Dan Erwin

“Setting” Boundaries Versus “Negotiating” Boundaries

Is there a substantial difference? Or are they just two words for the same thing? And does it really matter? Prior to the 1950s, they would have been just two words for the same thing. That is, if anyone ever used the term “negotiating” boundaries. The practice of “negotiating” boundaries comes primarily out of the 1980s with the flattening of business hierarchies and the strong orientation to women’s rights. With the exception of sales negotiation, it was rare to talk about negotiating relationships until the mid-1980s. And since then there has been tons of research and some training solely in the practice of negotiating interpersonal boundaries. In simple terms, setting boundaries is one individual determining boundaries for others. Negotiating boundaries is two or more creating a workable agreement on the boundaries between them.

So, there’s a significant difference between setting and negotiating boundaries. Major business leaders as well as many community leaders recognize these differences even without distinguishing between the two terms. But, ask the right questions and they can clarify immediately. I’ve learned, sadly, that these same professionals are typically incapable of using the negotiation competence in their family. Shifting competencies from one context to another without training is highly problematic—even for top business school grads. Similarly, lower level bureaucrats, patriarchal families, pastors, the Roman and Evangelical churches, small and medium-sized privately held owner-firms lack insight to the distinctions and sometimes have a lot of resistance on their hands as a result of their ignorance.

Creating still more difficulty, my psychologist colleagues have no rhetorical format for negotiation. Common formats provide the means for improving, changing or even rejecting former ways of communicating. Without a common format, they’re always attempting to reinvent the wheel, a strategy which readily results in failure or limited success. They talk a good talk about “setting boundaries,” but lack awareness of the extensive implications of differing boundaries. This is surprising, because the counseling profession knows that ignoring or flagrantly setting boundaries is one of the major causes of family breakdown. And there are plenty of other people and organizations in the dark and looking at abject failure because of their ignorance and unwillingness to operate on the basis of negotiating boundaries.

The role of power
Although I’ve never heard anyone make the distinction between setting and negotiating, it’s time to start using the rhetoric much more carefully. Why? Because, the distinctions are primarily about power: who’s got it and what are the most effective ways to use it.

In business organizations power is traditionally viewed from three perspectives: vested, expert and network. Simply put, vested power is the legitimate power given to an individual to run teams, projects or disciplines within an organization. Expert is the power conferred on an individual who has the necessary knowledge others require for success. And network power is that of a person who knows a terrific amount of people who are capable of providing the necessary support and insight which individuals or groups require to succeed. Obviously simplistic, but occasionally useful clarity.

However, as a result of the unique work of the French academic, Michel Foucault, we understand that power is a lot more complex than the above little model. Foucault emphasizes that where there is power, there is also resistance. So, it’s all the more important to understand that successful power has much more to do, for example, with how a person or an organization chooses to organize ideas, make comparisons, and locate new ideas, often metaphorically, within highly respected old ideas. To an obvious degree, knowing what to say, how to say it, and what not to say in a given culture can be powerful negotiation strategies. That kind of expertise is usually necessary for successful boundary negotiation, which at its core is a matter of interaction around “I’ll do this if you’ll do that.” Simple relationships can sometimes be negotiated in three minutes, while major organizations or nations may take ten to twenty years to negotiate their differences in order to achieve mutual goals...

Is It Just Possible That Trump and Trumpism Have Been Good for Us?

I suggested to one of my daughters just yesterday that Trump has actually been good for us, an idea that has crossed my mind over the last six months. Actually, it's an approach that any rhetorical critic understands: to argue against a case, you have to understand the opposing case in spades. And it's especially helpful if the opposing case can be clarified by experience and behaviors on the ground. In my comments to my daughter I explained (poorly) why Trump just might have been helpful to the nation. 

So it's fascinating to see an opinion article by Nicholas Kristof in today's Times making the same point. But he does a far better job of arguing the case.

Our nation is a mess, but overlapping catastrophes have also created conditions that may finally let us extricate ourselves from the mire. The grim awareness of national failures — on the coronavirus, racism, health care and jobs — may be a necessary prelude to fixing our country...

“How do you write like the Economist?”

A new member of the Economist staff asked as he began to compose his first leading article for the magazine some years ago. “Pretend you are God,” a senior colleague replied. But since the deity regularly fails to comment directly on current affairs, as Stefan Collini amusingly wrote in the London Review of Books, that anxious recruit may have had difficulty putting this recommendation into practice. Though I’ve occasionally found errors and unreasonable bias in the Economist, it seems to happen far less in their magazine than others I regularly peruse. Or, they admit to their perspective. So, it has remained a weekly practice for more than forty years.

Over the past few decades the divine model has served the magazine exceptionally well. In 2017, the firm generated operating profits in excess of $70M alongside its related enterprises. This, despite being part of an industry where increasingly large losses are the norm. In fact, just a few days ago McClatchy, which operates the Miami Herald and The Kansas City Star among its 30 newsrooms in 14 states, announced it has filed for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy restructuring.

Still, my commitment to the Economist is not unusual, even in a world in which other sophisticated magazines have difficulty just staying alive, much less keeping readers for decades (except, of course, the New Yorker)...

What I Wrote More Than Ten Years Ago Is Clearly Nonsense Today!!

Thankfully! I'm very happy about that change. The post, published in 2010, was written still earlier. At the time, my coaching revealed that it was absolutely necessary. This single post garnered more than 35,000 readers and something like 32 comments, half profoundly rejecting and the other half profoundly reinforcing. I published most of them on the site. When I got into executive coaching in 1984 there were very few women VP's, much less CEOs. One client, a CEO from a well-known consumer product company, talked to me at length about women in executive roles. I got McKinsey on my side and we encouraged them.  After more than six years at the consumer firm in the mid-1990s, they gradually promoted eight or ten women to VP. Today, women have a significant role at that firm. Though plenty of firms are still male driven, that has been changing over the past ten years--and drastically. I should indicate--with a sense of pride--that my eldest daughter is a vice-president of a leading non-profit.

After reading this, I hope you can have a good laugh at me, and then add your own notes. You'll note my defensiveness in response to some of the early comments. Amusing, but ah well.

The post, originally published on April, 26, 2010, is entitled 7 Behaviors That Keep Women From Getting Ahead

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

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

Can Charisma Be Learned?

There are actually two questions here: can charisma be learned, and will it positively impact business outcomes? Since I’ve worked over the years with clients to develop their charisma, I find the questions, well…amusing. Because the answers to both questions from those in the disciplines of rhetoric and communication is yes. Of course. We’ve known that for years. In fact, for centuries.

But what’s especially interesting about recent research (2011) by the psych and economics faculty at the University of Lausanne is that they look at the question from the perspective of economics in the European context, confirming the power of the discipline of charisma.

But there’s a lot more pragmatic stuff to be added to this research as well as most blogs and studies. The discipline of charisma is inevitably viewed from a public address format: a speaker addressing a group. But for career people, there are far more opportunities to practice and learn in a one-on-one or small group. Furthermore, it’s best to start adding charisma from your tool-kit early on, rather than waiting until you get a managerial promotion. It’s also far less intimidating to learn in a one-on-one or small group, than to wait until you’re a manager and have large group responsibilities.

Given my assumption, let’s ignore the research laundry list of tactics, and the unique opportunities provided by public address settings. Besides, if you gain the competencies in small groups, you can automatically transfer them to the public address context. So, skip those long lists of skills to gain the competency, and focus on just two very significant tactics that will set you on the path to charisma. Furthermore, with just a bit of reflection, these two skills for one-on-ones and small groups will readily open up other strategies..

5 Steps to Get Buy-In from Your Colleagues (and Your Boss)

Many people do not seem to recognize that getting buy-in for their ideas is not only key to organizational success--but also to personal and career success. This is an issue that does not seem to go away or get old. Furthermore, the inter-disciplinary set-up of businesses today just makes the competency both more difficult and more valuable.

Surprisingly, there is a definite process for how actionable recommendations evolve and gain acceptance. When I say “process” I’m revealing that much of communication is built upon protocols. To a degree, communication process can be compared to software development process—to coding.  

But don’t misunderstand. Though the analogy to coding is insightful, the behavioral consequences of communication are far more unpredictable and the inferences can be strikingly different and even more political. Still, basic processes exist for many communication competencies. Once internalized these communication processes (I prefer “rhetorical processes”) can be applied and adapted to differing contexts and interactions. In short, there is specific, learnable process for how actionable recommendations can have a better chance of gaining support.

Finally. A Highly Astute and Long Overdue Critique of Facebook

Chris Hughes, one of the original founders of Facebook, has an unusually astute analysis and critique of Facebook in today's NYT opinion page. He argues that Mark Zuckerberg is a good guy, but that his company is a threat to our economy and democracy. Facebook, he argues, needs to be broken up. It's an article every techie, techie wannabe and politician needs to imbibe thoroughly.

In an unusual response to the extensive analysis, the editors of the Times also provide 5 takeaways from Hughes' essay:

--Mark Zuckerberg is really powerful. Like cartoonishly, Bond-villain powerful.

--Facebook's founders had no idea of the power of what they were building.

--Facebook's concentration of power and influence is part of a trend that extends beyond Silicon Valley.

--There are no alternatives to Facebook. That's the problem.

--We have the tools to regulate Facebook but not the will. Yet.

A major problem we face is that the old, regular good-guy politicos are utterly clueless. So we really do need Mayor Pete Buttigieg. He's the only one running for the presidency who understands the shit, has the willpower, and can actually execute.

NYT: Chris Hughes: It's time to break up Facebook.  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/opinion/sunday/chris-hughes-facebook-zuckerberg.html

NYT: Chris Hughes's call to break up Facebook: 5 Takeaways. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/opinion/chris-hughes-facebook.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

 

Wrong Measure of Success

This morning I'm reposting a highly relevant, insightful article from Fast Company. As a management consultant for years, I've had to remind my clients of the necessity to build relationship currency. In her article Vivian Giang emphasizes a success principle often ignored.

In your career, you earn currency with those in power. Unfortunately, most people focus on building up their performance while forgetting to build their relationship currency.

Most people are focused on the wrong measure of success...

#MeToo, After One Year

The latest issue of The Economist  (9/29/2018) devotes its lead article to the #MeToo movement. A positive and constructive editorial, the authors drop fascinating tidbits of sociological and historical insight along the way. They argue that women's testimony is being taken more seriously--at last.

But they point out a clear possibility: if #MeToo becomes a Democrats only movement, it will be set back. The polling reveals its partisanship: 39% of Republican women think it's a problem  that men get away with. That compares to 66% of Democratic women. The inevitable consequence of these figures, they argue, is that some men will excuse their behavior on the grounds that it's all a Democratic ploy.

The closing paragraph offers the best insight: 

What the Kids Are Finding Out About Guns

As a result, partially because of years of horrible shootings in our country, much research has been completed on who governs. Who actually governs? Although there are hundreds of studies on this subject, the latest work is by Princeton and Northwestern scholars, political scientists and long-term experts on the issues. They work from a huge body of evidence—some quantitative (the statistics), some historical (to make sense out of the statistics), and some actually observational. 

The authors of the study reveal that there are “four families” of research: elected politicians, the economic elites (Wall Street and major Hedge Fund directors), interest groups (tending to be millions of ordinary people with differing interests and personal drivers), and biased interest groups with differing targets.

What makes this study highly useful is the existence of a unique data set, compiled over many years, by one of the authors: Martin Gilens. The study is especially interesting to me because it is not focused on gun research, but on a related issue: who controls public policy? 

Well, take a guess. Is it average citizens, business interest group, mass-based interest groups (like AARP) or economic elites (Koch brothers)? First of all, average citizens and their elected politicians have zero impact upon policy. Organized interest groups, a substitute for voters, also have nearly zero impact on policy. That means that organized populists groups who want government to respond primarily or exclusively to the preferences of their citizens have no effect on public policy. . .