Dan Erwin

Introverts? Both Romney and Obama Are "Almost Shy"

The man who knows both Romney and Obama says, “Both are almost shy, which is amazing in this business.” Actually, it’s not that unusual. Many in corporate America report the difficulty of dealing with their own problem of shyness. In the May Fortune, for example, Doug Conant, the former CEO of Campbell Soup, says that he just tells people that he’s shy. Although Conant says that it’s not “in his nature” to be outgoing, I doubt that his “shyness” negatively impacted his successful tenure at Campbell soup.

Shyness is far more widespread than many would believe. Philip Zimbardo, the reigning expert in the field of shyness, reveals that more than 80% of those questioned in his research reported that they were shy at some point in their lives. Thankfully, Zimbardo’s research and  practice have found a number of key to the resolution of those difficulties. 

Deep-seated emotional states?
Psychologists and psychiatrists used to think that shyness, like many other so-called pathological issues, could be traced to deep-seated pathological, emotional-motivational states. But now, they focus less on unobservable inner mechanisms and more on specific behaviors and their consequences. Behaviors are the target of change, not people.

Although it’s rare to see much in the media about shyness, The King’s Speech addressed a form of shyness—stuttering. Now that the movie is making the rounds on the tube, it provides us with a fine opportunity to visualize what some go through in their experiences of shyness.

Upside of shyness
Many of us can tick off the downside of shyness: awkward and intimidated in social situations, lacking confidence and social skills, anxious and even incapacitated, and in some instances, paralyzed. But like all human attributes, shyness has some distinct upsides. Zimbardos’ research finds that 10 to 20% of shy people prefer shyness. They enjoy appellatives like “reserved,” “modest,” “unassuming,” and “retiring.” Shyness makes a person appear discreet, seriously introspective and in some cases, very intelligent.

Moreover when these behaviors are polished, they are often considered “high class” and “sophisticated.” The number of celebrities who have used their shyness in this fashion is surprising. Among the group are David Niven, Prince Charles, Katherine Hepburn and Jacqueline Onassis Kennedy.

Furthermore, shyness provides an anonymity that some feel releases them from the sense of “ought” or “should.”  They don’t stand out from the crowd. That also makes it possible for them to take their own good time in making decisions and taking action. Zimbardo nails it: “Shyness is prevalent, often a problem full of anxiety and grief, but for some a sought-after state of being.”

Chutzpa, pride, and not-shy Jews
But if you want to develop a more open and less shy competencies, there’s a lot to learn about shyness from Jewish-Americans. Among the students who answered the Stanford Shyness Survey, Jewish-Americans were the least shy. Although more than 40% of the respondents considered themselves shy, only 24% of the Jewish-American group reported themselves as presently shy. They were less introverted, more extroverted, and when they thought they were shy, they tended to be more situationally shy.

Resolving shyness
The statistic regarding cultural Jewishness, however, is highly instructive. In research by an Israeli, Dr. Ayala Pines, a survey of 900 Israelis finds that only 35% report being shy in any situation or thought it to be a problem. And that is the lowest, by far, when compared with people of other nationalities. The study found 73% of Americans, 75% in samples from Japan, 58% from Taiwan and 82% from India viewed shyness as a problem.

Why so much statistical difference? Israelis argue that there are cultural reasons operating within society that support the extroverted style. Persecuted for centuries, communal life and life within the family has become very strong. Indeed, children are usually included in adult conversations, invited to perform their tricks for family and friends and then lavishly praised for their actions. That’s much in contrast to the parental admonishment that children are meant to be seen and not heard.

Not inborn, but learned
Thus, it ought to be clear. Shyness is not inborn or inherent, but a learned behavior. Shyness can be polished or unlearned and the relevant social skills added to one’s toolkit. Zimbardo recommends the development of social skills and even lays out a path for building self-esteem and for resolving the issue of shyness. I’ve worked with Zimbardo’s approach, coaching at least one hundred clients through those issues. Like Zimbardo, I’m convinced that a key issue is the lack of social skills.

But think carefully about the notion of social skills. Social skills are not merely the ability to converse openly. Instead, effective social skills are intentional. They are oriented to achieving specific objectives: building relationships, achieving personal objectives, sharing ideas and experiences, gathering personal information and so forth.

Well, do you consider yourself a bit shy? There are two clear-cut paths to change and growth.

Flickr photo by Claimin 

I Was Wrong

My error was obvious, so I sent my friend this note: “You’re correct all the way around. My error. Drawing incorrect inferences is inevitably problematic for all of us . . .  including me.”

Here’s the context: As occasionally happens, I interacted via both phone and email three or four times with an intimate of mine the other day. On the second or third interaction, he sent me an email saying that he was less than receptive to my input. And he wondered if I was making a broad generalization of his patterns based on a couple comments. His analysis was that he didn’t disagree with what I was saying, but that it seemed to him “that I was providing advice from an incorrect assessment of his behaviors.” He noticed that I really couldn’t give specific examples (that were correct), so was wondering if I was drawing premature conclusions.

Upon receiving my admission of error, he responded: “It’s good to know that you know you’re not infallible. I relish these reminders.” The telephone call after all that was filled with our typical easy-going chatter and amusement. It continues to amaze me how admitting error provides such a public service. While chuckling about that interaction this morning, I realized once more how narrow is the truth, but how diversified are our mistakes. And how bad we are at admitting mistakes.

Few of us have mastered the basic skill of saying “I was wrong.” Typically the clause doesn’t hang in the air by itself. It’s often followed by a strategic addendum. You may remember that classic statement attributed to Kissinger (among others): “Mistakes were made, but not by me.” The New York Times calls it a “classic Washington linguistic construct.” I’ll pat myself on the back. When I sent the email to my buddy, there was no conjunction but attached.

Two truths about admitting we’re wrong. Our attitude toward wrongness—that inevitable distaste for error—tends to be rough on relationships. And as Kathryn Schultz points out in her absolutely brilliant book, Being Wrong, failing to admit to wrongness applies to relationships among nations, communities, colleagues, friends and (as you well know) relatives. She reminds us of the old adage of therapists, “that you can either be right or be in a relationship: you can remain attached to Team You winning every confrontation, or you can remain attached to your friends and family, but good luck trying to do both.”

But Schultz proposes an even more significant insight about being wrong, one that I’ve rarely thought about with as much clarity. It’s her observation that it is ultimately knowledge of our wrongness that teaches us who we are. My friend’s willingness to call me on the carpet pointed out my potential, as a successful coach, of being very wrong. And especially, it challenged me, once more, to be aware of my penchant for drawing conclusions quickly as well as for the fact that they are often wrong conclusions.

My mistake was initially embarrassing. After all, I am a well-educated student of human behavior. I was taught to be very careful about drawing inferences around human behavior. But significantly it was far more illuminating, as only a mistake can be. It forced me to look again at my friend’s behavioral pattern, to ask more thoroughgoing questions, to recognize that I was wading into deep water without his permission, and to remind myself that there are a seemingly infinite number of inferences that can be drawn about behavioral patterns. My mistake will help keep me out of trouble—for a while. And it forces me to put on a better lens the next time. 

Flickr photo: by rob_pym

The Uses and "Dangers" of Authenticity

One of the more insistent cries from MBA faculty and many business gurus has been an emphasis upon “authenticity” in work and team relationships. Being authentic is pretty clear: it’s simply the willingness to be who you are and to tell the truth. It’s appropriate to think of authenticity as a personal characteristic, but it’s also useful to think of it as a “tool.”

Calls for authenticity seem to be cyclical, driven by both culture and context. In the sixties and seventies psychologists continually emphasized and even wrote books about relational honesty. But those discussions and experiences dried up in the ‘eighties and ‘nineties. It’s like the “authenticity grease” finally ran out and we need to go back to the garage and get all the parts lubricated again. Yet, the fact of the matter is that authenticity is a constant need in life and business. You can’t build partners without authenticity.

But authenticity can be a very slippery, even dangerous experience for consultants and especially for organizational managers and employees. What’s being authentic can be personally constructive to one and destructive to another. Indeed, one manager suggested that “many people who pride themselves on their transparency in fact have a mean, aggressive spirit which they excuse as being unusually truthful.  I doubt that they would respond positively to similar bluntness applied to themselves.”

Authenticity is like feedback. It’s a tool, not an innate characteristic that a person is born with. And like feedback, some people are comfortable using it and others are not. Just so, some people move quickly to authenticity while others tend to play their cards fairly close to the chest. Some people become experts in its use and others stumble with the process. Authenticity like feedback is best handled with care by a caring person. 

What authenticity can do
Both consultants and organizational members can find that authenticity is the most powerful tool for building trust and commitment from others. When your authentic communication demonstrates care, honesty and depth, those are qualities that can change the world. Authenticity has the capacity to deliver us from the doubts, reservations and unpredictability between people. It can make work not only great fun, but also very productive and satisfying.

Many people, especially in business, have an economist’s view of the human spirit: they think people can only be counted on to pursue their own narrow self-interest. This “economists’” view of life is so widely shared and frequently used that it has become the way people think about relationships, organizations and even how they design their relationships. This “economic,” suspicious view of life inherently rejects authenticity and full trust. It’s frustrating to realize that even if people do not regularly act in their own self-interest (and they don’t), the research clearly indicates that these same people believe that others do act on that basis. As you can imagine, that seriously limits teamwork, collaboration, and mutuality. It throws an axe into the middle of organizational work and impacts personal relationships negatively, limiting the potential for authenticity.

Building authentic relationships   
One way to understand authenticity is to view it in teamwork and collaborative experiences. In those contexts, building authentic, trusting relationships starts out like a dance with back and forth exchanges of personal background or experience. From there the discussion can move to work relationships. Authentic relationships inevitably flowers in the form of a social contract. In my business, I am very straightforward about building authentic relations (even though I rarely use the term), and I test those waters before we have a financial agreement. Development and coaching don’t work without a contract that either states or implies authenticity. I also don’t think there is such a thing as collaboration or teamwork without a level of authenticity. Clients are often starved for authenticity and revel in the relationship. Authenticity is the grease under all social contracts. I’m certain, also, that authenticity is the reason why clients and colleagues remain friends, long after the end of financial ties.

In team settings where authenticity is profoundly helpful, relationship rules emphasize authenticity. Typically, I recommend that the team begin its work with issues like the following:  

 How will we go about setting mutually shared goals?

• How will we ensure follow-through and completion of agreed-upon tasks?
• How can we best collaborate?
• How will we keep issues open for discussion and disagreement, and manage our conflicts?

If you can get buy-in from all team members on these rules which essentially create a “social contract” there’s a high possibility for authenticity among the members. But you’ll find that the social contract and authenticity will break down. That’s inevitable, so you renegotiate the contract--again and again. The straight-talk renegotiation serves as a real plus—celebrating authentic relationships.

Typically, in my client relationships I’m not aware that our contract has broken down until I walk away from the meeting and sleep on it. My clients are not at all surprised to get an occasional phone call the next morning to get the news that we’ll need to renegotiate. Serendipitously, the act of renegotiating usually results in an even better, more authentic relationship than the initial negotiation. The payoff can be phenomenal.

Flickr photo by tstaires

What An Overseas Experience Can Do For You

Few work experiences offer more immediate, personal insight than an overseas internship or international job.

Once a month, for more than a year, my first international job meant a quick flight from Minneapolis to Sao Paulo to work with a client at 3Ms main Brazil plant. Although my senior client was an Italian-American New Yorker, my first experience in the cross-cultural, organizational politics of Brazil was never-to-be forgotten. Having grown up in the Eastern and Southern European diversity of Detroit in the 1940s and ‘50s, we made certain our three daughters got out of Minnesota homogeneity and took to Europe for part of their college experience. My youngest worked in Greece for nearly a year after graduating. They, too, found those experiences to be of great, pragmatic benefit.

Phyllis Korkki, in Sunday’s Times, recommends overseas internships for those able to able to float the airfare and expenses, in spite of fact that they are often “all work and no pay.” Korkki emphasizes the importance of finding host companies that will provide a great deal of value to the student. They’ll gain the opportunity to improve language skills and what may be more important, understanding a different culture. Her caution makes a lot of sense: “People have internships on the brain,” but it’s important to choose the right time and place for them. 

Korkki doesn’t deal with my own reasoning for encouraging international experience for every student who can possibly dig up the change for six months or a year. Yeah, I’m well aware that parents are liable to have to continue paying the same American college or university for their kids’ international experience. But if you’re a part of the class that’s willing and able to dig up the shekels for it, it’s an experience that will bring a lot of value to the younger generation whether or not they are planning for an international job.

Similar values and rewards also come from managerial tenures in international settings. Though most corporations recognize international experience as a plus, the more backward organizations may penalize the employee, in one way or another, for outside the US (OUS) experience. As a result managers may need to weigh the career pluses and minuses at his current organization. But the experience may be richly rewarded in another organization. Whether or not the organization rewards you for your experience, the values you can receive from that experience are significant.

Much of the international learning applies directly to the US organizational experience.
Cultural boundaries define us because they stable systems of behaviors and cognition. When a person is placed in another stable system, he or she is forced to learn behavioral and thinking ways that differ markedly from their original system. This gives them inherently different ways of perceiving their own American organization. They are far better at conceptualizing present and potential differences.

People of one culture immersed in another gain a highly useful understanding of different “realities.” Our own culture teaches us what to see and what to ignore. Experience in another culture teaches us that another culture sees and ignores different things. Opportunities in Greece, for example, are closely tied to family relationships. An outsider may be shocked by the direct question of “how much do you make?” Or, “how much did that cost?” If the foreigner is reluctant to answer that question, he may be foregoing unwittingly the proffered acceptance as a friend. Effective product and process designers can use the experience of different realities to focus on design questions from many different angles, often providing significant innovations to their American company.

Adjusting to different beliefs about the workplace.
International experience can make it far more easy for a person to adjust and manage today’s endless reorganizations and restructuring. The classic intercultural experience deals with many of the various workplace questions today’s organizations are focusing upon. How much planning should precede action? How are incentives, rewards and control best managed? How much conformity and initiative are expected? What does an effective work setting look like? And how do diverse ethnicities and religions affect expectations?

Putting important experiences into appropriate perspective.
Managers inevitably draw an infinite number of conclusions from important, conflicted or questionable experiences. What did my boss mean by that? Is he suggesting that I’m going to get laid off? Does he expect me to be at this meeting? Was his anger directed at me? What kind of changes does he expect of me?

But international experience puts that analysis in front of our noses. We’re forced to resolve questions about the meaning of language and gesture. We learn quickly that different cultures organize and process information very different than our American way. Objective facts don’t mean much in many cultures and social values can pose much difficulty. Business practices like making appointments and contacts differ. Negotiating with some cultures can force us to completely rethink how we normally go about the process. Etc., etc.

Emphasizing the role and value of street smarts.
Although a lot of less experienced employees don’t understand the value of street smarts, that ability to deal effectively with all kinds of people and levels of hierarchy, an intercultural experience brings all kinds of issues to the fore. Sometimes the issues are shockingly immediate and embarrassing. It may be a misunderstood gesture, failure to understand how time is used, or even the American penchant for getting to business without taking the time to exercise a different culture’s social protocols and relationship behaviors.

The struggles for business success are now international, not merely local. The reality is that each of us comes from a long line of ancestors who were raised in many different cultures, even though we’ve been Americanized to the hilt. Success in today’s business world will require more and more intercultural moxie. An international experience will be key for many of us.

Getting Newcomers Up to Speed Quickly

As the economy begins to loosen up, more and more companies are looking for new hires. And more employees are looking to leave that old job and find a better company for their future. On average, Americans will change jobs 10 times between the ages of 18 and 37. Furthermore, with the constant state of internal restructuring, managers are being continually pushed to assimilate waves of employees. 

The key question for new employees as well as for their new company is how to transform a new hire into a productive employee. 

In a cool piece of research, Rob Cross, Salvatore Parise and Keith Rollag studied that important question. The challenges are tough. From jump-starting productivity and tapping into the new hire’s creativity to keeping them long enough to justify their training. Of course, it’s the first few months that are especially critical for new hire since the probability of quitting reaches a peak at around 18 months.   

To figure out how to overcome those challenges, Cross and his colleagues interviewed both the newcomers and their managers at a number of companies. But they didn’t stop with the usual interview approach. Instead, using social network analysis, they explored the patterns of collaboration and information flow between the newcomers and managers. 

Initial training typically focuses on the organizational culture and the person’s job. This provides the newcomer with a smorgasbord of information about company routines and technologies. However, if you’ve been through that route very often, inevitably you’ve found yourself needing far more and spending a great deal of time trying to find that information. Research outside this study has found that many, if not most newcomers stop with the info about company routines and technologies, either incapable of or unaware of the importance of the network to their success. In short, they know what they want, but aren’t certain how to get that information. 

Cross and his colleagues' research is especially seminal in that it takes a far more holistic approach to assimilation and deals with all the issues. Instead, their research finds that the single most important step for getting a person up to speed quickly is relational. 

But, changing from an informational approach about the job and the company culture to a relational approach is not a simple matter. Instead of asking themselves, “What does my new hire need to know?” they have to ask, “Who does my newcomer need to know?” This will then help them focus on generating a strategic list of key experts and information providers with whom the newcomer needs to meet. From this they can then structure the necessary interactions into the new hire’s assimilation process. 

What’s fascinating about the process is that although it requires a different kind of mental and action effort, it doesn’t require any more time than the old informational approach. Of course, if newcomers can be introduced to a set of coworker relationships, they’ll have far less need to approach their own bosses for information. 

But what if your company doesn’t provide this for you? My clients and colleagues have found it especially useful to ask the relational question themselves and gain the assistance of bosses and others in building their relationship.  It’s as simple as “who do I need to know for my job success?” and “will you introduce them to me?” 

Photo by Flickr: jannetajeda

Facebook's Values as the New Normal

As part of the IPO filing for Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg laid out a set of company values. They are illuminating, especially when compared to the values of older, more mature firms: the Facebook values serve as a 21^st century heads-up for firms focused on technology and Generation Y. They are a pointer for the “new normal.”

I emphasize the notion of “pointer” because although corporate values put the public face on a company, they also reinforce the employee values that they intend to reward. It’s noteworthy that  Zuckerberg’s values are readily considered to be, as Michael Wolff of The Guardian wrote, “naïve or other-planetary.” But Wolff is the real naif because ultimately value statements can be exceptionally useful—something that few journalists or companies seem to understand.  And that’s no more true in organizations than in the smallest public organization, the family. (Why is it so many older, more experienced journalists and execs often seem to have a difficult time with youthful success?)

Values statements create a rhetorical world, give order and direction to behaviors, and reduce the internal corporate chaos that is inevitable in today’s highly diverse, rapidly changing corporations. Values are cultural fictions, designed to heighten the understanding of “who we are,” foster behavioral sensibilities and impact not only the bottom line, but also define the boundaries of ethical and social responsibility. (Think Fiddler on the Roof’s Tevye and his “traditions.”) Cultural fictions are usually elastic concepts capable of reinterpretation—and that, as anyone who’s seen The Social Network knows, is true of these values. Still, the simple-minded jerk who thinks that there’s talk and then there’s action is out of touch with reality. Language is action. The belief that there is a distinction between talk and action is false. Sure, some talk is a waste of time. But a lot of work is also a waste of time. In short the real business of business is talk and that’s the subtext of Zuckerberg’s statement—in many different ways.  

Zuckerberg explained Facebook’s philosophy in terms of five core values.

1. Focus on impact. Recognizing the crises of the data explosion, with this value Zuckerberg emphasizes the importance of priority issues. As he emphasizes, a lot of companies and people waste time on issues that may need resolution but fail to resolve the really serious problems.
2. Move fast. Clearly the firm worries about the fear of mistakes. Thus, their proverb, “move fast and break things,” and “better done than perfect,” a riff on Voltaire’s popular statement that perfect is the enemy of the good.”
3. Be bold. In short, this is what he thinks about risk in a world that is changing so quickly. Again, a proverb: “The riskiest thing is to take no risks.”
4. Be open. The strategy of openness is key to their competitive success. It is viewed as an absolute need if the company is to continue to make effective decisions and have the greatest impact.
5. Build social value. Zuckerberg ignores the potential regulatory issues of making the world more open and connected. Instead, he goes for social responsibility and its transforming power. It’s amusing to notice that journalists (see the NYTimes or Wall Street Journal, etc.) continually chide him for overstepping the bounds between social value and corporate value. I suspect that he’s been coached to stay out of that black pit. After all, silence goes a long way toward silencing potential detractors.  

 FYI:  Zuckerberg’s statements about social value are an accurate representation of his earlier comments that the public and especially journalists don’t understand that his interests and business are not primarily about money. That’s an exceptionally wise truism, supported by overwhelming research. It finds, for example, that Goldman Sachs executives are more interested in power than money. Indeed, when the rubber hits the road, executives are a lot more interested in their power than in the survival of their company. Plenty of execs deny both those ideas. I usually roll my eyes and suggest they think a bit deeper.

Kissinger is famous for declaring that power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. But Kissinger’s comment refers to people power, the kind of magisterial power that was typical of his generation. In contrast, Generation-Y, reflecting Zuckerberg’s “hacker philosophy,” is strongly oriented to intellectual power. The rewards come from intellectual smarts far more than people power. When the game is tied to intellectual power rather than people power, hierarchies get flattened. That makes collaboration far more possible—and inevitable. Those distinctive generational differences bode well for the continued superiority of US business innovation. 

Values, proverbs and organizational behavior

Although Zuckerberg’s letter did not reveal a proverb for every value, my assumption is that they’re floating in the Facebook ether. Proverbs--and company stories--are key to understanding a firm and even predicting a firm’s success or failure. Proverbs do not come into existence quickly, nor by executive fiat, and certainly not by slap-dash thinking. As anyone with a theological or rhetorical understanding recognizes, proverbs are the accumulated wisdom of a people or an organization—in short, pithy form. They are the result of a lot of experience, reflection, and conversations--a lot of talk. They’ve been tried on by employees and managers, revised, rephrased, and finally institutionalized.  Proverbs are inevitably created after the fact. In other words, they only surface after conflicted experiences which force an organization to give thought to where it’s been, what it’s learned, how to succeed, and who it is. Proverbs make demands of people. Although I’ve worked all over America, none of our major firms have inculcated their culture with much in the way of proverbs. Thus, Zuckerberg’s proverbs, growing out of his core values, are highly indicative of the actual behavior of his organization.

How do 21^st century values differ from the past?

Facebook’s values differ significantly from older, more mature firms. In a comparison with GM, Fidelity Investors and 3M, a cursory study revealed a number of significant value distinctions—and not merely those tied to their specific industries.

All three firms emphasize the importance of integrity, respect and honesty in the workplace and with customers. GM builds its entire values statement around personal integrity, referring to the Global Sullivan Principles created as a means for dealing with apartheid. Amazing that they were adopted as late as 1999. By that time, it was well known that the Sullivan Principles had little impact. They are essentially protective of the firm rather than behaviorally assertive for its employees. They emphasize staying within the law and function, in my mind, as a CYA, public relations instrument. Surprisingly, 3M’s sound little different than GM, emphasizing legal and ethical business conduct. The CEO positions the values as a means of enhancing the firm’s reputation. Fidelity is similar to GM and 3M, however, its values statement begins by stressing long-term relations (they are a financial planning firm, not a brokerage) and a “hunger for innovation.”

These 20^th century statements all give advice in such abstract form that it is difficult to take action, yet they are written as though that is not the case. Ultimately, rather than provide insight into how, specifically, to behave, they are written at a level of inference that is not operational. They make possible a lot of defensive routines, fancy footwork and malaise. In short, they are not a tool of governance. I’m not certain what they are, but they ain’t governance.

In profound contrast, Facebook’s values are a basic tool of governance. The level of abstraction is limited, and the proverbs focus on daily behavior. They are lacking in gobbledygook and as straightforward as rhetorically possible. They reinforce specific, concrete behaviors. An employee knows what he/she should doing. And significantly, they open the door to risk, creativity and innovation, something that the last century’s values will not impact.

They are as simple-minded as a parent saying to her high-schooler, “get your homework done, pick up your room, practice your flute, fill the dishwasher or take out the trash, and the rest of the evening is yours--except be in bed by 10:30.” That kind of family governance creates the boundaries for social, academic and career success. Similarly, Facebook’s values, “focus on impact, move fast, take risks,” etc., create specific boundaries for personal success. The parent and the organization that enforces definitive values will inevitably gain far better results than the organization or the parent that says “be good, be nice and don’t get into trouble.” It’s not a stretch to say that the focus of GM, 3M and Fidelity’s values are fundamentally, “don’t get into trouble.” They are a wasted tool. 

So, Mr. Wolff, Zuckerberg’s values are other-planetary? Nahhh. They’re a different animal than anything else you’ve ever seen. They won’t protect Facebook from regulatory issues, but unlike old-fashioned value statements of the 20^th century, they’re not meant to. They’re brilliant and they obviously get the important jobs done. 

Photo from Flickr: Girisimicinin Galaksi Rehben

When Death Takes You By Surprise

Marilyn, my beloved wife of more than 50 years, died on December 29 of complications associated with Alzheimer’s. It was a fortunate death, though not, in the usual sense, a good death. She had lost 95% or more of her mental capacities, and had no obvious sense of who I was or of what was happening to her.

She was a wonderful woman, the love of my life, and I miss her dearly. When the kids and grandchildren came in from the Coasts to see her in Memory Care, she always had a big smile on her face. I don’t know whether she recognized them, but I prefer to believe that her wiring was so strong that she knew, unconsciously, who they were. Even in the last stages of her Alzheimer’s-destroyed-life, what a smile broke out on her face every time I walked into her apartment. We have a family photo of her reading to her three-year-old grandson in her lap, a paradigm of who she was and the simple happiness we enjoyed. I have always found a deep sense of satisfaction in the love we were able to give and receive, an experience depicted by that picture from a dozen years ago.

Initially, I decided not to write this very personal blog, but I decided otherwise because of its therapeutic value as well as a medical experience in the early ‘90s. As a result of a bout with serious prostate cancer and its inevitable surgery, I was surprised by the number of young men—and a few women--who wanted to talk with me about the experience. At the time, I had a number of projects at Ralston Purina, so had done a great deal of interviewing and had become a familiar face at headquarters. The questions, especially from the youngest generation, were about how I handled the news of cancer, my prognosis, the degree of success, the sexual implications and the potential for incontinence. I’m experiencing a similar number of the younger generation asking questions about Alzheimer’s and my wife’s death. It’s not often that people can talk about their own concerns and fears with someone they trust who’s had some success in dealing with those fears.

Death, of course, is a more traumatic and final experience for all of us. But having dealt with what can only be considered an “ambiguous loss” for more than two years, I had come to believe that with my extensive background in psychology and counseling and a phenomenal number of resources I’d be able to manage the finality of her death very well. But still, I was surprised that the experience of death took me by some surprise.

When it came to resources, probably no one on earth had more than I. My eldest daughter, Director of Fundraising for the research foundation, CureAlzheimers, has the ability to access resources from Harvard’s Alzheimer’s research center. Her husband is a research physician with an awareness of the physical and psychological implications of Alzheimer’s. My middle daughter was involved in Alzheimer’s research at UMass Lowell. One of my very best friends, Libby Bellinger, is a gerontologist with counseling background who also works for a long-term care organization and coincidentally, dealt with the personal issues of her own mother’s Alzheimer’s disease for 18 years. I have access to top physicians at the UMN medical clinic. And to top it all off, my wife was involved in research at Mayo Clinic with a physician who was inevitably and always available to me personally, or by email. With all that, it was improbable that I’d be surprised by death.

Furthermore, lacking financial worries, I was able to carry off all the right things for the management of emotions and life. I treated myself with care, putting off as many decisions as possible, and made certain to access the friendship of colleagues and neighbors. I was scrupulous about my routines, careful about food selections and kept up most of my exercise program.

Finally, my children and I decided months ago not to have a funeral, but instead to have a celebration of her life, inviting friends, neighbors and colleagues for drinks and appetizers. Indeed, the invitation was clear: “No liturgy, no ceremony, no rituals, no homily . . . just mingling, conversation, and even laughter.” And even though we’re not having the party until the end of February, I’ve been delighted by the overwhelming positive responses we’ve received toward that celebration.

How did the grief surface?

But in spite of all the decisions and care, her death has been difficult. There were tears at the strangest times of the day. I finally realized that they flowed when I noticed an especially sensuous gesture either between two others or in a TV show. Marilyn never walked into my study without her hand on my shoulder and usually a smile. I also noticed that though most of the time I was careful in the food I selected, I utterly failed to manage portions, gaining 40 pounds over the past 3 ½ years. But what really frustrated me was my inability to focus on tasks, especially on creative writing. I just couldn’t force my brain to engage. I’ve always prided myself on my ability to set worries aside, put them in a box, and go on with the task at hand. That didn’t work, especially the last two months as it became clear that Marilyn was dying. It was as though my creative juices had been wrung out of my body. But most significantly, in spite of keeping to my sleep routines, I found myself tired out—almost daily for the first two or three weeks after her death. I still have to take naps three or four times a week.

So what have I learned about grief?

Thus far, I’ve learned several things to help me process my grief more successfully. I don’t anticipate that the grief will ever be fully resolved and I’m not certain that I want that. But I do want to go back to life, giving myself wholeheartedly to my work.

First, I can’t stress how important it is to take care of yourself. My objective was to make certain that I kept involvements to the minimum and always do the things that are important to me. My children, as well as many friends, emphasized the necessity of that self-management. My children made it very clear to me, reminding me of their support, that I was to limit my visits to the home to just once or twice a week and get on with my life. Knowing Marilyn’s ever-Germanic orientation to task and work, I’m certain she would have approved and insisted. After all, Marilyn would not know that I’d been there two minutes after I walked out the door. I have a great awareness that my resources were unique. Still, to the degree possible, in whatever your situation, if you are to find hope and optimism, you must put yourself first. This is not a time to make sacrificial decisions for others or give others a lot of time.

Second, it’s important to access your support system regularly, and if you don’t have one, to seek one out. Most resident homes have group meetings and systems that you can tap into. Identify the friends who’ll do things with you, let you talk, and are simply willing to listen. They may not be the friends you expected, but they’re out there and they’ll do some caring for you. On occasion, I found it important to simply ask whether a person had time to talk with me. I learned to read the sign language fairly accurately so as not to overstay my welcome. When a person inquired regarding my wife, I usually shared two or three sentences. If they were desirous of further information or open to listening, they would inevitably make that clear to me after I’d shared just a bit.

Finally, it’s important to recognize that you’re not going to be able to predict or control your own responses to death. Give up the notion that the control mechanisms you’ve used to succeed in your professional career will work when facing a death in the family. Thinking you’re in complete control of your memories and emotions sets you up for failure and even more grief.

I have long been an optimist and practitioner of a “sanctified nonchalance.” In other words, I don’t hold tightly to life, but view it as a gift to be used for myself and others. And I gather people around me who hold similar views. Rather than focus on what I’ve lost, I face the future grateful for what I had. So I’m certain that makes the surprises of death easier for me than others. But still, as my friend Libby Bellinger said, when talking about my inability to control my emotions, “it kind of slips up on you, doesn’t it?”

It's Not "An Eye for an Eye," but "Two Eyes for an Eye."

Don’t take “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” too literally.

Most of us are familiar with the deeply held notion of an eye for an eye. In an intriguing study of interpersonal relations, Boas Keysar and his colleagues at the University of Chicago found that reciprocity, what he calls “giving and taking,” is asymmetric. People reciprocate generosity fairly equally the first time around, less so as time goes on. But selfish acts are treated quite differently. If you screw somebody, they’re going to screw you back twice as much—or more.

Overall, conflicts (taking) between people escalate rapidly, while generosity and compassion (giving) sputter out pretty easily.

We like to think that reciprocity is a simple give and take, “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.” But the sentiments of that well-worn aphorism don’t square with reality. The research found that relationship (social) exchanges, in contrast to dollar-based exchange of goods and services, simply don’t work on a fair market basis. The study revealed that social exchange is based upon the meaning and interpretation of the social actions rather than on the objective value of those actions. That includes positive versus negative behaviors, compliments versus insults, rewards versus punishments, and helping a colleague versus hurting a colleague.

Keysar said, for example, that if you’re kind and let someone go in front of you, that driver may be considerate in response. But if you cut someone off, guess what? That person “may react very aggressively, and this could escalate to road rage.” The same rules operate in work settings.

Another experiment, using money as the exchange in a game, showed that taking quickly escalated as players became increasingly greedy over repeated exchanges. In a companion money experiment, the study confirmed that the act of taking inevitably has a far bigger impact on people’s responses than the act of sharing.

In sum,

1. Generosity is rewarded, but there is a tendency on the part of the recipient for it to weaken and sputter out.
2. Acts of taking have a far bigger impact on people’s responses than acts of sharing.
3. Taking escalates negative actions quickly--proportionately faster and larger than giving.
4. Relationship exchanges and responses, both positive and negative, are based largely on the personal interpretation of the actions, rather than the objective value of those actions.

Some work implications:

1. Rewarding generosity.

--Overtime work to achieve boss’s goals will be rewarded (however, continual overtime can be taken for granted, and lose its impact).

--Donating resources and time (occasionally) to colleagues will ingratiate you to them, making reciprocal rewards available.

--If you want support for your good deeds, you’ll need to interpret the deed to the relevant persons and self-advocate.

--Significantly effective and “useful” hierarchical and peer relations require a personal reputation of liking and respect.

2. Acts of taking.

--Refusing to support a colleague’s project can result in lack of support for your project, even when the person sees your project positively.

--Critical and negative feedback may do more harm to your relationship than good. Be very cautious, contract to give critical feedback, and match the negative feedback with the positive.

3. Escalating negative acts.

--Never, never burn your bridges, it’ll always cost more and more.

--If you have an image problem and people don’t think well of you, better to demonstrate your positive qualities in a new setting where you don’t have to overcome so much baggage.

--Loss of trust may be difficult, even impossible to repair.

4. Exchanges tied to interpretations.

--Rewards won’t be granted solely on the basis of your deeds and generosity no matter what the actions. Personal interpretive and advocacy strategies are needed to “grease” the relationship.

--Interpret your repayment of generosity to the original giver. He or she may not otherwise understand.

--People trust their first impressions, whether of taking or giving. After the first impression, changes are difficult.

--Make self-advocacy the rule, not the exception.

There you have it: street smarts par excellence! Hope it helps.

Boaz Keysar, Converse, Wang and Epley, (2008) Reciprocity is not give and take. Psychological Science, V.19, N.12.

Photo: Flickr, by Manoj Trikila

Listening Is Actually All About Questioning

Effective listening is not about listening harder.

“My boss--or my colleague--won’t listen to me.” Although it’s rare to see much about effective listening on the web, my single post on the subject, Listening with minimal encouragers--with nearly 20,000 viewers--is still going strong. Listening problems in organizations never seem to go away. Part of the problem is most still frame listening through the lens of attention. So they emphasize “pay attention and listen harder.” That, however, won’t significantly impact the quality of your listening. Listening actually involves the same fundamental skill as interpreting an email, a tweet or dealing with any other message media that requires responsiveness.

Being effectively responsive to messages in any format is first and foremost all about questioning, especially within the organization. That implies that our knee jerk response to the messages we receive within interpersonal conversations or scripted media is neither reading closely nor listening more attentively. The questioning may be verbalized orally or merely internal and silent, but effective listeners are invariably questioning.

Although written messages are infamous for misunderstanding, face-to-face conversations are still more complex. That’s especially true when it comes to effective listening. We’ve been taught to listen for the big ideas and pay attention to the words and meanings, but that’s only part of the issue. Effective listeners question the larger conversational context, the immediate setting, audience relationship, emotional tone, body movement, the gestures, eye gaze, tone and inflection as well as the words. In short, effective listeners are parallel processors who question what they both see and hear within the conversational package.

Can you question all of these factors at one time? Of course not. But as you question what you’re seeing and hearing, you’ll begin to notice just a few factors in each conversation that stick out. Usually those are the factors on which to focus your questioning and analysis. This might include context issues, for example, as obvious as, “why is Joe interrupting repeatedly?” Or, “why is the leader getting 'defensive' about that set of questions?” Sometimes the more important question might even be, “why don’t I have better insights into this seemingly politicized issue? How did I miss out on what’s evidently going on here?”

Invariably, there are only a handful of questions that apply to nearly all business settings:

1. What’s the meaning of this conversation? What’s being said and what’s the real subtext?
2. What are the relevant context, hierarchy, political, relationships, emotions, tone, body language and gesture I need to focus upon and analyze? Who are the obvious players here, and why are others saying nothing?
3. What are the relevant “undiscussables?” What’s not being messaged, but would be extremely useful to know and understand?
4. What’s the impact of the person’s messaging upon the context, conversation and myself?
5. What does he expect me to do about what he’s saying--and what am I really going to do about it?
6. What are the messages my listening is sending to the speaker and what adjustments do I need to make about those messages—if possible?

You’re not always going to be comfortable asking these questions orally in every setting. But your ignorance of the answers to these listening questions can impact your projects and career, sometimes seriously.

Remember that the conclusions you draw if you don’t ask a question out loud may be off base—far off base. I inevitably assume that my assessment of what’s being said—if I don’t verbalize my question to the other—has a greater potential for being wrong than right. It’s smart to distrust your judgments about the other person and what he or she is meaning. My friends, as well as my clients, tend to expect that I’ll call back after sleeping on a conversation to once more clarify a conversation’s meaning.

If you build a social contract—an agreement with the person--that you can ask questions about what’s being said, and do it early on and regularly—you’ll find it possible to ask nearly all these questions. Of course, you’ll need to regularly renegotiate the contract. If the person is a superior, you’ll want to find out whether he’s OK with questions in public or would prefer them in private. Eventually, even the most reticent will agree to public questioning of significant issues.

FYI: Systematic research in communications, psych, anthropology, and sociology underlies all these listening questions. But I decided that enough was probably enough. Still I’ll drop one overarching piece of research directly related to listening into this blog: Misunderstanding is more prevalent and widespread than understanding within the organizational communication package. Organizational misunderstanding can be tied as much to contextual politics and body gesture as to the meaning of words. (I should remind readers that politics is not a dirty word. Nearly all conversation has political overtones.)

How to Build a Great Work Relationship with Your Boss

Work relationships are learnable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you set mutually shared goals?

How do you prefer to solve problems?

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

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

How can we best collaborate in our efforts?

How will we keep our lines of communication open?

How do we manage our differences most effectively?

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

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

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

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

Photo: Flickr, Hira10