Some have said that being also to live with contradictions and paradoxes is an indication of maturity or intelligence. Well, maybe. However I am still more than disappointed about recent NYC Council actions. As Haberman wrote in the NYC on the 18th of December: The City Council killed plans for a shopping mall inside the unused Kingsbridge Armory in the Bronx because it wanted the developer to guarantee that workers would be paid more that the bare minimum. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg promised a veto. Public  officials shouldn’t be dictating to private industry in this manner, he said. Do we have this right? The Bloomberg administration considers it overly intrusive when government tells some businesses to pay their employees a living wage but not overly intrusive when government tells other businesses, like restaurants, which are now using tools like this pay check stub template. Got it.” Got it indeed, well, those without a living wage rarely or at least consistently can go to restaurants so maybe this all makes perverse sense in NYC. But for a pro-business mayor to support a living wage would be courageous and progressive. Yes he might have to deal with all the unintended consequences that came with this action, such as corruption and who knows what else, but why not and why not now when more people are struggling to get by than in sixty years? I am speechless.

On radio news today I heard of a conflict regarding a development project in one of the NYC boroughs.

Developers want to a convert a property into a mall however the community is demanding that workers in the mall will be guaranteed a living wage. What’s a living wage? According to the report around $10 or $11 per hour. The developers argue that this guarantee of a demand will scare away retail clients and they are balking.

The mind boggles — the guarantee of a living wage — what is so wrong with that and if it indeed this demand scares retailers, what can be done about it?

I can almost hear the angry cries of socialism coming from some republican politicians at this very thought. However what the heck is wrong with a country that cannot guarantee a living wage to a worker. I dare say a heck of allot. I am all for developers making a living wage and then some, however why can’t they look at their budgets and partner with potential retailers right now to figure out how to make the project work?

Perhaps they will.

However it is not helpful for Mayor Bloomberg to side with the developers.  I would like to think that if this controversy happened before Election Day last November maybe Mr. Bloomberg would now only be Mr. Bloomberg and NYC’s former mayor.  Here is an opportunity to step up and address a pressing social, economic and political issue, but the pro business mayor has not. What would have been the harm?  He would have had to face a hard choice and address a hard issue that he does not want to do. Shame on him. Fiorello where are you when we need you?

In Thomas Friedman’s NYT op-ed about the Afghanistan work last week, he expresses skepticism about the  increase of  troops targeted for deployment there.  In his discussion he states that authoritative dictates rarely change behavior.

“People do not change when you tell them they should: they change when their context tells them they must.”

This is as true for a substance abuser as well as a petulant child. Motivation and inner commitment often are driven by external pressures and conditions.  It speaks volumes about the human capability to be aware of their context and environment. In fact being aware of context and environment is an important component of emotional intelligence as well as successful intelligence. Robert Sternberg defines successful intelligence as the ability to achieve one’s goals in life, within one’s socio-cultural context.  The more aware of context the more valuable we may be to the people we may be working with or servicing within it.  Our context can help us with our sense of self.

I often work with clients who are not sensitive to their context and this gap has lead to problems. So be aware — work with it — it can only help you with actions going forward.

The reason I reprinted Peter Bregman’s HBR blog post is because in it, Peter suggests to his client is a technique that we often use in our resilience through hardiness seminars. It is one  of the key component of hardiness coping. One needs to engage one’s imagination including hopes and fears when facing current challenges, worries and concerns. Read what Peter has to say, let me know what you think, and I will share more about the masterful hardiness coping techniques soon.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING
How to Talk About What You Most Dread

“I have a question,” a woman we’ll call Tricia said to me during the break at a leadership training class I was teaching, “and I’d rather not ask it in front of everyone.” Everyone being her colleagues, the other heads of departments at a financial services company.

We stepped outside the classroom. “It’s my number two person, Joe,” she told me. “He’s a good performer but he’s constantly taking credit for things, and goes overboard to try to get visibility. He thinks he’s a team player but it doesn’t feel that way to me or others in the group.”

Hmmm, I wondered, why is she hesitant to talk about this in front of the others? Then, almost as an afterthought she added, “I think he’s after my job.”

Oh.

There are two issues here:

1. Joe hogging credit and visibility
2. Tricia’s fear that Joe is gunning for her job

Normally Tricia would have no problem talking to Joe about the first issue. It’s the second issue that makes the first one hard to discuss. The negative fantasy goes like this: If I talk about Joe’s ambitions I might put the idea in people’s heads. My boss and peers might start to think, “Hey, you know what? Maybe Joe should have her job.”

Tricia’s not alone. We face this double whammy all the time. You bungle a project but don’t talk about it because you fear you’ll get fired. You’re overworked but hesitate to raise it because you worry about exposing your lack of capability. You’re concerned a client isn’t getting enough value but resist mentioning it because you’re afraid you might lose the client.

The first issue — the bungled project, the overwork, the client’s possible dissatisfaction — is public, professional, observable, and matter of fact. It needs to be discussed.

The second issue — the fear — is private, personal, emotional, and often, paralyzing.

Tricia doesn’t know that Joe’s after her job, she just senses and dreads it. No one knows he’ll get fired for a bungled project so ignoring it seems safer than addressing it. But, of course, it’s the opposite. When you go into denial and ignore something, you don’t act. And if you don’t act, you can’t prevent what you fear from happening. In fact, your inaction may even make it more likely.

Here’s a general rule: the more you fear a conversation, the more you probably need to have it. Think of fear as an indicator of a problem that needs to be addressed.

So how do you talk about your fear, dread, insecurity and foreboding? You don’t.

If Tricia raised her concerns about Joe wanting her job, he would immediately deny the accusation and, in so doing, make her feel foolish for raising it. They’ll both leave the conversation with less trust in each other than before. Raising your suspicions about someone’s negative intentions is almost always a bad idea.

But if you don’t talk about your fear and you don’t ignore your fear, what should you do? Sink your teeth into it.

“Tricia, I want you to make an assumption.” I told her, “Assume that Joe is after your job. Why wouldn’t he be? He’s ambitious and you’re in the job that would be his next step. It’s a reasonable assumption.”

In other words, assume the worst case. Assume your job is at risk. Assume you lack capability. Assume your client is planning to leave. Let’s make it even worse: assume everyone else knows it too.

The sooner you accept the situation, the sooner you can do something about it. Instead of shying away from the answers, dive in. Remember: use the fear as a catalyst, not a focus. Your focus needs to be the underlying problem. If you think your boss wants to fire you because of that last project you bungled, ask him to debrief the project and help you plan the next one. If you’re worried that raising the issue of overwork will expose your lack of capability, talk to your boss about increasing your capability to manage the workload. An at-risk client? Let the client know you understand why they might be at risk of defection. Then listen.

We often avoid conversations that make us feel vulnerable. Things that touch us deeply, our fears, our self-image, our future. But here’s the thing: not talking about them is what actually makes us vulnerable. Once we confront the underlying issues — say them out loud, ask about them, explore them — we feel, and become, much stronger, much less vulnerable. And then we can take powerful action.

So, how to deal with dread?

1. Notice it
2. Understand the underlying problem it’s signaling
3. Talk openly about the problem, not the dread
4. Fix the problem

“Fine,” Tricia responded, “I can see why it would be reasonable for him to want my job. But I’m not ready to leave, and he’s not ready to step into it either. How do I fix the problem?”

“Help him fulfill his ambitions.” I said, “Try it with me.”

“Okay,” she said. “Joe, you’re smart and capable and a strong performer. My job — when you’re ready — could be a good next step for you but I’m not going anywhere for now. What else interests you and how can I help you get there? I’d like to help you grow — whether it’s here or even if it means going to another company.”

“Great,” I told her. “Then you can also talk about what might get in his way. That whether he wants your job or another, taking sole credit when others deserve some is a bad idea. And you can help him perform even better. As an ally. And from a position of strength, not as someone threatened by Joe, but as someone who can help him achieve his goals.”

“Sounds easy,” Tricia said

“It’s not. Not if you’re still afraid.”

She laughed. “Afraid of what?”

The following post is by my friend and colleague John Baldoni. Please let me know what you think.

Great recessions can provide great opportunities especially for those who want to jump start their careers. Many might think this is heresy; after all in tough times, isn’t it better to keep my head down and wait for good times again? This may work for some folks but for those savvy managers seeking to effective positive change, and make good things happen, now is an opportune time to assert leadership.

The real strength and resilience, not to mention creativity and energy, of an organization lies with the people who make things work. These are often managers in the middle. So now is a time for those in middle management to consider ways to help their organizations succeed in these troubled times. We call this “leading up.”

Leading up and from the middle requires two things: influence and action. Influence is necessary to open doors so you can be heard. Action is necessary to implement your plan. “Leading up,” a term I borrowed from Wharton professor and author Michael Useem who pioneered the concept, is the process of leading your organization from the middle. That means you lead the organization from the perspective of a CEO but with the authority of a less senior leader. And it’s the topic of my book, Lead Your Boss, The Subtle Art of Managing Up.

Leading from the middle requires a good balance of two distinct disciplines management and leadership. Managers provide administration and direction. Managing up is the process of handling things for your boss, that is, when he gets too busy. Leaders provide guidance and inspiration. Therefore, leading up is a proactive process, seeing the big picture and seeking to do something that benefits the entire organization.

Those who succeed at leading from the middle are artful and adept managers. They utilize their management skills to establish goals, plan projects, organize people, and execute projects on time and on budget.

Three things essential to leading up are:

One, make certain what you want to do complements the mission and strategies of your company;

Two, leverage your credibility as one who can get things done.; and

Three, act for the benefit of the company — not simply yourself.

The business case for leading from the middle is significant. A survey conducted in January 2007 (well before the recent recession) from the consulting firm, Watson Wyatt, revealed that only 49% of employees have “trust and confidence” in their senior managers, and just 53% believed that senior management made the right changes to stay competitive, for more on employee handling, check this free pay stub template. Worse, senior executives surveyed by Booz & Co. in December 2008 revealed that 46% doubted the ability of their CEOs to execute a recovery plan.

To succeed, organizations will need to leverage the talents and abilities of their middle managers. Those who lead from the middle are problem solvers. They see things and they want to fix them. They seek to make positive change. And while they are not in charge of everything, the way a CEO is, they are in charge of some things. That is, they manage their teams and their resources.

For example, if you are in middle management and you believe that your company should introduce a new product, you find ways of making your case for it. You position yourself as speaking on behalf of customers and employees, rather than simply yourself.

Understand this: leading up is not mandatory. Not every boss can be lead or managed, especially ones who like to bully others. What’s more, if you feel it safer to lie low, do so. Now may not be the right time for you to lead from the middle.

At the same time, understand there can be big rewards for those who lead up. By leading up you demonstrate initiative. You show that you have what it takes to get things done. And as a result you position yourself to assume greater levels of authority and responsibility. What you do as a leader in the middle positions you to one day become a leader at the very top.

[Source: Watson Wyatt cited in Management-Issues.com 1.05.07; Booz & Company “Recession Response: Why Companies Are Making the Wrong Moves” 12/2008]

The Broadway production of David Manet’s two character drama, Oleanna, achingly addresses human vulnerabilities, and the way institutions attempt to protect us from those vulnerabilities.

The play involves the power struggle between a university professor and one of his female students, who, by accusing him of sexual exploitation, spoils his changes of being accorded tenure. When the play begins, both characters are in a high state of stress. The professor is buying a house and is late for a related appointment; the student is in danger of failing the professor’s class. All of the action takes place in the professor’s office.Each scene is separated by the rise and steady fall of electric blinds, ominously reminiscent of another institution: prison.

The play’s title, taken from a folk song, refers to a 19th century escapist vision of utopia. It’s an ironic title, to be sure, of a play filled with paradoxes — institutions of high education stultifying and thwarting learning, and students exerting authority over teachers. The play vividly depicts the destruction wrought by that which is meant to protect. In this case, educational institutions and harassment prevention law come under scrutiny.

By the time the final curtain drops, two lives are in ruins. What struck me most as I watched the demolition was that both characters seemed unable to halt the exposure and execution of their own worse self-destructive behaviors — behaviors stimulated by the anxiety provoking situations exposed ruing the opening scene.

Are you and I any different? During stressful times, don’t we often default to their “dark side” displaying those character traits that are usually not on display?  Possibly — However I think we do have a choice — as difficult and hard as it may be. Self awareness and modifying behaviors that have proved not to work for us can be changed. yes, it is hard. So what else is new?

My friend and colleague Dr. Anna Marie Valero has recently completed an important a new book which she has been working on for years. It focuses on developing women leaderships; it beautifully lays out the benefits of women leadership, the handicaps and prejudices they must address and what HR leaders and CEOs can do to support and challenge. In addition to the informative content which is drawn from a combination of research and dozens of interviews with male and females leaders, the book casts a very positive light on the future possibilities for more and more women to flourish in the ranks of management. Women are different than men and they bring different qualities to the workplace. The book is also filled with facts such as the return on investment is higher in firms where women are the leaders.

I recently asked Anna Marie what was the greatest surprise  she experienced while doing all the work for the book. She stated the enthusiasm, interest and encouragement that all her participants shared with her as she moved forward with her task. She mentioned that everyone she spoke with wanted her to complete the book and to get the message out that there were things that people can do to help women become more successful in the workplace. One of the major findings discussed in the book is the need to give women challenging assignments with the sufficient support in order to be successful.  She also noted that certain positions carry a great risk of failure — there are jobs that nobody wants that often fall to women and they should be alert to these assignments and not readily take them.  She also found that some leaders, both male and female, are reluctant to provide concrete objective feedback to women leaders.

This is a wonderful book and I will talk more about it in the future.

Will the gilmore girl will out? Well she did not and the show closed losing all of its investors’  money.  TV’s very attractive and charming lead in the hit series, The Gilmore Girls, Lauren Graham played the lamentable Adelaide in this now by gone production. I think that is unfortunate because the show had many wonderful things going for it, not to mention a dour interpretation of Nat Detroit by Oliver Platt.  Near the end of the show, when Platt exclaims, “I don’t know if I have a soul” I believed him as Nathan as I believed no interpretation before as funny and frantic as Nathan Lane and Douglas Hodge were in previous productions (New York and London). And the production was cinematic and rushed along like a speeding A train.

The main problem with this production was the vacuum left by the two leading ladies, Ms Graham and Kate Jennings Grant. Ms. Grant’s approached her role as Sarah Brown, straight laced Salvation Army crusader, as a caffeinated  cheerleader going into the playoff season.  More the pity because she is a striking beauty with a graceful presence and a lilting yet strong voice.  She just is not believable for a moment. Ms. Graham’s  Adelaide is sexy, vulnerable, confused and ultimately determined as all good Adelaide’s are, However her performance is so small and not focused moment to moment that she seems almost amateurish which she clearly is not. The problem is one cannot develop stage technique and a commanding presence literally in a few weeks or months.

As I walked out of the theatre, I thought of the famous story about the  pre Broadway run of MY FAIR LADY. Moss Hart closed down the rehearsals for all except Julie Andrew for a week. His only goal was to find the right temperament and tone for Andrew’s portrayal of Eliza Doolittle.  He knew he could get a gutsy, defiance and although resilient performance out of her although it had alluded her up until that point.  They both succeeded, and the rest is for the theatre record books.

Why did not Des Macduff or someone else – some of those many producers must have known or at least suspected that  more help needed to be done with these two ladies in particular?  Yet no one to my knowledge, stopped  the preview or rehearsal period and said, let’s see if we can rethink what is not working or strengthen what is barely there.

As I stated the show has since closed; what could have been was not. Was it the ego of the performers? The blind faith in the television viewing  public  who were going to flock to see the gilmore girl in person?  I do not know – however it seems that a hard choice was avoided – and the show barely went on.

Will the Gilmore Girl will out? Well she did not and the show closed losing all of its investors’ money.  TV’s very attractive and charming lead in the hit series, The Gilmore Girls, Lauren Graham played the lamentable Adelaide in this now by gone production. I think that is unfortunate because the show had many wonderful things going for it, not to mention a dour interpretation of Nat Detroit by Oliver Platt.  Near the end of the show, when Platt exclaims, “I don’t know if I have a soul” I believed him as Nathan as I believed no interpretation before as funny and frantic as Nathan Lane and Douglas Hodge were in previous productions (New York and London). And the production was cinematic and rushed along like a speeding A train.

The main problem with this production was the vacuum left by the two leading ladies, Ms Graham and Kate Jennings Grant. Ms. Grant’s approached her role as Sarah Brown, straight laced Salvation Army crusader, as a caffeinated cheerleader going into the playoff season.  More the pity because she is a striking beauty with a graceful presence and a lilting yet strong voice.  She just is not believable for a moment. Ms. Graham’s  Adelaide is sexy, vulnerable, confused and ultimately determined as all good Adelaide’s are, However her performance is so small and not focused moment to moment that she seems almost amateurish which she clearly is not. The problem is one cannot develop stage technique and a commanding presence literally in a few weeks or months.

As I walked out of the theatre, I thought of the famous story about the pre-Broadway run of MY FAIR LADY. Moss Hart closed down the rehearsals for all except Julie Andrew for a week. His only goal was to find the right temperament and tone for Andrew’s portrayal of Eliza Doolittle.  He knew he could get a gutsy, defiance and although resilient performance out of her although it had alluded her up until that point.  They both succeeded, and the rest is for the theatre record books.

Why did not Des Macduff or someone else — some of those many producers must have known or at least suspected that  more help needed to be done with these two ladies in particular?  Yet no one to my knowledge, stopped  the preview or rehearsal period and said, let’s see if we can rethink what is not working or strengthen what is barely there.

As I stated the show has since closed; what could have been was not. Was it the ego of the performers? The blind faith in the television viewing  public  who were going to flock to see the Gilmore Girl in person?  I do not know — however it seems that a hard choice was avoided — and the show barely went on.