I took some time off recently to just play and have fun. I needed to relax, renew and regenerate myself. I am typically a positive person; however, I have to admit that from time to time I grow disheartened about our collective ability to lead and govern ourselves. As so often happens, just when I am at my lowest, something comes along to replenish my faith in our innate goodness as people and in our ability to do the right thing.
Who knew that by watching "60 Minutes" last Sunday night, my spirits would be lifted and my faith would be restored by being introduced to Staff Sergeant Sal Guinta. Sergeant Guinta is the only living Medal of Honor recipient since the Vietnam War. For 15 months nearly four years ago he was in many hellish fire fights in Afghanistan. As he said, the only peace that he and his unit could get was in their dreams.
He and his unit lived an uncertain life every day. Yet the worst of the worst happened when they were overrun by the Taliban. Their sergeant was killed and they heard over the Taliban radio that they -- the Taliban -- wanted a body. He witnessed his friend get shot and the Taliban start to haul him away. Sgt. Guinta refused to let that happen. He ran into the middle of enemy fire -- wounded or killed the Taliban carrying away his friend -- enough so that the Taliban fled, allowing Sgt. Guinta and others in his unit to get to their friend.
Unfortunately, their friend could not be saved. However, Sgt. Guinta and others, who cared about the wounded soldier, were with him when he died -- their friendly faces were the last thing that he saw before passing away. Because of his actions, their friend's body was able to be sent back to his family in the States, not left somewhere in Afghanistan.
Sgt. Guinta appears to be a very humble person who when faced with the very worst possible situation, did the right thing. He does not see himself as a hero -- he is uncomfortable with all of the attention that has been bestowed on him. He considers himself just a mediocre solder -- many others have given more -- but yet he finds himself in the limelight.
Perhaps he is just the right person at the right time to be in the limelight. He is an ordinary guy who was just going about his business (of fighting a war) and did it in the best way he knew how. He did not do it for glory or for accolades -- he did it because it was the right thing to do.
Sgt. Guita seems to represent so many of us workers. We employees, for the most part, just want to go to work, learn our jobs, and be able to do the right thing. No glory or limelight needed -- just the self- satisfaction of doing a job well done.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
#8 The Destructive Side of Power
Wow, last week I did not know how timely the post regarding power was going to be. Especially the sentence "The skills that lead to obtaining power deteriorate once power is obtained". That seems to be particularly true of our former governor and the former head of the IMF. Both men have made the headlines lately and both held positions of great power and prestige. So I thought it might be instructive to talk a bit further about this whole power, bully, confidence issue.
How is it that they could fall so far so fast? The how is that they thought they that were invincible. They had paid staff and attorneys surrounding them helping to insulate and isolate them from their reality. These staff ran interference for them, spun stories and kept their secrets just that -- secret. We have seen the same story over and over -- here on a local level with the Realtor Michael Lyons and on a national level with Tiger Woods. People in positions of power lose all sense of themselves and in reality, they truly believe that they are too big to fail.
We see some of these same characteristics in our everyday leaders in government and other organizations. These leaders have surrounded themselves with "yes" people. These staff provide the same isolation and insulation as the outside high priced hired guns. These type of leaders only tolerate people who are loyal to them (or pretend to be) -- no matter what. Loyalists reap the rewards, while other employees with a wealth and depth of knowledge are pushed aside. Civil service is not so civil anymore. How is this patronage system working in state governmental organizations and other institutions?
Has anyone noticed that our institutions are failing as a result of this very self-centered -- what's in it for me leadership style? Everyday there is some expose on another state department: CalPERS, State Teacher's Credentialing Commission, and the Military Department to name a few. Believe me there are many more departments that haven't made the headlines -- yet
As Marcus Breton so eloquently wrote in the May 11, 2011 edition of the Sacramento Bee regarding Governor Schwarzenegger, "We willingly chose celebrity over capability. We chose slogans over beliefs; being photogenic over experience; being opportunistic over smarts...he continued with "Every day, individuals, small businesses, corporations and governments are run off the rails by people with their eyes open".
We are beginning to see the aftermath of this self serving power -- state government and other entities are beginning to deteriorate -- they have been "run off the rails". Can we as workers and taxpayers really afford to continue to tolerate this leadership style? I personally think not. Let's not be hoodwinked by false charm and false promises anymore.
How is it that they could fall so far so fast? The how is that they thought they that were invincible. They had paid staff and attorneys surrounding them helping to insulate and isolate them from their reality. These staff ran interference for them, spun stories and kept their secrets just that -- secret. We have seen the same story over and over -- here on a local level with the Realtor Michael Lyons and on a national level with Tiger Woods. People in positions of power lose all sense of themselves and in reality, they truly believe that they are too big to fail.
We see some of these same characteristics in our everyday leaders in government and other organizations. These leaders have surrounded themselves with "yes" people. These staff provide the same isolation and insulation as the outside high priced hired guns. These type of leaders only tolerate people who are loyal to them (or pretend to be) -- no matter what. Loyalists reap the rewards, while other employees with a wealth and depth of knowledge are pushed aside. Civil service is not so civil anymore. How is this patronage system working in state governmental organizations and other institutions?
Has anyone noticed that our institutions are failing as a result of this very self-centered -- what's in it for me leadership style? Everyday there is some expose on another state department: CalPERS, State Teacher's Credentialing Commission, and the Military Department to name a few. Believe me there are many more departments that haven't made the headlines -- yet
As Marcus Breton so eloquently wrote in the May 11, 2011 edition of the Sacramento Bee regarding Governor Schwarzenegger, "We willingly chose celebrity over capability. We chose slogans over beliefs; being photogenic over experience; being opportunistic over smarts...he continued with "Every day, individuals, small businesses, corporations and governments are run off the rails by people with their eyes open".
We are beginning to see the aftermath of this self serving power -- state government and other entities are beginning to deteriorate -- they have been "run off the rails". Can we as workers and taxpayers really afford to continue to tolerate this leadership style? I personally think not. Let's not be hoodwinked by false charm and false promises anymore.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
#7 Power and Confidence
I am sure we have all heard the saying that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Apparently that is true. When Andrew Ross Sorkin wrote the book, "Too Big to Fail" about what lead our financial system to nearly collapse, he was not talking about the financial institutions themselves, he was referring to the leaders of those institutions -- those leaders all felt that they personally were too big to fail. What is it about being successful and powerful that leads people to have, as I used to say, a "head that can barely fit in the room".
Sometime ago I was reading an article in Psychology Today written by Hara Estroff Marano, and it is his contention that the real meaning of power in the 21st century is the ability to change another person's state of mind. This ability to influence others attests to the near-magical social power of confidence. Think Bernie Madoff. He pulled off the ultimate con job, over and over again -- getting many people to invest their money with him. Why did so many smart, wealthy people invest with him? It was his extreme confidence and power.
The author further contends that we, as Americans, do not want to acknowledge that every interaction has power dynamics built into it. If one pays attention when they walk into a room, they can see who has the power -- but one must be attuned to this. He also states "The thing about power and its kissing cousin, confidence, is that they influence you with or without your consent".
Dacher Keltner, professor of psychology at University of San Francisco, contends that when people lack confidence, they always pay too much attention to what others may think of them. But for those people who have power -- it takes them in the other direction -- it makes them uninterested in others' evaluations of them and it leads them to pursue their goals without obstruction. He further asserts that how we treat powerful people compounds the matter. We are less critical of them, more flattering to them. All these actions conspire to make the powerful person really confident. Those individuals who are socially intelligent -- good at connecting with others -- generally acquire power and this feeling of being powerful changes people, often for the worse.
Power turns people into "raving sociopaths," says Keltner. It distorts the way they see themselves. They have a hard time seeing the world from other people's points of view. They judge others less accurately. They interrupt others. They speak out of turn. Their behavior becomes insensitive -- often in a costly fashion.
Those with this overinflated sense of power, often take excessive risks, stemming from over confidence. Keltner further notes, this is the central paradox of power. The skills that lead to obtaining power deteriorate once power is obtained.
Does this sound like some of our leaders? They cannot listen to wise counsel -- it is their way or the highway and they truly believe that if they think it, or say it, IT MUST BE RIGHT -- even though there are so many signals to the contrary. Our government and our governmental institutions are the worse for having these overconfident, yet ineffective leaders. We must train ourselves to truly see them for who they are and elect and appoint those individuals without this sense of confidence, power and entitlement.
Sometime ago I was reading an article in Psychology Today written by Hara Estroff Marano, and it is his contention that the real meaning of power in the 21st century is the ability to change another person's state of mind. This ability to influence others attests to the near-magical social power of confidence. Think Bernie Madoff. He pulled off the ultimate con job, over and over again -- getting many people to invest their money with him. Why did so many smart, wealthy people invest with him? It was his extreme confidence and power.
The author further contends that we, as Americans, do not want to acknowledge that every interaction has power dynamics built into it. If one pays attention when they walk into a room, they can see who has the power -- but one must be attuned to this. He also states "The thing about power and its kissing cousin, confidence, is that they influence you with or without your consent".
Dacher Keltner, professor of psychology at University of San Francisco, contends that when people lack confidence, they always pay too much attention to what others may think of them. But for those people who have power -- it takes them in the other direction -- it makes them uninterested in others' evaluations of them and it leads them to pursue their goals without obstruction. He further asserts that how we treat powerful people compounds the matter. We are less critical of them, more flattering to them. All these actions conspire to make the powerful person really confident. Those individuals who are socially intelligent -- good at connecting with others -- generally acquire power and this feeling of being powerful changes people, often for the worse.
Power turns people into "raving sociopaths," says Keltner. It distorts the way they see themselves. They have a hard time seeing the world from other people's points of view. They judge others less accurately. They interrupt others. They speak out of turn. Their behavior becomes insensitive -- often in a costly fashion.
Those with this overinflated sense of power, often take excessive risks, stemming from over confidence. Keltner further notes, this is the central paradox of power. The skills that lead to obtaining power deteriorate once power is obtained.
Does this sound like some of our leaders? They cannot listen to wise counsel -- it is their way or the highway and they truly believe that if they think it, or say it, IT MUST BE RIGHT -- even though there are so many signals to the contrary. Our government and our governmental institutions are the worse for having these overconfident, yet ineffective leaders. We must train ourselves to truly see them for who they are and elect and appoint those individuals without this sense of confidence, power and entitlement.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
#6 What Happened to Blog #5?
Last Thursday, May 12, 2011, I posted a blog titled Bullies – Life Imitates Art. It was posted for a nanosecond as several followers read it before the site went down. When Goggle Blogger came back up, it was no where to be found. (Note to self –copy all posts and save in Word). I am recapping in a Cliff Notes version the following so that everyone can be on the same page:
A. Bullies are everywhere -- The Apprentice; Survivor; The Real Housewives of (insert name of city); political pundits, etc.
1. All promote bullies and/or alliances; “winning at all costs” and vanquishing of the other.
B. Because these bullies win, do we believe that they really have strength? Do we confuse bullies for strong decisive leaders? If they had real strength (of character, or within themselves) would they need to be bullies?
C. Characteristics and actions of Bullies
1. Threatened by others, insecure or immature; shout or verbally abuse others, single out others for unjustified criticism or blame, exclude others from participating, and/or ignore or criticize someone else’s contribution/work.
F. Not a Winning Strategy for an Organization or Employees within the Organization
1. Some employees go underground; stop contributing – just show up every day and don’t (can’t) care about job or the organization
2. Other employees leave the organization (years of wisdom and institutional knowledge lost)
3. Still others decide to be loyal – loyalty is rewarded – leaders buy their loyalty with promotions – often for employees who are not qualified.
G. Time to acknowledge that some Leaders (whether in organizations or the political arena) are bullies and to stand up to their bullying tactics.
1. Every bully needs a victim – we all need to stop being victims – strength in numbers can stop them from continuing their seemingly "winning ways".
Thanks to those of you who have commented -- keep them coming!
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
#4 Leadership
When we talk about leadership, what does that really mean? It can mean a variety of things to a variety of people, but there are some universal traits that all good leaders possess. These traits are: honesty, integrity, humility, intelligence, and trustworthiness: in other words, a person who has quality of character. In addition, a truly good leader will be dedicated, open to listen to others with mutual respect and trust, will treat all with fairness, and be self aware of and insightful about his/her impact on others. He or she will be able to inspire employees to work together to achieve a common vision and goal. The best leaders are assertive (not aggressive), often have a sense of humor, and will give credit where credit is due. In other words they will be interested in the what is good for everyone.
Good leaders seem to be very comfortable in their own skin. They have a very strong sense of themselves and can admit when they don't know something or they can admit when they have made a mistake -- because no one is perfect. And because they have the ability to be introspective, they also know that they are not perfect. They can speak their mind, critique a situation, or mentor an employee. This is done with respect, and is intended to be helpful, not to demean. There is a difference in tone and intonation -- and we can all recognize the difference.
When leaders show up every day and speak their truths, and if they are consistent, over time we get to know who they are and what they stand for. We can make intelligent decisions as to whether to respect, trust and follow them. If leaders are inconsistent and do not let us see who they are, it is hard, if not impossible, to build an honest relationship with them or to have confidence in them. Not only is this true for leaders, it also applies to everyone we have a personal relationship with -- including family members.
Many leaders deliver contradictory messages and when confronted and asked to explain themselves, they get very aggressive and put down whoever is asking the question; rather than just answer the question. We often mistake this bullying behavior as strength. True strength does not require anyone to be put down or treated with disrespect -- in fact it is quite the opposite.
All of us need to do a reality check and ask ourselves this question -- are our leaders really leaders or are they bullies disguised as leaders?
Good leaders seem to be very comfortable in their own skin. They have a very strong sense of themselves and can admit when they don't know something or they can admit when they have made a mistake -- because no one is perfect. And because they have the ability to be introspective, they also know that they are not perfect. They can speak their mind, critique a situation, or mentor an employee. This is done with respect, and is intended to be helpful, not to demean. There is a difference in tone and intonation -- and we can all recognize the difference.
When leaders show up every day and speak their truths, and if they are consistent, over time we get to know who they are and what they stand for. We can make intelligent decisions as to whether to respect, trust and follow them. If leaders are inconsistent and do not let us see who they are, it is hard, if not impossible, to build an honest relationship with them or to have confidence in them. Not only is this true for leaders, it also applies to everyone we have a personal relationship with -- including family members.
Many leaders deliver contradictory messages and when confronted and asked to explain themselves, they get very aggressive and put down whoever is asking the question; rather than just answer the question. We often mistake this bullying behavior as strength. True strength does not require anyone to be put down or treated with disrespect -- in fact it is quite the opposite.
All of us need to do a reality check and ask ourselves this question -- are our leaders really leaders or are they bullies disguised as leaders?
Thursday, May 5, 2011
#3 Civility -- Another Perspective
In 1994 M. Scott Peck wrote a book titled "A World Waiting to be Born: Civility Rediscovered". Peak started his book with an example: A man on an airplane, after talking to a fellow passenger, sees him as a business prospect, excuses himself, checks the man's credit rating, then returns with a drink "for his new best friend." Peak asked the reader why this is wrong. The reader knows something is off of the mark here, but can't quite put his finger on it. What is wrong Peak explained, is that the passenger is really being treated as a "thing" to be exploited, but outwardly is being treated as an intimate friend. It is an I--IT relationship and is narcissistic. And narcissism, wrote Peck throughout the book, is really the problem: people treating others as if they are only "things" there to serve them. Peak considered this the essence of incivility.
Peak further concluded, that being civil doesn't necessarily mean being polite. The man on the airplane was polite, but a hypocrite. Peak believed that "civility means, more than anything else, not being so utterly self-centered that peoples' feelings are never considered." He further concluded that this true incivility was the cause of many divorces and problems in the workplace.
It seems as though Peak was on the mark 17 years ago, and if anything, the problem has gotten worse. Despite leaders being very charming, employees get treated as "widgets" (things) to be commanded and controlled. They are expected to do whatever is requested of them -- even it is unethical or illegal. This seems to be across the board -- regardless of pay grade. If you do not go along, you are not considered to be loyal and are therefore, not a team player. If you are not a team player, in the leader's mind, you may find yourself not invited to the next important meeting, or overlooked for the next promotion.
What is behind this trend? Are the current leaders, whether at work or in politics, simply narcissistic? Can they not feel any compassion for others, especially those whose lives and livelihoods they are responsible for? Can they really be considered leaders without concern or compassion for others? Maybe the wrong people are being chosen to be leaders.
Peak further concluded, that being civil doesn't necessarily mean being polite. The man on the airplane was polite, but a hypocrite. Peak believed that "civility means, more than anything else, not being so utterly self-centered that peoples' feelings are never considered." He further concluded that this true incivility was the cause of many divorces and problems in the workplace.
It seems as though Peak was on the mark 17 years ago, and if anything, the problem has gotten worse. Despite leaders being very charming, employees get treated as "widgets" (things) to be commanded and controlled. They are expected to do whatever is requested of them -- even it is unethical or illegal. This seems to be across the board -- regardless of pay grade. If you do not go along, you are not considered to be loyal and are therefore, not a team player. If you are not a team player, in the leader's mind, you may find yourself not invited to the next important meeting, or overlooked for the next promotion.
What is behind this trend? Are the current leaders, whether at work or in politics, simply narcissistic? Can they not feel any compassion for others, especially those whose lives and livelihoods they are responsible for? Can they really be considered leaders without concern or compassion for others? Maybe the wrong people are being chosen to be leaders.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
#2 Civility in the Workplace
Over the past several years, I have noticed an increasing lack of civility in the workplace. This is not just happening in the workplace; this bad behavior is modeled by our politicians, on "reality" television shows, and at sporting events -- from the kids' soccer field to the professional baseball park. It seems as though we as a society no longer know how to interact with one another and treat each other with respect.
What does civility mean anyway? The dictionary defines it as the formal politeness that results from observing social conventions. I personally believe that these social conventions are very important. Everyone deserves to be heard and to be treated with respect. It is essential to a healthy workplace. Leaders modeling bad behavior set the tone for the rules of engagement at work.
There is nothing more demoralizing to an employee than being ignored; it is equally disheartening to not be listened to, or when you do speak, to be spoken to in condescending manner. When you witness coworkers being mistreated -- you are happy that it is not happening to you -- but you have been sent a very clear message yourself. That message is if you speak up or disagree, you too may be the next one to get this kind of treatment. The objective is to silence anyone who has a different opinion. This lack of collegial interaction can lead to very poor business decisions, and most certainly leads to bad employee morale.
Disrespect does not engender a highly motivated workforce. Employees do not feel empowered to be creative, to give the job their best or to care about the workplace or leader who does not care about them. Lack of the basic civilities does not promote a happy, healthy workplace nor does it promote happy, healthy employees. Since employees are the most important asset that a entity has (particularly a civil service organization) it is important that they want to return each day. And despite the fact that employees will tell you they leave work at their door step when they arrive home each day, their mind and body know that they do not.
In sharing your thoughts and feelings on this blog site it is important to me that you say what you mean and mean what you say, but do not say it in a mean way. If we are civil, we can all be heard and respected for our own individual thoughts and feelings -- and trust can grow as a result. You each have your own unique perspective and unique voice and I want your voice to be heard. Having said that, I reserve the right to edit out any uncivil or disrespectful comments -- those kinds of comments just get in the way of a meaningful discussion.
As a very good friend once told me, someone will hate what you have to say; someone will love what you have to say; but someone out there will absolutely need to hear what you have to say -- so say it in such a way that you can be heard.
To be continued.....
What does civility mean anyway? The dictionary defines it as the formal politeness that results from observing social conventions. I personally believe that these social conventions are very important. Everyone deserves to be heard and to be treated with respect. It is essential to a healthy workplace. Leaders modeling bad behavior set the tone for the rules of engagement at work.
There is nothing more demoralizing to an employee than being ignored; it is equally disheartening to not be listened to, or when you do speak, to be spoken to in condescending manner. When you witness coworkers being mistreated -- you are happy that it is not happening to you -- but you have been sent a very clear message yourself. That message is if you speak up or disagree, you too may be the next one to get this kind of treatment. The objective is to silence anyone who has a different opinion. This lack of collegial interaction can lead to very poor business decisions, and most certainly leads to bad employee morale.
Disrespect does not engender a highly motivated workforce. Employees do not feel empowered to be creative, to give the job their best or to care about the workplace or leader who does not care about them. Lack of the basic civilities does not promote a happy, healthy workplace nor does it promote happy, healthy employees. Since employees are the most important asset that a entity has (particularly a civil service organization) it is important that they want to return each day. And despite the fact that employees will tell you they leave work at their door step when they arrive home each day, their mind and body know that they do not.
In sharing your thoughts and feelings on this blog site it is important to me that you say what you mean and mean what you say, but do not say it in a mean way. If we are civil, we can all be heard and respected for our own individual thoughts and feelings -- and trust can grow as a result. You each have your own unique perspective and unique voice and I want your voice to be heard. Having said that, I reserve the right to edit out any uncivil or disrespectful comments -- those kinds of comments just get in the way of a meaningful discussion.
As a very good friend once told me, someone will hate what you have to say; someone will love what you have to say; but someone out there will absolutely need to hear what you have to say -- so say it in such a way that you can be heard.
To be continued.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)