Dan Erwin

Quotation of the Week: Al Pacino

Living in the Upper Midwest, heavily populated by Northern Europeans, and now some obvious Africans, I miss the melting pot of Detroit (of course, it never melted).  It was Armenians, Italians, Rumanians, Greeks, Jews, Southern Blacks and Hillbillies (my family).  Today's Times had an interview of that Italian, Al Pacino, who in my mind, along with Jack Nicholson, Robert DeNiro and Meryl Street, is one of the most fascinating movie stars alive.  All four of them can play different cultures so effectively that it's tough to believe they don't belong to their story.  So I had to laugh at this line from Pacino--that Sicilian--about his current role as Shakespeare's Shylock in The Merchant of Venice.

When asked about his role his role as the Jewish Shylock, the reporter wanted to know whether he had ever felt Jewish.  His response:

What is a Sicilian but an Italian Jew?  That's what I am.  I did grow up in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood.  There weren't many Italians.  I remember acting in a school play about the melting pot when I was very little.  There was a great big pot onstage.  On the other side of the pot was a little girl who had dark hair, and she and I were representing the Italians.  And I thought: Is that what an Italian looked like? 

Last year I walked out of the Guthrie's presentation of The Merchant wondering about Shakespeare's objective and that ever-present statement about "a pound of flesh."  It is an ugly phrase originating with Shakespeare in his 1596 play, The Merchant of Venice. Shylock, the Jewish money lender, has made a deal with Antonio that allows Shylock to cut off a pound of Antonio's flesh if Antonio defaults on a loan he took from Shylock. Although there's an attempt to whitewash Shakespeare because of his brilliance, in this instance I decided it was pure anti-Semitism.

What's important about that discussion is how certain characteristics attach themselves to a given culture.  As I occasionally remind my friends, there are plenty of historical reasons that Jews became financiers.  The Catholic Church of the Middle Ages wouldn't permit money lending for interest (usury), but the Catholic monarchs were always quick to turn to the Jews to finance their wars.  Thus, the Rothschilds, etc., etc., etc. There's plenty of guilt to spread around.

And, there are plenty reasons that my family members were issued the pjorative "hillbilly."  Although even my grandmother born in the 1880's in Arkansas had a year or two of college--wealthy store owning family--the accent she gave us put us in the category of "hillbilly."  Most of us in the immediate family from western Kentucky would resist the appellation "redneck."  Although based on the current status of Kentucky politics, I suspect that the appellation "redneck" is appropriate (I just couldn't resist that comment).

Well, we Americans are a motley crew, mongrels all--and like Al Pacino I've always been intrigued by the whole lot of us. I'm a former Baptist Seminary professor who taught in a Roman Catholic seminary (Benedictine), who grew up with beloved Jews, and who's just as intrigued by the Moslems at the local coffee shop.  What fun all this noise can be!  As Pacino suggests by his statement, we all share a lot more than we differ.

"Don't Follow the Money"

Just how much impact does money have on an election? There's been a lot thrown around for this election.  I weighed in on the Supreme Court's recent money fiasco in Mocking the Supreme Court decision on election finance.  However, David Brook's analysis of campaign spending and its influence on elections brings a different perspective on the role of money.  Brooks' research found that Democrats, most of whom are incumbents have been "raising and spending far more than the Republicans."  Despite their largesse, the Democrats have been sinking in the polls.  Brooks' conclusion is that the advertisement buys just don't make that much difference.

Political scientists have studied campaign spending for years, Brooks says, and found that campaign spending has no outsize role on the election--in spite of what candidates, the consultants and the political press imagine.

There are numerous situations in which money seems to have made no impact whatsoever.  As Brooks points out, when Phil Gramm and John Connally ran for president, money just didn't make much difference.  In 2006, Republican incumbents raised over $100 million more than Democrats, but still lost the election.  Today's NYTimes has an article about Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina's financial investment.  Whitman and Fiorina have put in far more money than their Democratic rivals, yet it seems to no avail.  In fact, Whitman with all her billions is running 10 points behind Jerry Brown.  She will be the third wealthy candidate to lose a major California election.  Fiorina is still a bit behind Ms. Boxer.

The most significant media coverage is about the the skyrocketing spending of independent groups.  Although Democratic incumbents have raised far more than the their rivals, the spending of independent groups for Republicans far outweighs the Democratic groups.  Thanks to the Supreme Court. 

Will Karl Rove and all the independent monies reshape the election?  I think yes.  Brooks says no.  Should I trust Brooks' research?

So what do you do when a writers's research findings differ from your gut?  Of course, if it's unimportant, you probably ignore the research.  But elections are important to me.  When the summary of research is a rejection of my gut, my intuition and my emotions--and it's important--I look for more research and another expert.  Fortunately, I happen to know another expert, Dr. Phil Shively of the University of Minnesota, who is an expert on US voter behavior and finances. 

Here's what Shively had to say about Brooks' rsearch:  "Brooks had it right.  Generally speaking, beyond some threshold level huge additional amounts of money for a campaign don't make that much difference.  Just do a thought experiment--how much effect do you think the last Michelle Bachman ad you saw had on you?"  My response to his question?  Zip. Nada. Absolutely no effect whatsover.  I still wouldn't vote for her if I lived in her district--which I don't.  So with both Brooks and Shively in agreement, I've learned something.  I was wrong about the Supreme Court's decision.  The money from independent sources won't impact an election significantly.

But Shively went on to say something even more important about the money chasing.  "The really corrosive effect of the big spending, I think, is the effect it has on public oficials.  They can't resist raising as much money as possible, just in case it does make a difference.  And that means that they spend much of their time in office chasing donations, and feel beholden to those who have given."  So in the final analysis, that's the real issue of importance.

Well, what do you think?  How do you respond to the research? 

Six Tips for Managing Your Stress in a Stress-Filled Environment

One of my international readers from a Middle East nation sent me a very gracious thank you for my blogging.  A Gen-Yer with an MBA and out of school barely three years, he asked me a very important question: I feel like I'm over-stressed all the time.  What can I do to manage my stress better?  First of all, it's not just Gen-Yers who are over-stressed.  I meet people from all walks of life and all the generations who tell me they're overstressed.  Although I have a lot of background in stress management and have taught the subject, even I got caught up in the throes of painful stress this year.  I described it in recent blog: Three questions for dealing with serious personal loss.

First, some stress background.  Be aware that some stress can enhance performance, whether we're saddled with a new project, presenting to the CEO, arguing in front of a jury, participating in a triathlon or negotiating the terms of a business deal.  That adrenalin surge, triggered by some situations, increases our stress and enables us to focus better, become more efficient and perform at the top of our game.

Yet we also know that some stress undermines our performance.  We can't concentrate, creativity fizzles out, frustration sets in and we become forgetful, moody and irritable. 

So what does stress do to us?  Well, one thing is that it activates the fight-or-flight responses: our heart rate and blood pressure go up and hormones, especially adrenalin, can take over.  As I said, some stress can be very positive.  But too much means that all the benefits disappear and we start to go downhill. 

Learn to identify your personal stress-response patterns so you can take steps to intervene.  Pay attention to your mood.  Getting discouraged, and excitement gone?  Check your stamina.  Feel like you're running out of steam--and hitting a brick wall?  Listen to your body.  Headache?  Back pain?  Dizziness?  Or a racing pulse?

I assume that most of us don't have to deal with chronic stress which can result in really serious problems, but that in the new economy most of us have to deal with more "occasional" stess--task and project related stress.

Here are six tips for managing your stress successfully in a stress-filled environment.

1. Prioritize your tasks on a daily and weekly basis.  It takes time to learn how to prioritize effectively, and it usually requires input from your boss and your colleagues to do a good job.  But I'd suggest that one of the most basic ways to start the process is to figure out what you're NOT going to do today.  Do that first thing in the morning, and just set those things aside for another time--or never.
2. Do what you most hate first thing in the morning--or as soon as possible.  I learned this from a wise client years ago, and I've found that it's a wonderful stress releaser.  I can mull and fret over something for hours, lowering my efficiency and wasting time if I don't get the thing done that I most hate to do.  And all of us have what I call shit-jobs--or grunt jobs--sometimes every day.
3. Put an end to thinking in worst-case scenarios.  We can get emotionally worn down, fatigued and terribly discouraged by spending a lot of time worrying about them.  Set them aside.  Practice the toilet mentality--out of sight, out of mind.  Start your day by playing out scenarios in your brain that are in your own best interest.  There is plenty of useful research that supports the role of "thinking positive" about our tasks.  Optimism can be learned.
4. Get enough sleep.  I think it was the philosopher Voltaire who once said, "I've got so much to do that I've got to take a nap."  In today's 24/7 work world a full night's rest may be an impossible dream.  Still, whenever possible, routinize your sleep.  Go to sleep at the same time every nite, and watch your long nites.  If you're still dating, an overnite often kills off two-to three days, leaving you satiated and happy, but profoundly fatigued.  As one of my young friends puts it, dating requires a lot of energy.  He's right.  Plan it!  Manage your hormones. 
5. Eat a balanced diet.  There's a reason that a lot of Greeks live to old age.  It's their Mediterranean diet.  Fruits, vegetables and meat merely as an accompaniment to the meal rather than the main entre.  Fish and chicken can be a major part of the diet as long as they're not deep fried.  Stay away from a lot of grilling.  Heavy beef and pork are ultimate killers.  I've always loved lamb--and it's very low in animal fat.  You might try bison.  Many grocers are beginning to carry it regularly.  It's tasty and very low fat.  If you're Middle Eastern, goat is also very low fat.  My undergrad college served goat for occasional meals, and I developed a taste for it.  And watch the portions of food.
6. And finally, regular exercise.  There's a reason you feel refreshed after a run or a long walk.  More brain neurons are being created.  The research says a minimum of three sessions of thirty-minute exercise per week.  Do it even when you're tired.  If I'm worn out and emotionally fatigued, the sofa and TV are a disaster.  I simply put my butt into gear and go exercise, even if I'm dragging.  I always feel better as  result.

The fundamentals of stress management are nutrition, exercise and sleep.  Don't ignore them.  After that, there are a lot of tips out there.

Bob Sutton's "Good Boss, Bad Boss"

Bob Sutton’s new book, Good Boss, Bad Boss, is a wonderful book for both managers and their people.  It is fact-and research-based, filled with fascinating stories and interactions with managers from all over the planet, and loaded with very, very useful advice.  On top of all that, it’s exceptionally readable. 

Sutton makes it clear that his basic purpose is to describe what a good boss looks like.  His research and anecdotes intentionally compare “better versus worse” behaviors in order to make the nuances of good managing crystal clear. Bob writes so that you can turn knowledge into practice and develop the needed skills that will make becoming a good boss second nature.    

Chapter one sets up the book, emphasizing why bosses matter, providing numerous examples and the research to support the boss’s importance.  Summarizing Gallup research, for example, Sutton reveals that in a survey of over 100,000 employees in more than 2,500 diverse businesses, “managers trump companies.”     Not only is your boss more important than the quality of your company in impacting performance, but a Swedish study even shows that people with the best bosses “suffered fewer heart attacks than those with bad bosses.”  Throughout the chapter, Bob Sutton presents the necessary ideas to get you to think seriously about your taken-for-granted assumptions about the differences between good and bad bosses.  He also provides some simple notions you can use to guide your reading—and digesting--of the book. 

The major portion of the book, Section II, is given over to what the best bosses do, and includes taking control, striving to be wise, recruiting people with “connective talents,” tying the “knowing-doing gap” together, protecting people, implementing tough decisions, demonstrating needed humility and “squelching your inner jerk.”  

Bob Sutton, a Stanford Business School prof, is almost unique in that he has a foot in two camps: academia and the business world and exceptional in both.  Unusual?  Very.  I’ve got nearly 3,000 business books in my library and when I go through them, they either smell of the ivory tower too much, or are filled with advice from an exec’s own successes.  I don’t trust either.  I’ve learned that the bulk of business advice doesn’t travel.  You can’t apply what one great leader says about his company to your company and your organization and your life.  And you can start on that with Jack Welch. (I must confess that I snickered when a few years ago Jack Welch, rather defensively, wrote that he never told anyone his advice would travel.)  On the other side of the matter, a great deal of academic writers, including many of those in business schools around the world, are too conceptual for their advice to be useful.  Often, it’s just not practical--and it won’t travel either.  Peter Senge, the really brilliant MIT academic, admitted the same—openly--in a workshop.  Sutton, in contrast, is both highly practical and fact-based.  As a result, I’ve plagiarized the hell out of some of his advice and my clients love it.  They use it.  They tell me it works.  And they always want more of his stuff.  And he’s a writer, I’ve learned, that a lot of non-reading business types will read.  His stuff really travels.  And that’s the best test for a business writer. 

I’ve also got a very important warning.  As you work through Good Boss, Bad Boss, you’re going to find yourself tempted to think that what Sutton says is obvious and just common sense.  Be very careful when that conclusion crosses your gray matter.  My experience tells me that it’s wrong most of the time.  And it’s not just that common sense is not so common, it’s more than that.   Take, for example, Sutton’s fact-based insight that “people quit bad bosses, not organizations.”  That’s obvious, you might think.  But the fact of the matter is that it’s neither obvious, nor common sense, nor even useful information until Sutton calls your attention to it.  Why do I say that?  I’ve found again and again that that the notion that people quit bad bosses, not organizations is just not on an exec’s radar screen.  As a result, most execs put up with bad bosses that are doing serious damage to their organization for a long, long time.  They can lose five to ten good people before they finally realize that their subordinate, that boss, is doing serious damage, and finally, they dump that bad boss.  So throughout the book when you’re tempted to think Sutton’s conclusions are merely obvious--and skip over them--be very careful. 

Last, each chapter has at least one list of tips, tricks, commandments, or recommendations that are loaded with straightforward, practical steps to becoming a better boss and employee.  Throughout the entire book is the idea that you’re creating your own path to becoming a better boss.  As Bob entitles that last chapter, It’s All About You.  And although he’s given illustration after illustration of people who become better bosses, in his last chapter he pulls together the most important themes from his book, even prioritizes them for you.  He closes with two acid tests for great bosses.  I’ll let you buy Bob’s book and read up on them for yourself. 

"The Social Network," Zuckerberg, Brooks and Pfeffer

Everybody and his brother have written a review of The Social Network, Scott Rudin and Aaron Sorkin's blockbuster movie.  I don't intend to do that, except to say that you should see it.  Instead, after skimming through a dozen or more reviews, two are of exceptional value and should be thoroughly digested.  David Brooks takes a macro-cultural-psychological perspective on the film, while Jeff Pfeffer takes a very practical and highly useful approach through the lens of successful leadership.

First,  David Brooks, in The Facebook Searchers, provides a useful bit of history and debunks the old Harvard WASP notion, while suggesting that the movie is very good psychology.  He calls the reader's attention to our delight in "mental superheroism," and points out quite accurately that success is a lot more than just smarts.  But success is also a relentless desire to be the best, and as Brooks says, "the Zuckerberg character is as elitist as the old Harvardians, just on different grounds."  Like Pfeffer, Brooks emphasizes that the Zuckerberg character needs more than a little adult supervision.  What I deeply appreciate is the attention to the fact that humans all have character gaps.  Cable and the pop magazines too often present a simplistic good/bad attitude to humans, that simply won't jive with reality.  Nuance is the nature of the human condition and once we get over the movies it's time we get on to that recognition.  Of course, the past White House denizen stated rather clearly that he didn't "do nuance," endearing himself to the hoi polloi.  And we all have suffered as a result.

Jeff Pfeffers blog, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Villain or Hero?, addresses a related, very important question: who succeeds in business?  He puts it all on the table with the question of whether it's possible to succeed without being a bit of an asshole.  Based on my experience, Pfeffer is right on: "despite what you have probably read in the leadership literature, the answer to the question is almost certainly 'no.'"  The people who get things done are not always nice. Period.  End of statement. 

With my own background in theology, psych and communication, I have long been troubled and frustrated by the widespread notion that people should always be nice.  I decided long ago in raising our children, teaching and consulting, that I'd like to be good (most of the time), but that I can't afford to be a saint.  I'd not get anything done, and we'd have been in the poorhouse.  Eyes have rolled on more than one occasion when I revealed that I didn't really raise our daughters to be nice, but to make a contribution to a needy world.  These "nice," "good" notions have a long history in pop psychology and religion in general.  You'll find that they've infiltrated our highly churched, perfectionistic American religious world, so it's no surprise that it takes two smart Jews to write a good review.  (You should know that I was an ordained christian minister.)

Pfeffer is especially useful, because he challenges the human leaning to oversimplified judgments.  Oversimplified judgments have three failings:

    --they retard learning

    --they deceive us

    --they resist useful revision

Well, I've already stolen too much of Brooks and Pfeffer's insights, but there's a lot more to be digested in their responses to the film.

 

How I've Learned to Laugh at Alzheimer's

The latest issue of Time has a major section on Alzheimer's, its effects and profound misery.  Maria Shriver has a family history of Alzheimer's and tomorrow, Sunday the 17th, she'll break her silence even more to discuss with Christiane Amanpour how Alzheimer's effect family members. 

Not all experiences of Alzheimer's are sad.  Over the last few months my daughters and I have learned to laugh at some of the effects of Alzheimer's on my wife and their mother.  We decided a long time ago that when the occasion was pure nonsense and startling we were going to laugh.  Although I still walk away from her with a tear in my eye, there are other times that as soon as I leave the residence I laugh out loud, get on the phone and let my daughters laugh with me.

On three occasions, now, it's been part of a morning or evening phone conversation.  Typically, I phone my wife in the morning when before she goes for breakfast and then in the evening when before she goes to bed.  We'll talk about nothing . . .the weather, the bagel she and I shared one day, or the cranberry oatmeal cookie.  Once in a while, when D'Amico happens to have its famous key lime crostata, I grab two and go over to the residence for desert.  She loves the crostata, but more, she loves eating it with me.  They are such little things, but seemingly so very important.  So I talk about them on the phone. 

Then, toward the end of the phone conversation, comes this from my wife.  "I want to thank you for calling me.  It's so very nice.  Would you tell your wife how much I appreciate her sharing you with me and how very kind she is?  Sometime, I'd like to thank her.  Tell her it's very kind of her to let you spend time talking to me." 

I used to tell her that she's my wife, but that doesn't work anymore.  Now I just say, "I'll be sure to tell her." Then I hang up the phone and laugh out loud, typically calling one of my daughters and telling them that she's done it again.  We all laugh.  It's their mom and my wife.

On several occasions, unsolicited, people have told me how very "kind" my wife was and how "kind" they remember her being.  It's strange.  Although I know that she's a kind person, I've never thought of her that way.  I always admired her for her intellectual smarts, her love of music, love of me, her children and grandchildren, and ability to teach children, no matter the situation.

It's amazing how even a disease like Alzheimer's can reveal something about a person that you've missed, in spite of the fact that others noticed it.  But I know eventually even those conversations will come to an end.

Quotation of the Week: Tony Blair

"The single hardest thing for a practicing politician to understand is that most people, most of the time, don't give politics a first thought all day long."  Their days are spent "worrying about the kids, the parents, the mortgage, the boss, their friends, their weight, their health, sex and rock 'n roll."

    Prime Minister, Tony Blair

In a review of his recent book, Tony Blair weighs in on the most difficult thing for practicing politicans to understand.  His comment explains why so few know little about the stimulus program, the health care program or most any other complex policy matter.  The downside, of course, is that much of the time we make important decisions in our voting with too little information to draw smart conclusions.  But in an economy like this, it's no wonder that most concerns circle around our jobs and our finances. 

Dan Pink on When "I Do" Becomes "I Don't"

In a recent blog, Dan Pink surfaces fascinating research on marriage.  The research reveals that for the first time in U.S. history the number of young adults (those between 25 and 34) who have never been married exceeds the number of those who are married.  At first glance you might give that demographic a "ho hum," but Pink suggests a number of highly significant possible implications in economics, politics, culture and business.   

I don't normally think much about late marriages, much less the percentage of non-married in the younger generation.  In fact, there's plenty of research out there that suggests that marriage earlier than the late twenties may just be too early for most.  That's especially true when in today's economy it takes a college degree and even a graduate degree to make a decent living and educate kids that might come from that marriage.  One of my long term friends, a practicing psychologist, has suggested that it's a rare person who's actually prepared for marriage before he or she reaches the magic age of 27.  Yet I do believe that Pink is onto something of much importance. 

I'm very curious about what the rest of you think.  Is there a lot more to the marriage demographics than we might think?  And, if you're a Gen-Yer, what do you think about Dan Pink's argument?

So here's what Pink has to say about the issue: 

"I don't believe that demographics are destiny necessarily--but these numbers do qualify for what I call a BDD, a Big Demographic Deal.  The implications are potentially huge--in economics, culture, politics, and business."  Read more . . .

NYTimes' David Brooks on Rahm Emanuel

David Brooks, as most of you know, takes a libertarian perspective to his politics, and on Friday nites he represents the Republican perspective on PBS' Newshour.  You can always count on Brooks to be a straightshooter, not always right in his analyses (my perspective), but always thoughtful and thorough.  He's very much the Chicago grad, and my favorite commentator and opinion writer.  I lke Douthat, Krugman and occasionally Friedman.  But Brooks. . . !!  Brooks is right of center, and typically, I'm left of center, but not very far left.  I've been known to vote for Republicans, though not recently.  But Brooks is a wise Republican, thoughtful, balanced, unwilling to get his shorts in a knot over Fox News idiocies, and able to pull out the fundamentals and assumptions surrounding most any political or cultural issue.

Now.  I hope all that input will support my analysis of Brooks' analysis of Rahm Emmanuel.  Emanuel, as most of you know is a real character, a Chicago ethnic, par excellence.  I've always found him fascinating, hilarious and occasionally delightfully obscene.  So the first article I read in the NYTimes today was Brooks' commentary on Emanuel, entitled The Soft Side.  As Brooks writes, everyone has an image of Rahm Emanuel: profanity-spewing political street fighter, the guy who sent a dead fish to a political opponent, an abrasive pit bull, etc., etc..

But this Op-Ed is one I hope millions read.  It's what a great writer looks like when he writes great stuff.  He takes one's full humanity into his perspective.  Kudos to Brooks.  I hope you read the entire article, so here are the last three sentences to pique your interest:

I interview a lot of politicians.  Rahm is unique.  Flawed like all of us, he is a full human being, rich and fertile from the inside out.

Five Ways to Screw Up a Job Change

Since people are beginning to make a job change, have started looking for a different position, or are giving serious thought to moving to another company, now's the time to call your attention to a superb HBR article on "bungling" a job change.

The article, written by Boris Groysberg and Robin Abrahams, reminds us that the average baby boomer will switch jobs 10 times according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (Gen-Y, 12 to 15 times, or more). It also calls attention to the fact that the worker as free agent will be a reality regardless of economic conditions--all of which means it's incumbent upon us to take greater control of our own careers.  And since there are times when most of us have to accept a less-than-perfect fit for financial reasons, it's very important to remember that a job is never just a job.  It's your career.

Here is a quick summary of the five ways to bungle a job change:

Mistake 1.  Not doing enough research.  Included in that subject are failure to do homework on the job-market realities (don't be unrealistic), pay attention to the firm's stability and market poisiton, consider the cultural fit and don't assume that the job description actually fits the role.

Mistake 2.  Leaving for money.  Far too many think the opportunity for advancement and more money are the real issue.  As a result, they ignore the important core information surrounding the job.  You might want to check out my article on money as motivator.

Mistake 3.  Going "from" rather than "to."  When you're really unhappy, you'll just want out.  That can result in an even worse situation unless you do your homework before you accept that new position.

Mistake 4.  Overestimating yourself.  You're not God's gift to the universe, however competent you may be.  As a general rule most of us overestimate our contributions and our worth, ignoring the organization's contributions and processes.  Get real.

Mistake 5.  Thinking short term.  Thinking short term feeds into all the other four mistakes.  If, for example all you want is "out," you're liable to ignore your career needs, fail to do due diligence on the new job, and . . .   You get the picture.

FYI: For my money, Boris Groysberg is one of the best business researchers in org behavior.  Watch for his articles in the Harvard Business Review.  And if you occasionally read relevant business research, you can't beat his stuff.  You can get the list of his research here:   Groysberg