Change and choice.

Many years ago when I was starting what became one of the top 25 corporate wellness programs in the country, I learned an important lesson that can be applied to a high performance culture.

When asked if this new program was going to get Fred to quit smoking 4 packs a day, I said: “No.”

“Then why waste our money on this program?” the CEO asked.

“ Because one 4-pack a day smoker can’t be the measure of success if he doesn’t want to quit.  We have 1000 other employees, many of whom are willing to change or modify their habits. We need to focus on them.”

Fred was a great guy and performed his job well, but he didn’t want change.

Know Your ABC’s

You see, there are the “A’s” – people who are generally healthy. They exercise, eat fairly well and have generally healthy habits. They like the benefits of being an A.

The “B’s” are people who could loses a couple pounds, work out a little more, maybe have a glass of wine or two less a week.  They’d like to improve – maybe be an A someday.

Then there are the “C’s.”  Fred was a C.   He loved to smoke. The C’s are overweight, are couch potatoes and like their cocktails or tobacco – thank you very much!  You don’t have to worry about the C’s being or wanting to be health-nuts!

And the same holds true in work performance.

Where are you spending your time?

How much time is spent trying to assist the “corporate C’s ?”  The people who really don’t want to change.  The chronically marginal performer? The person who is perpetually late or missing deadlines?   Are you trying to rehab the complainers, whiners and gossip mongers of the world?  You know, the people who spread their venom with the A’s and B’s?  Then there’s the time spent documenting, coaching, counseling and only to have to start the process again 6 months later?

STOP THE MADNESS!

If you want a high performance culture, focus on your A’s and B’s.  The goal is keep the A’s performing at an A level and to raise the B’s to A’s and not slip into being a C.

How much time are you spending with your A and B performers? How are you rewarding, motivating and acknowledging their contributions? Are you focused on their goals and their development?  Or are your C’s sucking you dry?

Here’s how you handle C’s

The C’s may be nice people. But if they choose not to perform consistently or are the right people for the wrong job, coach and counsel them out!  If they are negative and vocal about it, it impacts everyone…a good performer with bad attitude is still a C.

First you review performance expectations with the C.  Make sure they have the tools, resources and training needed to do their job adequately. Set a time for follow up to review progress. Monitor, measure and give timely feedback.

If all goes well, congratulate the C and let the C know this level of performance must be maintained consistently.  And if it’s not, then, the progressive discipline steps will be rigorously applied.

C’s have a choice… and so do you, as a leader.

Return on Investment

To create a high performance culture, people need to know expectations, get feedback and rewards for contributions.  Invest your time, energy and money with the people who want to contribute.  You’re A’s and B’s will be grateful and you can go home at night with peace of mind.

• The Traditionalists (born before 1945)
• Boomers (1946-1964)
• Gen X (1965-1980)
• Gen Y/Millennials (1981 – 2000)

The leadership, communication and work styles of each are very different.

Many organizations are still being led with a “command and control” style, reminiscent of WWII, Korean and Vietnam military styles of management.  Employees were expected to be “good soldiers,” follow rank and directed in how to do their jobs.

Aahh – the good old days, many might be saying.  And in the good ol’ days,” there was little need for collaboration.  But this is 2013 and like it or not, there’s an expectation of involvement, participation and teamwork.

Control versus Collaboration

Let’s take a look at a few of the advantages of Control versus Collaboration and then you make the call which is best for you, your team and your organization.

Pro Control: One good thing about a controlling style is that people know what’s expected.  They don’t have to think, which makes it easier because people are not expected or encouraged to ask questions and do what they are told.

Pro Collaboration: Potential and costly pitfalls or problems can be identified when people can ask questions and participate in a process. There are also opportunities for more creativity and innovation.

Pro Control: Involving people takes too long.  It’s easier for me to do myself.

Pro Collaboration: Involving people develops potential leaders, taps into skill-sets at a deeper level

Pro Control: Can blame others when things go wrong.

Pro Collaboration: Builds accountability, commitment to quality and success

Pro Control: Compliant people stay; “bad apples” leave.

Pro Collaboration: Creative, talented contributors stay; people who don’t want to be accountable or contribute leave.

Pro Control: Get to demonstrate power, intimidate and manipulate others

Pro Collaboration: Builds loyalty and ownership

Many people worry that things will fall apart by giving up control. They worry that building collaboration will take too long or people won’t collaborate willingly or it will be a “free for all” with no direction or structure.  Keep in mind that collaboration does not mean abdication of responsibility or lack of structure.  On the contrary, collaboration works best with structure and accountability.

Here are some steps to take for successful collaboration:

1) Clearly state expectations, outcomes and time frames. Provide big picture.  Ask what resources information or tools are needed to help them meet the objectives and desired outcomes.

2) Ask and address what concerns they have about the project or assignment

3) Ask if they can think of other things that need to be considered to make sure it’s successful

4) Agree on and set measures for monitoring progress.

5) Set regular times to discuss progress.

6) Review steps 1-3 as needed.

Remember: it takes time for an organization to change from control to collaboration.  If people are accustomed to not being accountable, there can be resistance and distrust about the process.  While a controlling style may be easier in the short run, it is detrimental to people and the organization in the long run.

Often times, the results produced in this type of organizational culture include:

• Increased employee turnover – usually it’s the higher performers who leave because they’re marketable
• Low customer satisfaction scores
• Loss of major accounts or funders
• Increase in accidents and absenteeism
• Low productivity; Poor quality and re-work

Here are some signs that the organizational culture is toxic and dangerous to organizational and employee health:

Blame and Excuses

People spend more time blaming or making excuses than finding solutions

People are critical of possible solutions or of people who are trying to be positive

No Accountability

Lack of clear goals and objectives or not asking for them

Accepting, ignoring or denying poor performance

No Ownership

Tolerating bad behavior, gossip and negativity

Waiting for someone else to speak up or take positive action.

Courage

To shift from a culture of negativity to one of accountability takes courage.  When there is alignment and camaraderie around negative thinking, a person has to be brave in demonstrating accountability in the face of adversity.  It takes courage to create new conversations about high quality, performance, and teamwork.  The first step is to have courage in acknowledging the problem and having the courage to take actions that will change the culture.

Planting Seeds of Change: One Person at a Time

People are resistant to change, even when the environment is unhealthy and unproductive.  The key is to identify a few people who are not willing to be victims of the culture and who want to be part of making things better.

Changing organizational culture can not be mandated.  It happens one person at a time. As more people take accountability for their contribution to the environment, good or bad, there can be a ground swell of change.

Training

Usually an organization needs outside training or facilitation to define and adapt to a new culture and to help people adopt new behaviors.  Finding the right outside resource will provide not only a fresh perspective and credibility, but tools for people to take ownership of the process and make it sustainable.  A cookie cutter model probably won’t work.  People need to be empowered with the process.

Back to Courage – Again…

Implementing organizational change from a toxic culture to one of teamwork and accountability takes time. There are a lot of similarities to the five stages of the grieving process: Denial, Bargaining, Anger, Despair and Acceptance.

It takes courage to go the distance and acknowledge it may take 12 to 18 to 24 months to shift the culture, including aligning people, processes and systems with the new environment.  Hard decisions will need to be made. Some people may not make it and be asked to leave. Others may de-select.  The important thing is that there is a team that is aligned and committed to the future success and health of the organization and its employees.

The recent tragedies at the elementary school in Connecticut, the theater in Aurora and shopping mall in Oregon have led to numerous conversations about gun control.

I’m going to suggest that is not the conversation that will prevent these types of horrific events.

The general tone and tenor of everyday conversations are often a reflection of  “cultural conversations” – the conversations heard on television shows, on the radio, video games and in the news that lead to acceptable conversations in our American culture.  The glamorization, gameification, glorification and acceptance of hostile behavior as portrayed on television, movies, video games… and Congress are leading us to a more aggressive and hostile society.   Whether it’s the new game show called “Take It All” which is a horrible example of promoting lying, deceit and greed so people can walk away with more money and stuff or watching the video that went viral of a 4 year old crying because of the negative  impact of political ads, are enough to make grown people cry.  The words and behaviors of our representatives in Washington are filled with positional, self righteous and self serving rhetoric that is contributing to “acceptable-aggressive behavior,” fear of the future, and increased stress on a national level.

As a national speaker, I was told that one of the more frequently requested topics is “bullying.” And not just for young people – the request is for dealing with “corporate bullying.”  Workplace intimidation by bosses and co-workers is on the rise and people are looking for strategies to stop it.

Fear based conversations are everywhere and seem to be the cultural norm – for now.

At a recent social lunch meeting, I finally asked my colleague to change the subject.  For 30 continuous minutes he talked about his guns, conceal carry, the need for protection in his car, in his house, at work; was I scared to live several miles from where a rape occurred; did I own a gun to protect myself,….

He was surprised when I told him I found the conversation upsetting and disturbing.

I am not naïve to the realities of life. Nor do I act recklessly.

But I am not committed to adding to the cultural conversations about fear, violence, aggression, or hostile behavior.

I am committed to assisting people in creating conversations that can change the way they see the world and can even change the world, so that we live in a more peaceful, prosperous and civilized society.

I believe that “the New Normal” is about radical collaboration.  The mentality of the future has no room for taking-it-all or aggressive, hostile intimidating behaviors.  Successful and prosperous people and organizations  are those who are good stewards of their resources.  They are looking out for the good of the whole and for the long term.

So, what are you talking about?  And how are you contributing to the cultural conversation?  And are you willing to shift conversations to be more representative of the kind of world you want to live in?

For people who embrace diversity, value differences and encourage innovation and creativity, this is your chance to learn a lesson or two in leadership, communication and motivation from a drag queen.

For the uninitiated, Ru Paul is a drag queen.  “Drag U” is a reality show that helps an average,  straight woman in Middle America reclaim herself, her self confidence, self esteem and inner and outer beauty.  Each woman has a personal coach or “professor,” as they’re known on the show, who is a drag queen with a name like Latrice Royale, Pandora Boxx or Jujubee.

So you may be wondering, what a drag queen can teach a corporate executive?

While the “students” were like the average woman in the workforce today, the Drag U “professors” were totally unlike most managers and organizational leaders… and not because of their hair, make up or choice of clothes.

The striking difference was how they coached and communicated with the women who were setting new goals and overcoming barriers.

They displayed a level of compassion, humor, motivation and inspiration for the women in ways that is rarely seen in the workplace.  They had a capacity to listen deeply and with great care and understanding, as the women admitted their fears, concerns and disappointments. The “professors” helped the women overcome barriers as they attempted to change old habits.  And they instilled courage and put the women at ease with a little bit of whimsy too.  They knew when to be constructive, motivating and playful.

How often do you see these qualities demonstrated in the workplace when people are learning new systems or procedures?

When a manager is giving performance feedback, do they demonstrate confidence and motivation for the person to improve?

When people are working mega-hours to reach project deadlines, do managers or leaders provide any opportunities for fun and playfulness?   And if there is a play-break, is it forced and uncomfortable or do people feel the need or pressure to double down for taking time off?

How are your managers working with employees to set goals and then celebrating accomplishments or milestones toward achievements?

Are employees feeling valued for their contributions and opportunities to grow?

A recent conversation with an experienced VP of Marketing revealed the reality of working for his boss – a CEO of 25 years for a mid-sized organization.  The CEO was described as “mean-spirited” and “who makes ridiculous demands with unreasonable deadlines; is unpleasant, irrational and is never wrong.”  This VP said that even though employees were “grateful to have a job in this economy, they often made decisions that were not in the best interest of the organization. Instead, they made decisions that wouldn’t tick off the boss.”

The chances of this CEO learning better communication, leadership and motivational skills from a drag queen are pretty slim, particularly since he’s never wrong.

But an executive or manager can change the environment so employees can make decisions that are in the best interest of the organization. And they can also include a little more appreciation and fun.  Yes – fun.

Some of the most successful and profitable companies today have core values that don’t look like traditional companies’ values.  They reflect a uniqueness and playfulness, and have core values that are ingrained in the culture.  Consider Google, Zappos and Virgin:

“Working at Google is fun”

Zappos says “create fun and a little weirdness”

Any product or service to bear the Virgin label “must have a sense of fun.”

Before the naysayers whine that these are high tech or young companies, run by “kids”…  Remember – Zappos is a call center. It is not a high tech or flashy business. The people at Zappos are on the phones all day processing orders and answering questions.   And the Virgin Group, consisting of over 400 companies is run by 60+ year old Richard Branson.

So if you’re up for some fun and think you could possibly learn something about motivation and performance coaching from a drag queen, take a look: http://www.logotv.com/shows/rupauls_drag_u/season_3/series.jhtml

The pressure for bottom line results in organizations has never been greater and organizational leaders are pushing for change and results in:

• quarterly shareholder earnings,
• innovation of new products or services,
• increased sales,
• improved customer satisfaction.

In turn, managers and employees often times feel the pressure and urgency to adapt to changing business models and expectations, which can be extremely stressful.

Change is stressful, no matter what role or position a person has in an organization.  Each person has a different capacity for handling stress and how people adapt and respond to stress is different. For many people, a natural reaction to stress and change is resistance.  There can be fear, anger and resentment about changes and those are the last things that most organizational leaders want to address when changes are looming on the horizon.

So what’s a contemporary leader to do?

Consider the definitions of forgiveness:

• “To stop being angry about or resentful against.”

• “Forgiveness is the cessation of resentment, indignation or anger as a result of a perceived offense, disagreement, or mistake.”

While the benefits of forgiveness have long been explored in religious studies, there is significant data from medical and mental health practitioners that claim that forgiveness and the healing process are directly related.  In fact, Alexander Loyd, PhD, ND and Ben Johnson, MD, DO and NMD, authors of The Healing Code  assert that forgiveness/unforgiveness may be the most critical issues in anyone’s life.

Dr. Robert Enright, founder of the International Forgiveness Foundation conducted a study that showed that people who were generally more neurotic, angry and hostile in life were less likely to forgive another person even after a long time had passed and had a wide range of significant health issues. Conversely, the studies showed that people who forgive are happier and healthier.

Finally, Dr. Fred Luskin conducted three separate studies that found that people who are taught how to forgive become less angry, feel less hurt, are more optimistic, become more forgiving in a variety of situations, and become more compassionate and self-confident. His studies show a reduction in stress, the physical manifestations of stress, and increased vitality.

Iif an organizational culture and climate is a breeding ground for stress and pressure, one could expect that there’s an undercurrent of anger, resentment and segment of unhealthy employees.  The likelihood of successful organizational change is compromised. Demonstrating forgiveness may be one way to create a healthier more productive and profitable organization.

So, what are some ways people in organizations can show forgiveness?

1) Organizational leaders can communicate the need for change in a more compassionate and relevant way, so people understand the importance and impact of what would happen if things don’t change.  The old WIIFM (what’s in it for me) rule of thumb applies here. If the change is perceived to be of benefit for a select few, expect a high level of passive resistance.  Forgive people for wanting to know you’re operating in their best interest.

2) Organizational leaders need to forgive employees for wanting information, transparency and honesty. They need to forgive employees for wanting and expecting organizational leaders to be accountable and trust-worthy.

3) Organizational leaders can create human resource and operational policies and practices that are aligned with the vision, mission and core values. (see # 2 for forgiveness…)

4) Employees need to forgive leaders and managers for not having all the answers, all the time.

5) Employees can forgive co-workers and managers for not always listening or communicating on a timely basis

6) Employees can be accountable. Perform their jobs as best as possible. Contribute skills and knowledge to the organization to make it a better place. Unforgiveness can prevent a person from acting in their own best interest and from contributing to the greater whole .

7) All employees can show respect. There’s no room for respect when unforgiveness is present.

What would happen in your organization if there was more forgiveness and less resentment and anger?

Here are examples of organizational objectives from a well-known technology company:

• “Leveraged value prop to create an impact across the customer journey framework
• Share importance of brand health as measured by key brand attributes
• Highlight role clarity along customer journey and unbroken demand chain.”

Really?  Someone is actually responsible for “role clarity related to an unbroken demand chain?”  What does this mean and does it really matter?

Why can’t they say:

• Create value for the customer at each point of contact and/or for each product line
• Make sure products are effective in the marketplace
• Be accountable.

One local organization that has laid off tens of thousands of people in the last four years has done a huge disservice to its employees because many of these people remain unemployed several years after the layoffs.  Here are a few reasons why:

1) Their jobs were so uniquely defined, they have no transferrable skills to another company or industry; several people have said they couldn’t explain their job duties. And these people had MBAs.

2) Positions may have been titled “director of market data analysis,” or another impressive title, but job duties consisted of compiling reports that a good administrator could do in about an hour and attended meetings that had no action items.

3) They paid employees extremely well, beyond any remotely-close comparable market rate.  This type of compensation policy is irresponsible and unconscionable.

Note: Nine of the top 16 highest wage earners in the city worked for this company during the time they laid off 20,000 people.

For organizations to be successful in the future – that is, to hire and retain the best people, attract and retain the best customers, provide a valuable service or product and make a reasonable profit, they need to align their words and actions with the vision, mission and core values of the company.

Job functions need to be aligned with organizational objectives and paid appropriately.

Organizational policies and practices that do not support the vision or mission or core values need to be changed.

If an organization can’t create alignment, stop pretending to have a vision and values.

If GM had been aligned with their core values of “innovation,” “continuous improvement and “customer enthusiasm,” they would have taken action on unprofitable lines of business before having to get federal bailout money to avoid bankruptcy.  Only under pressure did they make the decision to eliminate almost 30 unprofitable vehicles.  Executives knew for years that the Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Saturn and Hummer lines weren’t profitable.

It takes a lot of corporate-speak and lingo bingo to hide the facts and protect bad business decisions to that extent.  It’s corporate deception, at best. When a corporate culture lacks real accountability, you’ll find corporate speak and a lack of executive stewardship.

It’s time to demand plain speaking – as an employee, customer or shareholder.

So what do they have in common? (insert drum roll): both organizational change and wet diapers are uncomfortable! The difference is that most people in organizations hate change and babies love it… and babies like to be changed frequently!

But most good organizational leaders and corporate soldiers will say they “embrace change,” “foster change and innovation,” or “champion change.” Unfortunately, their day-to-day behaviors, operational processes and reward structures often times support the status quo. I’m going to suggest that organizations need to remember the wet diaper and act like an adult and take action to change things especially when it’s uncomfortable.

Thinking inside the box, following long standing, established organizational protocol and chains of command are often what gets rewarded. And in some organizations, the mere mention of change can be a career limiting move. So why would someone rock the boat? Why would anyone willingly champion change that will most likely, be met with overt or passive resistance or good old fashioned lip-service?

Survival

Since 2008 the world as we know it has changed dramatically. We are living in what is being referred to as the “post-trust era.” Politically, socially, technologically the world has changed, and the national and global economies have been impacted in unprecedented ways.

People generally feel they can no longer trust those in key decision making roles because of the egregious actions by some industry leaders that contributed to the worst recession ever. These actions led to a massive trickle down effect that crippled or eliminated many organizations across the country.

Any organization that thinks it can operate the way it did before 2008 and survive in the future is destined for failure or a rude awakening at best. Most organizations, not-for-profits and associations have had to significantly change their ways of doing business to adapt to the realities of the new economy.

Reasons for Organizational Change

What type types of organizational changes are needed to compete in this “post trust era?” At the risk of sounding like Bubba Blue in Forrest Gump, when talking about shrimp: (“Shrimp is the fruit of the sea. You can barbecue it, boil it, broil it, bake it, sauté it. There’s shrimp kebabs, shrimp creole…”) there are almost as many reasons for, and ways to address organizational change.

Some of the reasons that organizations may need to change include:
- Change in leadership due to performance, merger or acquisition, retirement, or replacement.
- Change in strategic direction, vision or mission due to market conditions, competition, global strategies, obsolescence, or new technology.

Other Considerations Related to Organizational Change

These kinds of changes lead to changes in organizational cultures, changes in organizational structures, operational and human resource policies, practices and procedural changes. And of course, effective communication about any and all of these kinds and reasons for change can make or break any organization.

Organizations need to consider who is accountable for organizational change. There are many facets to be considered along the way. Who will plan, lead, and manage the changes? How will changes be implemented and who will be accountable at each stage? How will people deal with the changes?

Since many people in an organization aren’t responsible for planning leading or managing changes, they still have to live with and deal with the impact of change. What’s being done to assure a smooth transition where the rubber meets the road at the line level?

Organizational changes, whether rolling out new products, technology or shift in direction requires planning. What policies, practices and infrastructures need to be in place to support and implement the changes effectively and assure its success an ongoing basis?

No One Grew Up Saying “I Want To Be a Theatre Manager”

I was Vice President of Human Resources at AMC Entertainment during the time the company changed its strategic direction from building multi-plexes, with 6, 8 or 10 screens, to mega-plexes that had between 18 – 30 screens in one building. The change in the physical structures had a significant impact on every human resource function. Over 500 managers and several thousand staff workers would need to be hired over a 3 year period.

Managers of these new buildings had over 150 employees, multi-million dollar budgets and required knowledge of facilities management, inventory control, customer relations and marketing. At the same time, recruiting on college campuses and competing at job fairs with the big accounting firms, high tech darlings or Fortune 500 management development programs was a challenge because no one grew up saying “I want to be a theatre manager.”

Changing Organizational Practices

As a result, all hiring, compensation, benefits and training processes had to be totally revamped. Job design, accountabilities and organizational structures had to change to accommodate the new environment. The previous ways of hiring, training and compensating people would never have worked. For example, the old hiring process could take 2- 3 months to approve hiring one manager. With the new strategic direction, we needed to hire several hundred managers a year.

Despite the new realities, there was resistance to changing many of the HR processes. Fear of letting go of familiar ways, uncertainty of what could happen, not trusting capabilities of others… giving up tight controls and establishing other methods for monitoring key performance indicators was downright scary.

Fortunately, we were able to work through the discomfort of all the changes and transition to the new model and implement the strategic plan successfully.

But, organizational leaders need to remember that just like when a baby sits in a wet diaper too long, organizations that do not address change quickly enough will be forced to deal with a lot of irritants, rashes and outbreaks as a result of not taking action soon enough.

There will be a lot of whining, complaining and crabby people – namely employees, customers, and shareholders, unless things are changed. Don’t be surprised by having to deal with whining and complaining during the changes! That just goes with the change-management territory.

While being accountable for organizational change may seem overwhelming at first, there are systematic steps and processes that can make it easier to do and to gain support and acceptance for the process. No one person can implement organizational change alone – and recognizing and building a team to plan and implement change is the first step to taking action for change.

In one sentence, Sergio changed my life.

Sergio was my seat mate on a night flight from Dallas to El Paso.  And if I had done what I always do when flying, this experience would have never happened. Usually I read, sleep or otherwise ignore the person sitting next to me, since I speak and listen to people all day.  And I was totally prepared to spend the next 75 minutes in silence but Sergio wanted to talk.   Not wanting to be rude, I politely responded, then closed my eyes – again.

Then he said:

“You can not be your own source.”

Eyes closed and mind racing, I thought about this statement. Wow.  What did this mean?  Who is this man?  What else can I learn from him?

Earlier this year, I made a commitment to myself to “Shake It Up,” meaning: do things I don’t usually do, pay attention to here and now and get out of my routines and ruts.

Sergio was shaking me up.

Son of a prostitute and heroin and cocaine addict until 14 years ago, Sergio now has 4 children in college and is a lay minister to Hispanic children and gang members around the world.  He was coming from Caracas and going to Juarez for his next assignment.

I actually think I was his next assignment.

You can not be your own source.

Source for what?  Is that Source or source?

The statement is masterful because it can be applied on a spiritual level, (Source with a capital S) or on a practical, tactical level, (source with a lower case s.)

Either way, I think the message is that we can not be successful alone.  We need others to collaborate, coordinate, educate, assist, follow through, support, encourage and champion our efforts and initiatives.

When was the last time you successfully launched a project completely on your own?

Who do you go to for your sources of information and support?

What or who are your sources of comfort or collaboration?

When I entered the workforce in the last century, I was considered a “feminist” because I hyphenated my name and then because I preferred “Ms.”  I was told that  women couldn’t or wouldn’t be able to handle the pressure, make difficult decisions or understand complex issues.  I was told that women couldn’t be effective leaders because we were too emotional.  Women cry.

Fast forward three decades to the 21^st century:  Want to make a woman (or smart man…) cry?  Consider this:

“Big Shots Just Scoffed At Women’s Warnings”

This headline and story, (links at end of blog), outlined how three women could have saved the nation from the subprime crisis …. if only men had listened.

These were powerful women in powerful positions.  They knew what they were talking about. They understood the complex economic implications of the Wall Street securities backed by risky mortgages.

Three women could have prevented or significantly minimized the biggest recession this country has ever experienced.

Instead, it could be said that the Washington decision makers were driven by “testosterone,” which, according to research by graduate students at Columbia University, can reduce activity in the brain leading to “decisions that are risky, costly and show little empathy, but achieve a desire outcome.”   Their desired outcome was to ignore the advice from these women, shut them up and prevailed upon Congress to exclude them from discussions about the sub-prime fiasco.

Corporate Bullies

My term for this is “corporate bullying.”  And we all know that this phenomenon isn’t just in Washington. It happens throughout organizations in America, including not-for-profits and associations.

Most people have witnessed some form of it, maybe some of you have been on the receiving end of it, and some of the people reading this article are corporate bullies.

Here’s a snapshot of how it can happen:

Simply put, women generally demonstrate leadership in very different ways than men. Research shows women tend to be more collaborative, inclusive, responsive listeners and prefer an interactive management style.  Men, on the other hand, tend to seek power and prefer a “command and control” style of management.  Men over 50, in particular, are often uncomfortable with women in leadership positions, especially women who question their comments, actions or decisions.

The combination of these leadership dynamics can create a very threatening environment for everyone. Whether a person is intent on sharing relevant information and seeking collaboration or intent on having power and control, the opposite behavior threatens the status quo and capacity for resolution.  Typically, control, humiliation or discrediting and exclusion will win out, unless there are sufficient numbers of people in power and influence who are willing to appear “soft” and willing to collaborate.  In a male dominated environment the chances of this happening are pretty slim.

Gen X and Gen Y Pressured Too

I fear that this behavior is not just about leadership differences between the genders, though.  I’m thinking that we’ll see more of this corporate bullying between the Boomers and the Gen X and Ys in the workplace.  These younger generations grew up in teams, groups and collective and collaborative thinking.  They’re also inclined to question authority and can have difficulty accepting the status quo of: “because we’ve always done it this way.”  This approach can be very threatening to the traditional leader.

Recent conversations with some Gen X and Y managers indicated they are challenged and disillusioned by having to adapt and tolerate philosophical differences about operational processes and business decisions.  Many workplaces are not open to hearing their ideas or suggestions or even their questions about why things are the way they are.  While the Gen X and Y managers conceded to some of the decisions that “just didn’t seem right,” they said they felt pressured to conform because times are tough and they needed to keep their jobs.

The frequency of this type of situation is probably pretty great.  And if one considers the short and long term impact of this type of management and leadership, the consequences could be appalling.

Can We Put Egos Aside?

Whether it’s on a local, organizational, national or international level, when are we going to learn that we need a balance of power; a balance of estrogen and testosterone and a willingness to look out for the good of the whole? This means being willing to put egos aside and forgo temporary “wins.”

It makes me wonder what would have happened if someone had really listened to the  three women who forewarned the mortgage collapse.  It could have changed our world.  But instead the men in power refused to listen.  Interestingly, in the last couple years, each one has acknowledged they made a mistake.

It’s enough to make a country cry.

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/01/23/3387779/big-shots-just-scoffed-at-womens.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view