Right Attitudes

Ideas for Impact

Group Dynamics

Labeling Damage

By Leave a Comment

Labels not only stereotype individuals but also limit and stifle them. Even so-called positive labels like “little miss perfect” perpetuate harmful stereotypes and can be internalized. Labels create walls around people, making it difficult for them to break free from preconceived notions.

Instead of oversimplifying people’s traits and characteristics with labels, let’s celebrate individuality by avoiding labels altogether. Let’s embrace the complexity of each person and acknowledge their unique qualities.

Wondering what to read next?

  1. Racism and Identity: The Lie of Labeling
  2. Stop Stigmatizing All Cultural ‘Appropriation’
  3. Beyond Mansplaining’s Veil
  4. Cancel Culture has a Condescension Problem
  5. Can’t Ban Political Talk at Work

Racism and Identity: The Lie of Labeling

By Leave a Comment

This video examines how categorical labeling and the us-versus-them mentality it fosters are at the heart of division and, subsequently, intolerance and non-acceptance.

From birth, the world force-feeds us these labels, and eventually, we all swallow them. We digest and accept the labels, never ever doubting them, but there’s one problem. Labels are not you, and labels are not me. Labels are just labels. Who we truly are is skin deep. Who we truly are is found inside.

Labels forever blind us from seeing a person for whom they are, but instead force us to see them through the judgmental, prejudicial, artificial filters of who we think they are.

Labels Aren’t Just Idle Placeholders

Labels determine what we see. As essayist James Baldwin cautions in The Price of the Ticket (1985,) “As long as you think you are white, there is no hope for you. Because as long as you think you’re white, I’m forced to think I’m black.”

We’ve used the lie of labeling to define and separate people for millennia. We emotionally and intellectually enslave ourselves when we believe the lie of a label. Then we enslave others. Even forcing people to self-identify by labels reinforces separation, stereotyping, and divisiveness.

Rigid stereotypes of out-group norms follow. Such attitudes are harmful because they overlook the full humanity and uniqueness of all people. When our perceptions of different races are distorted and stereotypical, it’s demeaning, devaluing, limiting, and hurtful to others.

Idea for Impact: Let’s Stop Sidestepping the Human Behind the Labels

What we need now—more than ever—is an individual and collective shift from tolerance to acceptance (it’s possible to be tolerant without being accepting, but it isn’t possible to be accepting without first being tolerant.) In so doing, we can work to create a society in which everyone is valued, appreciated, and embraced.

Wondering what to read next?

  1. Labeling Damage
  2. Stop Stigmatizing All Cultural ‘Appropriation’
  3. Beyond Mansplaining’s Veil
  4. Cancel Culture has a Condescension Problem
  5. Can’t Ban Political Talk at Work

Giving Feedback and Depersonalizing It: Summary of Kim Scott’s ‘Radical Candor’

By Leave a Comment

It takes finesse to tell your boss and colleagues what you really think and address conflicts with urgency. When individuals are hesitant to talk frankly to each other, unresolved conflict can wreak havoc on productivity and culture.

'Radical Candor' by Kim Scott (ISBN 1529038340) Former Google and Apple executive Kim Scott’s bestselling Radical Candor (2017) can help if you struggle with delivering honest feedback with the subtlety that suits the relationship. To avoid turning criticism into a personal attack, Scott suggests phrasing feedback using a “situation-behavior-impact” recipe (identical to the Manager Tools’ Feedback Model I’ve recommended for years): describe the situation where the problem behavior appeared, the other’s specific actions, and their impact. Instead of “You’re sloppy,” tell, “You’ve been working nights and weekends, and it’s taken a toll on your accuracy.” Scott also extends directions on how to educate to deal with conflict, strike positive solutions, and foster a fertile conflict mindset that everybody embraces.

Recommendation: Speedread Radical Candor. If you condone the narrative inconsistencies, excessive name-dropping, and banal Silicon Valley tenor, this text will teach you how tactful conflict and giving honest feedback can be an impetus for positive change. Bruised egos and problems nipped in the bud are better than the alternative—stalled projects, mediocre work, and resentment that festers on.

Wondering what to read next?

  1. Fear of Feedback: Won’t Give, Don’t Ask
  2. Never Criticize Little, Trivial Faults
  3. A Guide to Your First Management Role // Book Summary of Julie Zhuo’s ‘The Making of a Manager’
  4. Leaders Need to Be Strong and Avoid Instilling Fear
  5. Never Skip Those 1-1 Meetings

Why You May Be Overlooking Your Best Talent

By Leave a Comment

Many organizations have a hard time articulating their culture. They can’t explain what they mean when they evoke the phrase “culture fit.” Sometimes it’s just an excuse to engage employees better whom managers feel they can personally relate.

Affinity bias is a common tendency to evaluate people like us more positively than others. This bias often affects who gets hired, promoted, or picked for job opportunities. Employees who look like those already in leadership roles are more likely to be recognized for career development, resulting in a lack of representation in senior positions.

This affinity for people who are like ourselves is hard-wired into our brains. Outlawing bias is doomed to fail.

Idea for Impact: If you want to avoid missing your top talent, become conscious of implicit biases. Don’t overlook any preference for like-minded people.

For any role, create a profile that encompasses which combination of hard and soft skills will matter for the role and on the team. Determine what matters and focus on the traits and skills you need.

Wondering what to read next?

  1. The Unlikely Barrier to True Diversity
  2. The Duplicity of Corporate Diversity Initiatives
  3. Beyond Mansplaining’s Veil
  4. Labeling Damage
  5. Racism and Identity: The Lie of Labeling

Employee Surveys: Asking for Feedback is Not Enough

By Leave a Comment

Nothing undermines employee trust faster than inviting employees to provide feedback about their work experience and then not following up.

Don’t take the employee satisfaction survey results at face value. Don’t discount the importance of the findings by brushing them off, “the data were what we expected” or “there were no real surprises here.”

Show that you’ve listened to what employees are saying. Initiate strategic conversations with selected employees and explore critical issues in more depth. Establish cross-functional teams to react to the survey’s findings. Let the team consist primarily of non-senior employees. A senior manager could sponsor and support—not manage—the team and see an action plan through.

Idea for Impact: Employee surveys, focus groups, and discussions that don’t change how an organization functions ultimately undermine employees’ faith that their leaders really care what the employees think. Close the communication loop.

Wondering what to read next?

  1. Fire Fast—It’s Heartless to Hang on to Bad Employees
  2. Giving Feedback and Depersonalizing It: Summary of Kim Scott’s ‘Radical Candor’
  3. Can You Be Terminated for Out-of-Work Conduct?
  4. Are Layoffs Your Best Strategy Now?
  5. Can’t Ban Political Talk at Work

Tokenism Isn’t Inclusion

By Leave a Comment

This BBC article notes that diversity in many companies can be tokenistic—mere window dressing in fact. Sadly, even after decades of diversity initiatives, inclusion continues to be about numerical requirements and box-checking.

Within a few weeks at her job at a New York salon, hairstylist Cheyenne began to feel like a prop. When wealthy, diverse clients would enter, staff would go out of their way to introduce her and include her in conversations. “I realized the only other black women in the salon were always placed in areas where you could see them from the front. It was almost like they were being showcased. I don’t think the salon owners were trying to be diverse. I think they were trying to seem diverse.” Cheyenne was left feeling like a token: a member of a previously excluded group often hired or promoted as a symbolic gesture toward inclusivity.

Idea for Impact: Stop paying lip service to inclusion. Let’s broaden our understanding of diversity beyond identity-based differences. Let’s thoughtfully and purposefully draw on the unique and varied expertise and experiences that, when integrated, can expand our collective creative potential.

Wondering what to read next?

  1. Create a Diversity and Inclusion Policy
  2. The Unlikely Barrier to True Diversity
  3. The Duplicity of Corporate Diversity Initiatives
  4. Why You May Be Overlooking Your Best Talent
  5. Seven Easy Ways to Motivate Employees and Increase Productivity

Can’t Ban Political Talk at Work

By Leave a Comment

When politics and social issues are increasingly divisive, workplaces find it challenging to forbid political conversation entirely from the workplace. In April, project management software company Basecamp faced uproar when trying to ban politics at work. Co-founder Jason Fried announced that Basecamp would no longer tolerate discussions around political or social issues “where the work happens,”

Today’s social and political waters are especially choppy. Sensitivities are at 11, and every discussion remotely related to politics, advocacy, or society at large quickly spins away from pleasant. You shouldn’t have to wonder if staying out of it means you’re complicit, or wading into it means you’re a target. These are difficult enough waters to navigate in life, but significantly more so at work. It’s become too much. It’s a major distraction. It saps our energy and redirects our dialog towards dark places.

Basecamp’s ban was meant to prevent distraction and souring of work relationships, but the mandate swiftly backfired. Twenty out of some 60 employees threatened to quit.

Banning Political Discussions Isn’t That Simple

I think banning political talk is a lazy way for leadership to not deal with issues like racism, misogyny, stereotyping, and contempt that may be festering among employees.

Often, when people say they want more political discussion in the workplace, they actually mean that they want more political discussion about viewpoints they want others to conform to. Workplaces with lots of political discussions are ones where most of the staff has identical socio-political leanings. Employees with divergent political leanings tend to be reticent and stay out of such talks.

It’s neither productive nor possible to not talk about politics and society at work. Companies can’t tell employees to not bring their real selves to work. People are opinionated about politics, and everyone has views and tries to defend them. Besides, politics isn’t a neatly self-contained issue that doesn’t overlap with anything else. When an employee’s attitudes aren’t in line with the company’s—or even the majority’s—attitudes, “put up or shut up” policies end up more damaging than the bickering or backlash they are intended to avoid.

Group settings are better when divergent opinions are known. An inclusive workforce must be able to embrace a diverse range of views. Conversations will come up anyway, and instead of banning these conversations and encouraging employees to take them outside of work, employers must institute protocols for airing and understanding opposing opinions and dealing with offensive behavior.

Idea for Impact: Canceling conversations about the significant issues of the day simply silences those with unpopular attitudes instead of encouraging a culture of growth.

Wondering what to read next?

  1. Let’s Not Talk About Trump
  2. Ask for Forgiveness, Not Permission
  3. Beyond Mansplaining’s Veil
  4. Labeling Damage
  5. The More Facebook Friends You Have, The More Stressed You’ll Be

The #1 Reason Why Employees Don’t Speak Up

By Leave a Comment

Notwithstanding management’s well-intended open-door policies, employees avoid voicing concerns when they don’t feel safe doing so. They think it’s more harmless to “duck and cover” than to speak up and help the organization.

Employees don’t want to jeopardize their jobs. They don’t want to be labeled troublemakers and alienate themselves from co-workers and supervisors. In some cases, employees’ fears may not be of immediate retaliation but instead a deferred reckoning that could upset their careers years down the line.

The self-preservation motive is so dominant that the perceived risks of speaking up are very personal and immediate to employees. In contrast, the potential benefits to the organization from sharing concerns seem distant and abstract.

Consequently employees often instinctively play it safe by keeping quiet. Often, they rationalize their implied compliance by saying that the concerns are none of their business—and wishing that somebody else would speak up.

Idea for Impact: The freedom to raise questions, concerns, and ideas is at the heart of an open organizational culture. Unless employees are convinced that they’ll be supported to do the right thing, they could hesitate to speak up and help remedy problems before they can blow up.

Wondering what to read next?

  1. Confirm Key Decisions in Writing
  2. Is The Customer Always Right?
  3. Numbers Games: Summary of The Tyranny of Metrics by Jerry Muller
  4. Why Incentives Backfire and How to Make Them Work: Summary of Uri Gneezy’s Mixed Signals
  5. A Sense of Urgency

The Unlikely Barrier to True Diversity

By Leave a Comment

As much as companies like to tout diversity, the definitive rule of getting ahead at work is to be likable—to follow the unwritten set of norms and adhere to your company’s culture. That is, you must fit and mix well with the rest of the “gang.”

As I’ve written before, likeability is a significant predictor of success. Well-liked people, especially those who work well with others, will advance. Those who aren’t very likable don’t usually get as far. If your company is conservative, you should be conservative. If the leadership is aggressive, snappy, and rule-bending, be the same. It’s better to be “one of them” to progress your career and endear yourself to your colleagues and higher-ups.

Every grouping of people, whatever the institution, community, or population, has an unwritten set of norms. It’s true for nations, in social groups, sports teams, and businesses. Wherever people form a group, they organically form rules. They institutionalize ways of doing things, traditions, and unquestioned assumptions. Such norms give the group a sense of identity. It’s natural. It’s tribe mentality. We, humans, are social creatures, and this is how we foster a sense of belonging.

Affinity Bias

Per affinity bias, human nature is such that people instinctively associate other people with labels, relate, and play favorites. Groups establish the norms and embrace and propagate them. The resulting categorization not only resists differences but also initiates prejudice and favoritism.

In professional settings, most workplaces tend to hire similar people and encourage them to think and work in the same way. I’ve previously written,

Even if nearly all corporate mission statements extol the virtues of “valuing differences,” managers stifle individuality down in the trenches. They are less willing to be receptive to different viewpoints. They seek to mold their employees to conform to the existing culture of the workplace and to comply with the existing ways of doing things. Compliant, acquiescent employees who look the part are promoted in preference to exceptional, questioning employees who bring truly different perspectives to the table. The nail that sticks its head up indeed gets hammered down.

Defining, fostering, and defending a corporate culture often becomes an exercise in clarifying ‘this is who we are’ and ‘this is who we are not.’ It engenders a strong norm, which builds an even more significant incentive to get people to think alike, get on, and tolerate or repel incompatible people.

Idea for Impact: Culture is a Barrier to Diversity and Inclusion

Culture is the unlikely—if unintentional—barrier to true diversity. Culture has a pernicious effect on hiring. It gives people ample reason to favor and engage who they believe to be “the right people.”

Wondering what to read next?

  1. The Duplicity of Corporate Diversity Initiatives
  2. Why You May Be Overlooking Your Best Talent
  3. Tokenism Isn’t Inclusion
  4. Don’t Manage with Fear
  5. How to Avoid Magical Thinking

How People Defend Themselves in a Crisis

By Leave a Comment

How People Defend Themselves in a Crisis The desire to protect and enhance one’s self-image is among the strongest motives of human behavior. No wonder scientific literature is laden with discussions on the ways in which people invoke self-deception in the interest of maintaining a favorable sense of their selves.

People have a propensity to avoid conscious awareness of fear-triggering worries, conflicts, and uncertainties. They engage in thought patterns that distort the external realities as a way of coping with distress.

Psychologists use the term “ego defense mechanisms” to describe the pattern of thought and behavior that arises in response to the perception of psychical danger.

Defense Mechanisms Play an Important Role in Self-Preservation

Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) wrote in The Ego and the Id (1923,) “We have come upon something in the ego itself which is also unconscious, which behaves exactly like the repressed—that is, which produces powerful effects without itself being conscious and which requires special work before it can be made conscious.” Freud’s daughter, Anna Freud (1895–1982,) and other psychologists identified twelve primary defense mechanisms:

  1. Denial: explicitly refusing to acknowledge the threatening reality even when presented with indisputable data (e.g. someone with a terminal illness rejecting the imminence of his death.) Denial may give the respondent some time to evaluate the meaning and seriousness of the threatening reality before reacting to it.
  2. Disavowal: acknowledging the threatening reality but downplaying its significance
  3. Suppression: intentionally engaging distractions to eliminate from consciousness any thoughts of the threatening reality
  4. Fixation: committing inflexibly to one specific mind-set or course of action
  5. Substitution: replacing an unattainable or unacceptable instinctual object or emotion with one that is more accessible or tolerable
  6. Displacement / Transference: redirecting emotions from their original object to a substitute object that is somehow associated with the original one.
  7. Compensation: making amends for a perceived deficiency that cannot be eliminated (e.g., a physical defect) by excelling in some other way.
  8. Grandiosity: exaggerated feeling of power or influence over the threatening reality
  9. Idealization: ascribing power or influence to an existent or imaginary “savior” (an individual or a organization)
  10. Intellectualization: thoroughly rationalizing a particular thought or action, by means of a misleading, but self-serving justification
  11. Projection: incorrectly attributing to others any objectionable thoughts or actions. According to Sigmund Freud, projection makes a person perceive his objectionable character traits in others as a means of avoiding seeing those very faults in himself. For example, a man who cannot accept his own anger may cope with his feelings by accusing others as angry.
  12. Splitting: fragmenting, isolating, and focusing on only certain elements of the threatening reality, instead of considering the complexity brought about by the crisis as a coherent whole

Idea for Impact: It pays to familiarize yourself with these twelve defense mechanisms and be able to identify them in how you (and others) react to emotionally charged situations, especially in close relationships. Defense mechanisms are natural forms of self-protection. However, used excessively, they can turn out to be pathological.

Reference: Cheryl Travers, “Handling the Stress” in Michael Bland (Ed.) Communicating out of a Crisis (1998)

Wondering what to read next?

  1. The More You Can Manage Your Emotions, the More Effective You’ll Be
  2. Anger is the Hardest of the Negative Emotions to Subdue
  3. Learn to Manage Your Negative Emotions and Yourself
  4. This Trick Can Relieve Your Anxiety: “What’s the worst that can happen?”
  5. This May Be the Most Potent Cure for Melancholy