suggested that she reframe the issue, and have a conversation about when/where it was OK to swear, and when/where swearing would get you into trouble.  She loved it!  I learned later that her boys paid close attention to that conversation and followed her recommendation. 

I'd thought about Obama's cussing for several days and thought I should write about it, suggesting that it might be viewed as a form of pandering, but wasn't quite certain how I wanted to go about it.  A big thanks to Dan McGinn and his blog for a few suggestions.  Actually, I've thought for years about how swearing really works, what it sounds like, and how our expletives, beginning with the letters a, s, f, b are only the tip of the iceberg.  Organizations such as churches, synagogues, political parties, and non-profits do a lot of swearing at the their opposition.  They just don't use expletives.  The Old Testament writers could be pretty pointed with their cursing.  In one of the Psalsms, the writer addressing an oppressor affirms, "Happy be those who take your little ones (your little bastards) and dashes them against the rock."

I'm curious.  Is it appropriate to using swearing as a bonding or motivating device?  Do smart managers use cussing as a tool?  What do you think?

Change Your Personality for Your Career: Introvert to Extravert

I’ve been thinking an awful lot about the huge interest in my blog, Can You Really Change Your Personality?.  While in Detroit working on a couple major projects (there are still consulting opportunities in the Motor City!), it crossed my mind that I ought to explain how to change your personality.   BTW: Please forgive my week-long absence from blogging.  I’ve been up to my ears in those projects.

 

In this post I want to focus on one of the personality changes with which I’m most familiar: how to change from primarily an introvert to more of an extravert. 

 

As a general rule, business rewards the personality effects of both introverts and extraverts.  I've observed, however, that more introverts gravitate toward finance and technology, while more extraverted types gravitate toward marketing and sales.  But, just because you're introverted doesn't mean you shouldn't gravitate toward marketing and sales.  No reason also, why extraverts couldn't gravitate toward finance and technology.  Still, it’s clear that business rewards people skills, one of the major effects of the extraverted personality, more than any other skill.  That fact has been documented by research at the Dallas Fed, dating from 2003.

 

A caveat:  If you're satisfied with your introversion and not interested in becoming more extroverted, you can stop reading right here.  But if you've decided that you need to become more extraverted, read on.

 

High scoring extraverts are friendly, outgoing, assertive, energetic and optimistic.  Extraverts are gratified by what takes place outside their person.  The result is that many are focused on people skills and are better at them than introverts.  In contrast, introverts get enough stimulation from their own ideas, not what's going on outside of them.  Preferences become priorities.  However, contrary to the common perception, introverts don't suffer from shyness or social anxiety.   

Introversion and extraversion are nothing more than ingrained preferences, preferences that show up in relationships and decision making.  Carl Jung, the Swiss psychologist, says that everyone has both an extraverted and introverted side, with one being more dominant than the other.  

 

In my previous blog on personality, I listed four relatively stable personality characteristics: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience and conscientiousness.  (I missed agreeableness, per the correction of one of my readers.)  Introversion is not on that list of stable personality characteristics which suggests to me that it may be quite changeable.  Anybody got info on that subject?

 

Most of us have known people who are highly neurotic, and often show their anxieties in anger, depression, self-consciousness, impulsiveness or stress (not all of these at the same time).  And if, for example, you know someone who dealt with depression at a period in their life, you may have seen them learn how to handle, even conquer their depression with counseling and chemistry (drugs), and move the dial back on anxiety and depression.  That’s personality change.  Mike Wallace of CBS 60 Minutes suffered depression, but learned to deal with it successfully--and change that personality characteristic.  Change, as I said in my previous post, often comes about as the result of a crystallization of discontent.  That was true for Mike Wallace.

 

Personality change is supported by the research of Hazel Markus.  Stanford's Markus found that when the context is changed the possibilities a person faces spur him to find role models he’d like to become.  Those models  ignite motivation and drive us to personality change.  Driven to change, we gradually try on a different mask, and over time changes can take place. 

 

On a number of occasions I've seen ambitious people come to believe that their more introverted personality will need to undergo change if, for example, they're going to be able to work successfully with their clients.  As a result, over the years these introverted professionals focused on the activities of their own work and how other people do it.  They learned to develop ideas through discussion with others, rather than solely by their own reflection.  In short, they learn to pay a great deal of attention to the activities outside of themselves.  I also know quite a few that weren’t able or willing to make that change, often to their own detriment.

 

Some, in the change from introvert to extravert, actually get to the place where they like having people around.  For managers, this shows up in the focus upon other people's behaviors, figuring out how to work more successfully with groups, willingly putting their incomplete ideas on the table and working to achieve their ends through other people.  They do not lose their introverted tendency to analyze problems deeply before they make decisions.

 

One client whom I've known for more than 20 years has made very significant personality changes in his move from introversion to extraversion.  But he has not dropped all his introverted effects.  That's wise, since there are important strengths to that aspect of personality.  A CIO for three different organizations, he recognized early on that he'd need to become much more knowledgeable about what was going on outside of himself.  Aware that he was highly reflective, often ignoring the ideas of others, he's worked for years to gain the competencies that enable him to develop ideas by discussion.  His change objectives were specifically extraverted consequences:  to create a motivational environment, to adjust his approach to decision making, and to learn to adapt to the styles of others in order to sell his organization’s services more effectively. 

 

My own experience of personality change was a long time coming, but the narrative has been highly useful to many of my introverted clients desirous of making change.  As a kid, I had a very active mind, always interested in my own internal world of ideas.  I rarely shared my ideas until they were fully formed.  By no stretch of the imagination did I have any sense, nor interest in collaborating in the full development of ideas.  Furthermore, I thought a lot before taking any action, even asking a girl out for a date.  I remember my dad asking me when I was going to invite that girl that I'd been talking about for months out for a date.  Because so much of my time was spent in my inner world of ideas, I did not learn for years how to speak in public, handle a team or engage in a highly interactive conversation.   That was just not an interest, thus I took no opportunity to practice those skills, much less ask for coaching.

 

Fifty years later I went to a high school reunion, walked into a crowd of nine people whom I knew from high school, but had not seen since graduation.  I took part in the conversation, even occasionally interrupting, asked questions and made my opinions known.  Twenty minutes into the conversation I was shocked when one of the women, Donna, stopped the group conversation and said, "Who are you?"  There was silence in the group.  I responded, "I'm Dan Erwin, the guy who sat next to you in typing and history class."  She came right back at me with, "I know that Dan Erwin, but I don't know you. The Dan Erwin I knew 50 years ago has no relation to the one standing in front me."  She was serious and I was really curious to know whether others thought the same thing, and if so, why.  Taking advantage of the situation, I asked whether each them held the same perspective.  One by one, I checked out the members of the group, trying to understand that conclusion.  Every single, last one said that I had no relation now to the guy they knew 50 years ago.  They saw me as withdrawn, shy, and non-communicative.  The truth was that at that time I had no reason to share my world with many people. 

 

The following week, I called a college roommate whom I had visited a couple years earlier while on a project in southern Illinois.  I told him about the experience and before I finished the story he started laughing.  Since I’m sometimes slow on the uptake, I wanted to know what was so funny.    "Of course, they're correct.  I barely knew you when you called.  This Dan Erwin has no relation to the old Dan Erwin.  You were a bit stuffy, pious and religious (that's an understatement), and revealed practically nothing about yourself or your thinking.”  I asked why he roomed with me that summer and he responded that since none of his friends were going to summer school he thought he could deal with me for eight weeks.  He did say that after eight weeks he “thought there might be something there,” but was also “shocked” when he first talked to me over the phone.

 

How did the change take place?

 

Over time, both my client CIO and I took consistent, sometimes daily actions that enabled us to become highly capable of the extraverted effects.  What's important to understand is that neither of us are who we once were.  That laser-like focus on development and the changing of behaviors resulted in a different personality.  Consistent, regular decisions to behave in certain ways can change your personality.

 

I can hear those who believe in the "real person" theory reinterpreting our stories and saying something to the effect that the real person was always there.  That notion is similar to the traditional perspective on innate intelligence.  It’s false.  Markus essentially draws the same conclusions about personality.  Intelligence changes are like personality changes.  They take awhile, but they're both possible. 

Change strategies

 

Personality change follows the research of Anders Ericsson and deliberate practice.  It includes five phases:

·     Crystallization of discontent

·     Extensive practice,  practice, practice

·     Mentoring and coaching

·     Adaptation to feedback

·     Integration of behaviors

 

Personality can be defined as a fairly dynamic, organized set of characteristics that uniquely influence one's cognitions, motivations and behaviors in various situations.  With that definition, both my client and I have come to think about people, decision-making, ideas and even behaviors differently than what originally characterized us.  That's personality change.  

I’ve been thinking an awful lot about the huge interest in my blog, Can You Really Change Your Personality?.  While in Detroit working on a couple major projects (there are still consulting opportunities in the Motor City!), it crossed my mind that I ought to explain how to change your personality.   BTW: Please forgive my week-long absence from blogging.  I’ve been up to my ears in those projects.

 

In this post I want to focus on one of the personality changes with which I’m most familiar: how to change from primarily an introvert to more of an extravert. 

 

As a general rule, business rewards the personality effects of both introverts and extraverts.  I've observed, however, that more introverts gravitate toward finance and technology, while more extraverted types gravitate toward marketing and sales.  But, just because you're introverted doesn't mean you shouldn't gravitate toward marketing and sales.  No reason also, why extraverts couldn't gravitate toward finance and technology.  Still, it’s clear that business rewards people skills, one of the major effects of the extraverted personality, more than any other skill.  That fact has been documented by research at the Dallas Fed, dating from 2003.

 

A caveat:  If you're satisfied with your introversion and not interested in becoming more extroverted, you can stop reading right here.  But if you've decided that you need to become more extraverted, read on.

 

High scoring extraverts are friendly, outgoing, assertive, energetic and optimistic.  Extraverts are gratified by what takes place outside their person.  The result is that many are focused on people skills and are better at them than introverts.  In contrast, introverts get enough stimulation from their own ideas, not what's going on outside of them.  Preferences become priorities.  However, contrary to the common perception, introverts don't suffer from shyness or social anxiety.   

Introversion and extraversion are nothing more than ingrained preferences, preferences that show up in relationships and decision making.  Carl Jung, the Swiss psychologist, says that everyone has both an extraverted and introverted side, with one being more dominant than the other.  

 

In my previous blog on personality, I listed four relatively stable personality characteristics: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience and conscientiousness.  (I missed agreeableness, per the correction of one of my readers.)  Introversion is not on that list of stable personality characteristics which suggests to me that it may be quite changeable.  Anybody got info on that subject?

 

Most of us have known people who are highly neurotic, and often show their anxieties in anger, depression, self-consciousness, impulsiveness or stress (not all of these at the same time).  And if, for example, you know someone who dealt with depression at a period in their life, you may have seen them learn how to handle, even conquer their depression with counseling and chemistry (drugs), and move the dial back on anxiety and depression.  That’s personality change.  Mike Wallace of CBS 60 Minutes suffered depression, but learned to deal with it successfully--and change that personality characteristic.  Change, as I said in my previous post, often comes about as the result of a crystallization of discontent.  That was true for Mike Wallace.

 

Personality change is supported by the research of Hazel Markus.  Stanford's Markus found that when the context is changed the possibilities a person faces spur him to find role models he’d like to become.  Those models  ignite motivation and drive us to personality change.  Driven to change, we gradually try on a different mask, and over time changes can take place. 

 

On a number of occasions I've seen ambitious people come to believe that their more introverted personality will need to undergo change if, for example, they're going to be able to work successfully with their clients.  As a result, over the years these introverted professionals focused on the activities of their own work and how other people do it.  They learned to develop ideas through discussion with others, rather than solely by their own reflection.  In short, they learn to pay a great deal of attention to the activities outside of themselves.  I also know quite a few that weren’t able or willing to make that change, often to their own detriment.

 

Some, in the change from introvert to extravert, actually get to the place where they like having people around.  For managers, this shows up in the focus upon other people's behaviors, figuring out how to work more successfully with groups, willingly putting their incomplete ideas on the table and working to achieve their ends through other people.  They do not lose their introverted tendency to analyze problems deeply before they make decisions.

 

One client whom I've known for more than 20 years has made very significant personality changes in his move from introversion to extraversion.  But he has not dropped all his introverted effects.  That's wise, since there are important strengths to that aspect of personality.  A CIO for three different organizations, he recognized early on that he'd need to become much more knowledgeable about what was going on outside of himself.  Aware that he was highly reflective, often ignoring the ideas of others, he's worked for years to gain the competencies that enable him to develop ideas by discussion.  His change objectives were specifically extraverted consequences:  to create a motivational environment, to adjust his approach to decision making, and to learn to adapt to the styles of others in order to sell his organization’s services more effectively. 

 

My own experience of personality change was a long time coming, but the narrative has been highly useful to many of my introverted clients desirous of making change.  As a kid, I had a very active mind, always interested in my own internal world of ideas.  I rarely shared my ideas until they were fully formed.  By no stretch of the imagination did I have any sense, nor interest in collaborating in the full development of ideas.  Furthermore, I thought a lot before taking any action, even asking a girl out for a date.  I remember my dad asking me when I was going to invite that girl that I'd been talking about for months out for a date.  Because so much of my time was spent in my inner world of ideas, I did not learn for years how to speak in public, handle a team or engage in a highly interactive conversation.   That was just not an interest, thus I took no opportunity to practice those skills, much less ask for coaching.

 

Fifty years later I went to a high school reunion, walked into a crowd of nine people whom I knew from high school, but had not seen since graduation.  I took part in the conversation, even occasionally interrupting, asked questions and made my opinions known.  Twenty minutes into the conversation I was shocked when one of the women, Donna, stopped the group conversation and said, "Who are you?"  There was silence in the group.  I responded, "I'm Dan Erwin, the guy who sat next to you in typing and history class."  She came right back at me with, "I know that Dan Erwin, but I don't know you. The Dan Erwin I knew 50 years ago has no relation to the one standing in front me."  She was serious and I was really curious to know whether others thought the same thing, and if so, why.  Taking advantage of the situation, I asked whether each them held the same perspective.  One by one, I checked out the members of the group, trying to understand that conclusion.  Every single, last one said that I had no relation now to the guy they knew 50 years ago.  They saw me as withdrawn, shy, and non-communicative.  The truth was that at that time I had no reason to share my world with many people. 

 

The following week, I called a college roommate whom I had visited a couple years earlier while on a project in southern Illinois.  I told him about the experience and before I finished the story he started laughing.  Since I’m sometimes slow on the uptake, I wanted to know what was so funny.    "Of course, they're correct.  I barely knew you when you called.  This Dan Erwin has no relation to the old Dan Erwin.  You were a bit stuffy, pious and religious (that's an understatement), and revealed practically nothing about yourself or your thinking.”  I asked why he roomed with me that summer and he responded that since none of his friends were going to summer school he thought he could deal with me for eight weeks.  He did say that after eight weeks he “thought there might be something there,” but was also “shocked” when he first talked to me over the phone.

 

How did the change take place?

 

Over time, both my client CIO and I took consistent, sometimes daily actions that enabled us to become highly capable of the extraverted effects.  What's important to understand is that neither of us are who we once were.  That laser-like focus on development and the changing of behaviors resulted in a different personality.  Consistent, regular decisions to behave in certain ways can change your personality.

 

I can hear those who believe in the "real person" theory reinterpreting our stories and saying something to the effect that the real person was always there.  That notion is similar to the traditional perspective on innate intelligence.  It’s false.  Markus essentially draws the same conclusions about personality.  Intelligence changes are like personality changes.  They take awhile, but they're both possible. 

Change strategies

 

Personality change follows the research of Anders Ericsson and deliberate practice.  It includes five phases:

·     Crystallization of discontent

·     Extensive practice,  practice, practice

·     Mentoring and coaching

·     Adaptation to feedback

·     Integration of behaviors

 

Personality can be defined as a fairly dynamic, organized set of characteristics that uniquely influence one's cognitions, motivations and behaviors in various situations.  With that definition, both my client and I have come to think about people, decision-making, ideas and even behaviors differently than what originally characterized us.  That's personality change.  

How to Really Change Your Personality: From Introversion to Extraversion

I’ve been thinking an awful lot about the huge interest in my blog, Can You Really Change Your Personality?.  While in Detroit working on a couple major projects (there are still consulting opportunities in the Motor City!), it crossed my mind that I ought to explain how to change your personality.   BTW: Please forgive my week-long absence from blogging.  I’ve been up to my ears in those projects.

 

In this post I want to focus on one of the personality changes with which I’m most familiar: how to change from primarily an introvert to more of an extravert. 

 

As a general rule, business rewards the personality effects of both introverts and extraverts.  I've observed, however, that more introverts gravitate toward finance and technology, while more extraverted types gravitate toward marketing and sales.  But, just because you're introverted doesn't mean you shouldn't gravitate toward marketing and sales.  No reason also, why extraverts couldn't gravitate toward finance and technology.  Still, it’s clear that business rewards people skills, one of the major effects of the extraverted personality, more than any other skill.  That fact has been documented by research at the Dallas Fed, dating from 2003.

 

A caveat:  If you're satisfied with your introversion and not interested in becoming more extroverted, you can stop reading right here.  But if you've decided that you need to become more extraverted, read on.

 

High scoring extraverts are friendly, outgoing, assertive, energetic and optimistic.  Extraverts are gratified by what takes place outside their person.  The result is that many are focused on people skills and are better at them than introverts.  In contrast, introverts get enough stimulation from their own ideas, not what's going on outside of them.  Preferences become priorities.  However, contrary to the common perception, introverts don't suffer from shyness or social anxiety.   

Introversion and extraversion are nothing more than ingrained preferences, preferences that show up in relationships and decision making.  Carl Jung, the Swiss psychologist, says that everyone has both an extraverted and introverted side, with one being more dominant than the other.  

 

In my previous blog on personality, I listed four relatively stable personality characteristics: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience and conscientiousness.  (I missed agreeableness, per the correction of one of my readers.)  Introversion is not on that list of stable personality characteristics which suggests to me that it may be quite changeable.  Anybody got info on that subject?

 

Most of us have known people who are highly neurotic, and often show their anxieties in anger, depression, self-consciousness, impulsiveness or stress (not all of these at the same time).  And if, for example, you know someone who dealt with depression at a period in their life, you may have seen them learn how to handle, even conquer their depression with counseling and chemistry (drugs), and move the dial back on anxiety and depression.  That’s personality change.  Mike Wallace of CBS 60 Minutes suffered depression, but learned to deal with it successfully--and change that personality characteristic.  Change, as I said in my previous post, often comes about as the result of a crystallization of discontent.  That was true for Mike Wallace.

 

Personality change is supported by the research of Hazel Markus.  Stanford's Markus found that when the context is changed the possibilities a person faces spur him to find role models he’d like to become.  Those models  ignite motivation and drive us to personality change.  Driven to change, we gradually try on a different mask, and over time changes can take place. 

 

On a number of occasions I've seen ambitious people come to believe that their more introverted personality will need to undergo change if, for example, they're going to be able to work successfully with their clients.  As a result, over the years these introverted professionals focused on the activities of their own work and how other people do it.  They learned to develop ideas through discussion with others, rather than solely by their own reflection.  In short, they learn to pay a great deal of attention to the activities outside of themselves.  I also know quite a few that weren’t able or willing to make that change, often to their own detriment.

 

Some, in the change from introvert to extravert, actually get to the place where they like having people around.  For managers, this shows up in the focus upon other people's behaviors, figuring out how to work more successfully with groups, willingly putting their incomplete ideas on the table and working to achieve their ends through other people.  They do not lose their introverted tendency to analyze problems deeply before they make decisions.

 

One client whom I've known for more than 20 years has made very significant personality changes in his move from introversion to extraversion.  But he has not dropped all his introverted effects.  That's wise, since there are important strengths to that aspect of personality.  A CIO for three different organizations, he recognized early on that he'd need to become much more knowledgeable about what was going on outside of himself.  Aware that he was highly reflective, often ignoring the ideas of others, he's worked for years to gain the competencies that enable him to develop ideas by discussion.  His change objectives were specifically extraverted consequences:  to create a motivational environment, to adjust his approach to decision making, and to learn to adapt to the styles of others in order to sell his organization’s services more effectively. 

 

My own experience of personality change was a long time coming, but the narrative has been highly useful to many of my introverted clients desirous of making change.  As a kid, I had a very active mind, always interested in my own internal world of ideas.  I rarely shared my ideas until they were fully formed.  By no stretch of the imagination did I have any sense, nor interest in collaborating in the full development of ideas.  Furthermore, I thought a lot before taking any action, even asking a girl out for a date.  I remember my dad asking me when I was going to invite that girl that I'd been talking about for months out for a date.  Because so much of my time was spent in my inner world of ideas, I did not learn for years how to speak in public, handle a team or engage in a highly interactive conversation.   That was just not an interest, thus I took no opportunity to practice those skills, much less ask for coaching.

 

Fifty years later I went to a high school reunion, walked into a crowd of nine people whom I knew from high school, but had not seen since graduation.  I took part in the conversation, even occasionally interrupting, asked questions and made my opinions known.  Twenty minutes into the conversation I was shocked when one of the women, Donna, stopped the group conversation and said, "Who are you?"  There was silence in the group.  I responded, "I'm Dan Erwin, the guy who sat next to you in typing and history class."  She came right back at me with, "I know that Dan Erwin, but I don't know you. The Dan Erwin I knew 50 years ago has no relation to the one standing in front me."  She was serious and I was really curious to know whether others thought the same thing, and if so, why.  Taking advantage of the situation, I asked whether each them held the same perspective.  One by one, I checked out the members of the group, trying to understand that conclusion.  Every single, last one said that I had no relation now to the guy they knew 50 years ago.  They saw me as withdrawn, shy, and non-communicative.  The truth was that at that time I had no reason to share my world with many people. 

 

The following week, I called a college roommate whom I had visited a couple years earlier while on a project in southern Illinois.  I told him about the experience and before I finished the story he started laughing.  Since I’m sometimes slow on the uptake, I wanted to know what was so funny.    "Of course, they're correct.  I barely knew you when you called.  This Dan Erwin has no relation to the old Dan Erwin.  You were a bit stuffy, pious and religious (that's an understatement), and revealed practically nothing about yourself or your thinking.”  I asked why he roomed with me that summer and he responded that since none of his friends were going to summer school he thought he could deal with me for eight weeks.  He did say that after eight weeks he “thought there might be something there,” but was also “shocked” when he first talked to me over the phone.

 

How did the change take place?

 

Over time, both my client CIO and I took consistent, sometimes daily actions that enabled us to become highly capable of the extraverted effects.  What's important to understand is that neither of us are who we once were.  That laser-like focus on development and the changing of behaviors resulted in a different personality.  Consistent, regular decisions to behave in certain ways can change your personality.

 

I can hear those who believe in the "real person" theory reinterpreting our stories and saying something to the effect that the real person was always there.  That notion is similar to the traditional perspective on innate intelligence.  It’s false.  Markus essentially draws the same conclusions about personality.  Intelligence changes are like personality changes.  They take awhile, but they're both possible. 

Change strategies

 

Personality change follows the research of Anders Ericsson and deliberate practice.  It includes five phases:

·     Crystallization of discontent

·     Extensive practice,  practice, practice

·     Mentoring and coaching

·     Adaptation to feedback

·     Integration of behaviors

 

Personality can be defined as a fairly dynamic, organized set of characteristics that uniquely influence one's cognitions, motivations and behaviors in various situations.  With that definition, both my client and I have come to think about people, decision-making, ideas and even behaviors differently than what originally characterized us.  That's personality change.  

Quotation of the Week: Eli Broad, L.A. Philanthropist

Because of labor interests on the left and anti-tax folks on the extreme right, nothing gets done.

--Eli Broad, L.A. philanthropist commenting on the California dysfunction 

Broad's comments regarded the difficulty of making important political changes in California, and were a response to his gift of $100,000 to Proposition 14, one more attempt to deal with that state's election problems.

Reflecting on Broad's comment, I could help but think there's a lot that could be explained throughout the entire nation by this insight.  You certainly don't have to listen to the talking heads to understand the truism.  It continually amazes me how many are sucked into one side or the other and seemingly fail to ask what's really best for the entire nation and the community at large.  There seem to be fewer and fewer centrists in power. 

I've often mused over how much Governor Ventura of Minnesota, who was an embarrassment to me and plenty others, seemed to understand that issue.  He was an intriguing mix of fiscal conservative and social liberal.  There seem to be fewer and fewer of those animals around.  A few more would be very useful on a national basis.  Thinking about Ventura, I was periodically surprised by the good inside that skin.  

President Truman vs. MacArthur: President Obama vs. McChrystal?

Reading about General McChrystal's lack of political smarts, I could not but think of the dustup between Truman and MacArthur. The issues were largely different, but in one sense, identical.  In 1950--'51, the Korean war, though boldly begun, had degenerated into a bloody stalemate.  General MacArthur wanted to carry the war to China, and made his passionate recommendations very public, against the stated policy of the President.  MacArthur was the leading military figure of the nation.  As Walter Karp has written,

By any standard General MacArthur was an awesome and prodigious figure.  He possessed an uncommonly powerful intellect, one sharpened by vast erudition, intense meditation, and an extraordinary facility with words.  He was utterly fearless, unshakably self-possessed, and relentlessly willful.

The Truman administration had grown hesitant and timid, and the nation was convulsed by anti-communist ideologies.  When Washington reporters were called to the White House, they assumed that they would be hearing a declaration of war against China.  That was not the case.  Truman did not appear.  His press secretary merely handed out a brief statement.  The president had not adopted the war plans of the most famous general of the 20th century.  Instead, he had relieved MacArthur of all commands, "effective at once." 

A field day for the Republicans, it was eventually seen for what it actually was: a reaffirmation of civilian control of the military.  The Constitution does a unique thing in the annals of politics, something still not typical of all nations.  It places the military in the hands of the civilian government and makes the President the military chief. 

Right or wrong, McChrystal has overstepped the boundaries of his military role, challenging the civilian leadership with an article expressing his frustration with the Vice-President.  It is an issue of street smarts, but it's also an issue of who's in charge.

I'll be curious to see whether Obama terminates the General.  It would be an appropriate use of presidential power.

The Gift of My Father

I was surprised to read, this morning, that according the U.S. Census Bureau, fathers are the caregivers for about one-quarter of the nation’s preschoolers.  I easily identify with that situation, not because my father was ever jobless like so many today, but because he accepted the role of nurturer and caregiver.  My mother moved in and out of depression much of their marriage, so my father took on the parenting role.  For that, my brother and I are deeply grateful.

 

As I read Nick Kristof's column on his dad twice this morning, tears flowing down my face, I was moved that Kristof knew that with both a loving father and mother, he won the "lottery of life." 

 

Reading Kristof, I saw my own father, a marvelous, caring, fun-loving human.  Growing up in the tobacco country of Western Kentucky, he was full of the stories and the vitality of that culture and rural life in the ‘teens and ‘twenties.  His father died of the flu epidemic he was three, but his uncle and aunt lived nearby and helped him farm, raising his first tobacco crop at age 9.  I remember asking my dad about that crop, how much work there was to it and how profitable it was.  He said that a family could live three years on one summer's earnings in tobacco.  Growing tobacco is a lot of work, so I was curious as to how he was able to get so much done.  His uncle was always available, partly because he housed a tenant farmer, as much to work the tobacco crop as to make it possible to farm with his nephew.  I’m certain that influenced my father’s willingness to befriend and help most anyone.   

 

My dad lost part of his hand as a senior in high school.  Fearful of possible limitations, that same uncle and aunt sent him off to an accounting school in Louisville to provide a job future.  Like many people from that part of the country, my father and mother migrated to the Detroit area in the 1920s where Dad worked as an accountant at a Ford dealership until the recession closed the dealership down.  He drove a milk truck during much of the depression, finally getting a job at the original Ford assembly plant in Highland Park just before WW II.  I never thought of him as handicapped.  He could do anything with his hand, including tie a bow tie for Sunday church.  I remember that one of his friends came to help him build a concrete driveway.  The friend was surprised that my dad could do most anything in spite of his "handicap." 

 

My mom worked in the factory during WWII and though she had more than three years of college, never left the factory.  In the years during the war and the ten years following, plants often worked three shifts.  During school time, my brother and I were latch-key kids, for about a half-hour after school before my mother got home from work.  Dad got home about midnight during school months, and that meant he was around for breakfast with us.  He was first up and breakfast was often special.  Of course, just being around him was "special."

 

Though my dad was not especially religious, he was a churchman, largely because of the community of friends in our huge church.  An earthy sort of person, I remember that when I told him that I was going to seminary after college, he said that was just fine.  "But," he went on, "just don't take the church too seriously."  A wise recommendation, true for all institutions, religious or otherwise.  That attitude was deeply ingrained along with his sense of sanctified nonchalance  about life by early adulthood.  My dad was always there for his boys, filled with laughter at our antics.

 

My brother and I loved being around my dad, playing and working with him.  Detroit people were nuts about cars.  It seemed like every family in the '40s and '50s had at least two cars, with an older one in the garage that sons and fathers worked with for years, bringing it up to mint condition.  With both parents driving to work, we had a new car to ‘tool around in every year. The parking lot, across the street from our church filled quickly after services with guys looking over the new cars and lifting up the hoods to check out the latest engineering feats.  If you’re in Detroit in August, you know about the “Dream Cruise,” the parade up and down Woodward Avenue of mint conditioned cars from as early as the 1920s.  It’s a continuation of that love of the American auto.  

 

What my brother and I most remember about our father were the summers when school was out.  He worked "afternoons" in the summer so that he could be with us.  If it was raining, he'd drop me off at the local library for a couple hours.  I loved that place and the librarian always had time to point me to good books.  When it wasn't raining, oh boy!  It was off to the lake with my dad and my uncle.  We fished all the suburban lakes, bringing home perch and bass for a late lunch before he hurried off to his 3:30pm job at Ford.  If the fish weren't biting, off would come the clothes, and we were all skinny-dipping in the lake.  It never crossed my mind until now that he had not the slightest difficulty swimming, in spite of that stub of a hand.  When the fishing was poor, the trek was always the same.  We picked up a bag of hamburgers and fries from White Castle hamburgers and fries, located on Woodward near Eight Mile Road, a place still open, nearly 65 years later.  I wouldn't dream of that food now, but that was a lark then.  Summers were filled with more than that.  Tiger baseball games with my dad and his brother.  Sitting in the bleachers, listening to the teasing and the "baloney," between him and his brother.  Twice, he even took us to the horse races at the fairgrounds.  That was an experience. 

 

I don't remember Dad explaining much about life to us, other than through stories.  College for us was assumed, but he had no insights to share about the experience.  I remember nothing from him about dating and girls, except one statement about sex: "keep your zipper zipped," and that was the end of it.  We learned from his loving presence, his stories and his laughter.  I got paddled only once as a kid.  I don't remember the reason, but I can still see the tears in his eyes as he walked away from me. 

 

Shortly after I left for college, my dad and mother moved to Southfield,  just West of the monastery on Greenfield Road, between Nine and Ten Mile.   With more than an acre backing up to forested land, my parents had a large vegetable garden with dog pens at the back of the lot.  He had Beagles for rabbit hunting and Black 'n Tan Coon hounds for raccoon hunting in the fall and winter. 

 

He hunted in season and out, never paying the slightest attention to the hunting laws.  Each year he set aside at least $50 bucks for fines for hunting raccoon out of season.  The corn farmers were happy to have him hunt their lands, so he was never reported or fined unless a game warden stumbled on him.  Those dogs ran at nite, baying when they'd treed a raccoon.  He could tell which of the five or six dogs with him had "treed."  I knew he was very good at training dogs, and that hunters were always trying to buy one of his dogs.  I never realized just how good he was until I was in college, and was short a large sum for my final year  (I'd earned most of my way through college.)  When I called home, he said he'd sell a dog and that would take care of it.  To my shock, he sold one of his dogs for $1200--in 1958. 

 

In spite of being from the South, Dad was largely color-blind, unusually so for that time.  Some of his best "hunting buddies" were Blacks.  Although Southfield at that time was very middle/upper middle white, he lacked the typical Detroit Black prejudices.  Two occasions stick in my mind.  On one Saturday morning, he came home from hunting with one of his African-American friends, Slim.  My dad invited him in for lunch, hamburgers, etc.  Slim said he couldn't do that.  When my dad asked why, Slim said that Negroes didn't eat with Whites in their homes.  My dad was quick with his response.  "You don't eat with me, you don't hunt with me!"  Slim had lunch with us that day, and several other times as well.  I remember that though my mother could be difficult, that wasn't an occasion when her resistance surfaced.  On another occasion my dad, unthinkingly, invited Slim to go with him to Kentucky on a hunting trip.  Slim responded that his car automatically stopped in the middle of the bridge over the Ohio River.  It just couldn't go any further South.  (The Ohio was the separation between North and South.   In those days, Blacks left the South never to return.    My Dad hooted with laughter at Slim’s response.  They went to the Upper Peninsula instead.

 

Perhaps the most revealing experience with my father took place at his funeral in the 1970s.  Making plans for the funeral, my brother and I contacted a well-known church member and funeral home owner.  We suggested one of the nearby homes, a smaller residence for the funeral.  Casey, the funeral director responded that that wouldn't do.  It wasn't large enough.  We were wide-eyed when one of the largest funeral homes in Detroit was filled with people.  There wasn't a solemn moment.  Hours of noisy laughter and storytelling, just what my Dad would have wanted and enjoyed.   We learned more about Dad at that funeral than through all the years of life with him. 

 

Dad was not one for philosophizing, but we were mesmerized by the hundreds of stories.  What the stories gave me was a broad and warm sense of the parameters of life.  There were no tragedies, and practically no fairy tales of rescue.  They were all stories about the smarts, the wits and the strength of humans that could make possible a very rich life.  They taught the importance of friendship, the need for rules, but the willingness to break rules when they weren’t sensible.  Breaking rules wasn’t discussed, it was just done.  His stories were full of Kentucky smarts, pushing the envelope when necessary, and accessing an immense network of friends.  I often thought during the last Bush’s presidency, that my Dad’s friendships were never the excluding kind of good ol’ boy stuff that was so prevalent during those eight years. 

 

Though humble is not an adjective that crosses my mind about Dad, he was never presumptuous.  Caring and loving, quick to give his boys a kiss, even in their adulthood, he was always supportive.  Freedom was always a bit more important to him than responsibility.  Still, when it came to responsibility, he was always there for his sons.

Alexandra Levit's Book: New Job, New You

The headlines about jobs are pretty stark, already two years into this recession.  We’re learning that even when the market recovers, some jobs won’t return, that short term temps are going to become permanent temps, that companies are going to providing less and less in the way of health care and pensions, and that workers are going to get paid less for a lot more work. 

Faced with this tough marketplace you’d think that workers would be digging in and doing their best to hold on to their jobs—at least if they had one. 

Yet more and more people are looking at their careers and giving serious thought to career change.  As Rahm Emmanual puts it, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.”  This is just the crisis to get a lot of people thinking and acting about reinventing their careers.  But why do people reinvent themselves, and set out for a new career?  And perhaps even more important in today’s tough environment, how do people go about making a successful career change?

In a fascinating new book, New Job, New You: A Guide to Reinventing Yourself in a Bright New Career, Alexandra Levit, the well-known Wall Street Journal career writer and author of the highly successful, They Don’t Teach Corporate in College, answers those two big questions: why do people reinvent themselves, and how do they do it?

Levit takes an unusual, yet highly relevant approach to career change.  In her research she identified the seven basic motivations that drive people to make career change and sets up her book, chapter by chapter, with that information.  So, for example, there’s a chapter illuminated by people driven to make more money, a chapter given over to those who’ve successfully changed careers because of their desire for more family time, and still another chapter detailing the moves of people who change careers to fulfill their own personal passion.  And not surprisingly, there’s another chapter given to people who make changes because of personal setbacks.  What could be more relevant for today’s world?

Although Levit carves out a broad career niche, unlike most of the career change books, so often devoted to career change by managers and execs, Levit tells the stories of people of the younger generations, but from all walks of life.  So you’ll have the profile of the career change of 23 year-old, Kristin who goes from paralegal to advertising copywriter, as well as that of  Jon, a fellow obviously in his 40s who went from ribs maker to commodities trader to psychology professor.

Each chapter relates the career change stories of five different people, and closes with appropriately focused self-reflective questions to help the reader clarify his/her motivation to change.  For example, the chapter on setback motivations asks such clarifying questions as:

·     Have recent events in your life left you wondering why you chose your job in the first place?

·     Have frequent feelings of hopelessness drained your motivation at work?

·     Are you afraid to make a career change because things are already bad enough and you’re worried about making things worse?

Following the self-reflective questions, she offers a number of well thought-out practical recommendations for moving on your decision.   The resource toolkit offers a plethora of websites for the internet savvy, and books for those who like to feel paper in their hands.

Readers will find themselves in the cutting-edge stories of career change.  You can’t help but think, “oh yeah, that’s me,” “I can do that, too,” or, “gee, I never thought about that.”  This is the kind of book I’ll be recommending to anyone and everyone who has ever given thought to career change, and especially to those who wonder if making a change in today’s economy is a wise move.  New Job, New You is a great book written by the younger generation for the younger generations.

 

A Great Gift from Gen-Y

Sitting with a group of technology managers, discussing the difficulty of working with their internal clients, one member of the group was quick to point out a certain client who was a very difficult "control freak."   I asked the tech manager to explain what she meant.  She followed up with a painful soliloquy in great detail analyzing the client, but again labelling him as a control freak. Two other members of the team also had worked with the client, and were nodding their heads.  Actually, I was curious to know whether others might come up with different interpretations.  But no, all three Boomers were in agreement with that single interpretation of the client.

Drawing inferences, like those tech managers, is fraught with difficulty.  One of the important truths I've learned, especially from my friends in statistics, is that inference creation is a lot tougher than most want to believe.  When it comes to human behavior, unless I have a track record of relations with one person, I'm unwilling to draw a single inference about most anyone. 

Single inferences as interpretations of behavior are what Carol Dweck calls "fixed attributes."  Fixed attributes can be thought of as stereotypes.  The real difficulty with fixed attributes which often come up in performance appraisals is that they simply don't lend themselves to learning or coaching.  Significantly, they're just one version of the truth. Here's a question you can always apply to them: how else can you interpret that person's behavior?  Rarely do behaviors or events have only one possible interpretation. 

While watching the news about the oil spill the other day, the question being asked was who to blame for this disaster.  The question was phrased to mean that one single person or organization would be at fault.  I chuckled, remembering a historical comment from Thomas Hart Benton, one of the first U.S. senators from Missouri, elected in 1820.  In referring to a colleague, he responded:  He has a bad case of the simples.  There's usually a lot more going on in a situation than is obvious.  Events don't lend themselves to simple interpretation.  So I played a game with myself regarding the oil spill.  What or who were all the possibilities for blame?  BP?  Halliburton?  Transoceanic Drilling? US Minerals and Mining? Louisiana's hell bent need to get tax money from big oil? Lack of education for the drilling workers?  Lack of thoughtful drilling protocols?  A bad case of the simples won't work for the Gulf disaster.  Nor will it work for many situations of importance.

After reading Tammy Erickson's fascinating and insightful Harvard Blog on Multiple Truths, I have still better insight regarding how different generations interpret events.  There are differences among the generations in how they go about interpreting events and . . . people. The Boomer Mindset is very willing to blieve that situations can be interpreted from one perspective.  In contrast, the younger generations (X and Y) are much less likely to imagine that there is one correct answer or a single authority. 

Why is that?  Their experiences of surfing the Internet, says Erickson, have given them a better sense of the way situations can morph and interpreted differently, but not less correctly, by different reporters.

Bingo!  That was a Gen-X and especially Gen-Y characteristic that immediately resounded.  I'd seen that again and again in team settings, but hadn't put it together.  As Erickson writes: No account represents absolute truth.  All reporting is, by definition, a retelling of the story, a conscious selection of facts to include, a decision to omit details considered extraneous or unnecessary. In most instances, I believe this retelling is done with a sincere attempt to provide a straightforward account, but it's nonetheless shaped through the writer's lens, based on the reporter's sense of what will be important, interesting, and relevant to the intended audience.

All of us have an infinite capacity for rationalizing reality to fit our personal ideas.  It should be painfully obvious that there are multiple perspectives and versions of the truth.  Interpreting them wisely is our responsibility.  One of the reasons I make interacting with all the generations a high priority is that I can always count on gaining different perspectives.  Interpreting them becomes my problem, but also my good fortune.

Sex in the City or Sex in the Workplace?

The research has been around for a long time.  It has to do with our looks as members of the human race.  Most by now know that a large majority of U.S. presidents were taller than average.  The same is true for CEO's.  On average, they're taller too.

But the issue is more than height.  It's also about looks.  Good looks, and, to be politically correct, less attractive looks.

We live in a looks-based culture.  It's expected in the movies, and, I hope, obvious to most.  You know.  You can't see 40-year-old Sarah Jessica Parker without wanting to feed her a well-buttered croissant.  But have you seen her husband recently?  He's got an expanding waistline that doesn't seem to affect his roles.

But here's the research finding, in legal terms from an article, Our Beauty Bias Is Unfair, by Dahlia Lithwick in Newsweek:  The less attractive you are, the more likely you are to receive a longer prison sentence, a lower damage award and . . . a lower salary.

I assume that the American cultural priorities have changed little over the past 25 years.  That being the case, here are the top three arranged in order of most importance with #1 as the most important:

1. Beauty (handsomeness for males)
2. Money (Notice.  Money is not the topmost value.)
3. Intelligence.

In the earlier years of my coaching business, there were a few occasions in which I was hired to help a guy dress better: polish shoes, laundered all-cotton shirts, stylish ties without food stains, neatly cut hair, etc.  That's been a long time since.  But people still look.  Sometimes it's obvious to them.  But even when it's not obvious to the looker, the antenna automatically pick up on attractiveness or the lack of it, including dress.

But annoyed or not by this information, I'd suggest that you not ignore reality.  I recommend that you dress just slightly better than the average in your group.  The payoff?  You'll get a bit more attention from the boss which just may translate to better opportunities.

Here's how I handle the issue.  Whenever I get a new client in a new firm, I always ask some details about the dress code.  Consultants, like anyone else, can get over-dressed or underdressed for the workplace.

And if you think dress is not obvious, guess again.  On several occasions I've been hit on by a . . . well, what do you call them today?  Hooker?  As a result of the last experience, I had the good fortune to get really educated by a professional, the concierge attendant at the Marriott outside Richmond, VA.  I'd gone for dinner to a nearby mall, after a consulting gig.  The restaurant opened to the outdoor mall area, and a hooker strolled up and engaged me in conversation before I realized . . . .

I'd changed after consulting with a CEO and was wearing old Lev's and a comfortable, slightly worn sport shirt.  I was so surprised, that I stopped by the concierge room when I got back to the Marriott to talk to an obviously astute African-American in her sixties for an explanation.  Which mall she asked.  It was the upscale one.  "Oh honey, no guy your age without money is going to be there."  But she didn't stop the education process.  "It's your leather belt.  You didn't buy that for $25.  And those shoes.  They're Italian."  But most of all, she said, "That haircut."  I interrupted her and asked what hair?  "Well, she went on.  However little hair you have, it's been styled, not cut."  She was so accurate that I was in a state of shock.  Then she ended the conversation with a bit of fun.  "Honey.  If I was 25 years-old again, I'd have hit on you too."

Next question.  Why am I calling your attention to this information?  Workmates and bosses notice your appearance.  It may not immediately register, but if you're outside the norms, you'll really get noticed and it won't be to your advantage.  That's true for both males and females.  So watch your package.

Transferring from Community College to Top University Level

For many college students, the cost of a four-year university degree and living away from home may place an impossible barrier in front of them.  Now, there's a way around that problem. 

More than one-third of the recent grads of Virginia's four-year public colleges began in community colleges, and the rate in Maryland is even higher.  A Post article says that an accord has been reached between universities and community colleges that guarantees admission to applicants who complete certain courses with good grades.  The illustration given is that of a woman who graduated from a community college and went on to UVA, one of the two or three top public schools in the nation. 

There are a lot of pluses for those universities.  The university graduation rate for community college students is identical to that of others.  Furthermore, they add to student diversity.  At UVA transfer students were three times as likely as freshmen to come from low-income homes.

FYI: Many Midwesterners, perhaps because of the Big 10 schools, are unaware of the clout of the three top public schools.  As a former college prof, consulting to upper-middle class execs who wanted info on schools for their kids, I was often asked about schools.  In terms of undergrad student quality, three public schools always--and I really mean "always"--led the pack: University of Michigan (Ann Arbor), University of California (Berkeley), and the University of Virginia (Charlottesville). In Virginia, top community college students can transfer to UVA after their two years of "university prep."  Not too shabby. 

The Post article said that over the past five years, 23 community colleges in Virgina have reached accords with all four-year colleges and universities for transfer admissions.  In recent years, two year schools tended to be more oriented to vo-tech classes than university prep, but that's changing.  Maryland higher-ed leaders are rolling out new two-year degrees, accepted at every public four-year college.  An online database gives community college students the transfer value of every course. 

The article also indicated that several other states are moving to an associate degree that guarantees admission to the public university.  California, for example, is considering a program for its State University system.

Historically, this is a return to the roots of the community college system.  My wife graduated from a "junior college" where she took the first two years of liberal arts, then went on to a top college for her bachelor's.  At that time, the so-called "junior college" offered nothing in vo-tech courses. 

The good news is that 26 states now clearly define what students need to transfer from the community college to the public university.  And, the Obama administration is putting a lot of money into community college programs.  As the article notes, taxpayers like the idea too.  Two-year colleges receive a small fraction of the money per-student in contrast to research universities which also provide dorms, etc.