Me: Haha. This needs to go viral on social media! But did you notice the kids are all Caucasian?
KG: Yes — because is it the Caucasians that are causing the problems…
Me: Yeah, I realized that after I emailed you. But not all the problems. My sister dated a Black guy in college and his family threw fits. Taught me bigotry is universal, but white bigotry is more powerful/damaging.
KG: I understand. Humans are the problem, regardless of creed or color. However, white people expect that 400 years of slavery and oppression can just be wiped over and that suspicion of motives, etc. should just disappear. The reality is that we create problems for ourselves and for every other living thing on earth.
The consequences of slavery and oppression will be there for a long time.
Obviously. More than half a century and the things that have changed are the clothes, hairstyles and lack of phones.
Poking through 11+ years of posts I find information that’s as useful now as when it was written.
Golden Oldies is a collection of the most relevant and timeless posts during that time.
Jerks, by whatever name, have been on the rise for awhile, but that seems to have escalated in the last couple of years, especially in the workplace. Not that jerk bosses are anything new, but they are getting more blatant.
Although both articles I refer to are aimed at startup founders, I believe they are applicable to bosses at any level and in any company.
First, no boss ever accomplished their goals by being a jerk.
As Bob Sutton explains in The Asshole Survival Guide, treating people like dirt hurts their focus and saps their motivation. (…)
In the podcast, Reid [Hoffman] describes his test of a great culture: Does every employee feel that they personally own the culture?
Most jerks, no matter how unlikely that the comparison is valid, point to Steve Jobs to justify their actions, but consider how much more he could have done if he had been a better leader/manager..
It’s hard to find any boss who doesn’t recognize that culture is the most critical element in a company’s success.
Poking through 11+ years of posts I find information that’s as useful now as when it was written.
Golden Oldies is a collection of the most relevant and timeless posts during that time.
When I wrote this a decade ago it resulted in a comment and my response, which are included today. The reason I included my response is because, in these days of bad examples, lower self-control and less personal responsibility the responsibility of leaders is even greater. As you will see in tomorrow’s post.
My focus isn’t meant to be just race or gender issues, but on the attitude that I’m/we’re-right-so-you-should-do/think-our-way-or-else. It’s not the ‘we’re right/you’re wrong’ that bothers me, but the ‘do-it-our-way-or-else’ that shows the intolerance for what it really is.
During my adult life (I missed being a Boomer by a hair) I’ve watched as hate and intolerance spread across the country masked by religion, a façade of political correctness or a mea culpa that is supposed to make everything OK, but doesn’t.
Various business, political, religious and community leaders give passionate, fiery talks to their followers and then express surprise and dismay when some of those same followers steal trade secrets, plant bombs, and kill individuals—whose only error was following their own beliefs.
No longer are we all entitled to the pursuit of happiness if our happiness offends someone next door or living at the other end of the country.
I remember Ann Rand saying in an interview that she believed that she had the right to be totally selfish, where upon the interviewer said that would give her freedom to kill. Rand said absolutely not, in fact the reverse was true, since her selfishness couldn’t take away anyone else’s right to be selfish. That about sums up my attitude
I just wish there were fewer followers for all the Ellsworth Toohey types in today’s world.
Kathy Says:
I don’t know if you can blame abstract entities such as leadership business or religion or politics for the actions of individuals. I’m tempted to put the blame on the person taking the action. There is a big difference between hearing someone talk and acting on the content of the talk. We hear people talk persuasively all the time about the importance of saving for retirement or flossing our teeth or using sunscreen, and many, many people who’ve heard these persuasive speeches do none of the above. So, I’d say, no matter what people are saying to me, in the newspaper, on TV or over coffee, if I take the action, I’m responsible for the result. I always had the choice.
Miki Saxon Says:
Kathy, I agree that it is the responsibility of followers to think, but we live in an age where many people have opted out of thinking, and merely follow the lead of any person with whom they are comfortable (see the 9 post on followers) For that reason I do hold the leaders, who aren’t abstract, and incite their followers through passionate rhetoric responsible for the outcome. I think they are responsible for the results of their comments.
Valeria Chuba is an intimacy coach (clinical sexologist) and has found three main responses by her male clients to the recent bevy of harassment complaints.
Defensiveness
Disbelief at the enormity and pervasiveness of sexual violence and misconduct
Difficulty with empathizing
No surprises, but her commentary is interesting and useful.
… men who want to enact the “Pence rule” (avoiding socializing alone with any woman who is not one’s wife) do so at a potentially enormous cost to their female colleagues, their organizations, and themselves. In fact, the notion that some men are confused as to how to “mentor young women without harassing them” is a troubling comment on masculinity.
Easy, because it takes little effort from them, while further screwing (pun intended) women and “keeping them in their place” — which is below and away from men.
There’s a better way to monitor your words and actions.
Best, it’s a simple yardstick with which to measure them.
Ask yourself if you would say the words, use the tone, or perform the action on your mother, sister or any female relative.
Measure other men’s comments/tones/actions the same way.
Think about how you would feel if they were speaking to your mother/sister/grandma/etc. If it was your mom/etc. would you let it go or would you call them on it?
That simple mental test is an excellent guide for men who are worried about whether they or someone else is crossing the line.
That said, men also need to understand that women may still make the wrong assumption and take it the wrong way based on her previous experience with other men.
Not because it’s a bad yardstick, but because trust takes time — especially when dealing with systemic social problems.
So keep using the yardstick; share it with your team; embed it in your culture, be an active part of the (eventual) change.
What changed started with a post by Susan Fowler calling out Uber’s misogamist culture, which led to CEO Travis Kalanick’s firing, Gretchen Carlson sued roger Ailes and won, other women started coming forward with their own stories and then the entire #metoo thread on Twitter.
Next came the harassing men crying crocodile tears and saying how terribly sorry they are if their past actions caused any pain.
Talk about arrogant, unfeeling, ignorant, and purely self-focused.
The 1992 presidential race was once summed up in a pointed phrase: “It’s the economy, stupid.”
Today, as headlines are dominated by stories about sexual harassment and sexual assault at work, a similar phrase comes to mind: “It’s the power, stupid.”
And that nothing would change until the white male power structure became more balanced.
She goes on to say,
It is my hope that as more employers put thoughtful, effective policies into place – and as more is done to punish the perpetrators – more people will come forward without fear. For too long, too many people have believed that there’s no point in reporting harassment – that nothing will happen, or worse, that it will negatively impact their career. And on the other side, some people are scared that their reputations will be ruined unfairly. Having a consistent and fair process that applies to everyone helps protect against both scenarios and restores a degree of faith in the system.
A growing number of American companies are requiring workers as a condition of their employment to sign agreements that stipulate they must resolve a dispute with their employer through arbitration. This agreement is known as a mandatory arbitration clause.
It was Carlson whose lawyers found a way around it.
In signing her employment agreement 11 years prior, Carlson had agreed to resolve disputes with Fox News Channel through private arbitration. But she and her legal team found a way around this by suing Ailes personally.
But, as Sandberg says, you need to have a certain level of power to even consider moving on someone with more power — and enough money that you can survive for a while sans paycheck.
Private arbitration is good for companies, since the rules favor businesses and most arbitrators think of the companies as clients — and who bites the hand that feeds it?
Moreover, the results aren’t published, so, there is little blowback even in the rare cases when the company loses.
The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2017, which is before the House Judiciary Committee and for which Carlson is an advocate, would prohibit employers from requiring arbitration.
But considering the men who make up our current Congress, let alone the current president who would have to sign it into law, I certainly won’t be holding my breath for this one, either.
It’s amazing to me, but looking back over more than a decade of writing I find posts that are still relevant, with information that is as useful now as when it was written.
Golden Oldies are a collection of some of the best posts during that time.
Today is a two-fer, because, when discussing leadership, commentary on followers should be required.
A lot of water has passed under the bridge since these two posts, 5 years on the first and 10 years on the other, were written and the world has changed drastically. It is far more complex and moves much faster than ever before. What hasn’t changed — contrary to the impression you get from both traditional and new media, whether mainstream or on the fringes — is how much influence so-called leaders actually exert on their followers.
Anyone reading the news—local, national or global—knows that hate and intolerance are increasing at an alarming rate everywhere.
Also, because there have been/will be so many elections around the world this year ‘leadership’ is in the news even more so than usual.
What responsibility do leaders—business, political, religious, community—bear in fostering hate and intolerance?
Not just the age old race and gender intolerance, but the I’m/we’re-RIGHT-so-you-should-do/think-our-way-or-else.
The ‘we’re right/you’re wrong’ attitude is as old as humanity and probably won’t ever change, but it’s the ‘do-it-our-way-or-else’ that shows the intolerance for what it really is.
And leaders aren’t helping; in fact, they are making it worse.
During my adult life (I missed being a Boomer by a hair) I’ve watched as hate and intolerance spread across the country masked by religion, a façade of political correctness or a mea culpa that is supposed to make everything OK, but doesn’t.
Various business, political, religious and community leaders give passionate, fiery talks to their followers and then express surprise and dismay when some of those same followers steal trade secrets, plant bombs, and kill individuals—whose only error was following their own beliefs.
We are no longer entitled to the pursuit of happiness if our happiness offends someone next door, the other end of the country, or the far side of the globe.
I remember Ann Rand saying in an interview that she believed that she had the right to be totally selfish, where upon the interviewer said that would give her freedom to kill.
Rand said absolutely not, in fact the reverse was true, since her selfishness couldn’t impinge anyone else’s right to be selfish.
Leaders aren’t responsible; we are because we go along with it—as did the Germans when Hitler led them down the hate and intolerance path.
In general, followers fall into two categories—thinking and unthinking. All of us have issue-specific litmus tests and look for a general comfort level with other followers.
Thinking followers usually have a broader definition of comfort, critically evaluate individual ideas and attitudes, as opposed to blind across-the-board acceptance, and are more willing to consider compromises. They often challenge their leader offering additional considerations, thoughts, suggestions, as well as open disagreement.
Unthinking followers are more emotional, rarely disagree or argue and may opt out of all thought and consideration following blindly and allowing the leader think for them. At their worst, unthinking followers are fodder for cults.
Most of us would classify ourselves as thinking followers, but are we? I know that politically I have one litmus test that is absolute and a couple of others that have high priority without being locked into specifics. Beyond that, I’ve always considered myself pretty open.
However, as extremists have polarized various issues I find myself becoming more adamant in my own feelings and less open to listening to those who believe that their views represent truth with a capital T — but I still want to live in a country where they have the right to say it.
I’ve lived a long time and I never thought I’d say this, but the rise of social media, with its ability to say anything anonymously sans responsibility, has seriously compromised my belief in free speech.
It’s amazing to me, but looking back over more than a decade of writing I find posts that still impress, with information that is as useful now as when it was written.
Golden Oldies are a collection of what I consider some of the best posts during that time.
Curation has gotten much worse over the last two years since this was written. Facebook curates your news feed based on your profile and online actions, so you see mostly items — whether real or fake — that are in line with your worldview. Facebook, Google, Amazon, Twitter and most other sites show you “targeted ads” based on the the cornucopia of personal information at their fingertips.
The result is a world that is narrowing and, in doing so, becomes more harrowing.
Earlier this month I shared a conversation with a founder who believes he can lead only one type of person.
It wasn’t that surprising, because the more things are curated the more we hear from and cleave to people like ourselves.
There’s no question that curation reinforces opinions, while eliminating conflicting ones, narrows people beyond from where they started and acts like fertilizer to unconscious bias and outright bigotry.
But isn’t college supposed to help change that by exposing students to people with different beliefs, experiences, attitudes, etc.?
Several years ago a couple of startups gave the college-bound a way to curate their roommates, so they could be sure not to be exposed to ideas, attitudes or upbringing not in sync with their current thinking.
Mangers have been doing this for decades by thoughtlessly hiring people like themselves, so they can stay within their personal comfort zones.
Now college students are taking the concept much further with the demand for “safe spaces.”
Safe spaces are an expression of the conviction, increasingly prevalent among college students, that their schools should keep them from being “bombarded” by discomfiting or distressing viewpoints. Think of the safe space as the live-action version of the better-known trigger warning, a notice put on top of a syllabus or an assigned reading to alert students to the presence of potentially disturbing material. (…)
Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School commented, “Perhaps overprogrammed children engineered to the specifications of college admissions offices no longer experience the risks and challenges that breed maturity,” But “if college students are children, then they should be protected like children.”
This need for safety and zero-level tolerance for discord makes me wonder what will happen to the current college generations when they venture into the workplace, let alone the rest of the real world.
It’s amazing to me, but looking back over more than a decade of writing I find posts that still impress, with information that is as useful now as when it was written.
Golden Oldies are a collection of what I consider some of the best posts during that time.
It is said that hindsight is 20/20, because we can see the whole as opposed to the part in which we are involved. It’s mostly an accurate statement, but only if we can set aside our many biases. If not, we will see what we expect to see, whether it fits all the facts or not,
The problem is, of course, we are no better at seeing our own biases than we are at seeing all parts of a situation as it is happening, which makes 20/20 vision of ourselves elusive.
A few weeks ago Wharton professor Adam Grant wrote Dear Men: Wake Up and Smell the Inequality focusing on why men can’t seem to wrap their heads around gender inequality.
In corporate America, 88% of men think women have at least as many opportunities to advance as men.
This is the finding of a major new study—almost 30,000 employees across 118 companies—by LeanIn.org and McKinsey & Company.
Just 12% of men felt that women had fewer opportunities to advance in their organizations.
Almost all of the leaders I have met say that they would never encourage such a thing in their organizations. I have no doubt that they are sincere. Most of us are easily irritated–if not disgusted–by derriere kissers. Which raises a question: If leaders say they discourage sucking up, why does it happen so often? Here’s a straightforward answer: Without meaning to, we all tend to create an environment where people learn to reward others with accolades that aren’t really warranted. We can see this very clearly in other people. We just can’t see it in ourselves.
And that brings us to MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™).
MAP, in case you’ve forgotten, is what underlies and drives all our thoughts and actions.
This past week has been unfortunate. There have been violent, racially charged protests, attacks and murder. All committed in the name of one cause or another. As an American I am ashamed. As a human I am saddened.
I never thought I would need to publicly state that I am against Nazi rhetoric or white supremacist views, but I am.
As a white male I find the fact that this thought still exists to be abhorrent and disgusting.
The thing that bothers me most about this is not that it exists; there will always be people that think a certain way. It’s the fact that the reaction of some leaders was to place blame on all, including the victims.
I never feel comfortable wading into race relations dialogue. I typically feel inadequate and too uniformed to truly understand the challenges that minorities feel. As a result I seek to learn and absorb.
However, in the case of Charlotte, Virginia the stance is clear. If you are an individual who claims that your so called purity as a white man/woman means you have more value than those of different colors, you’re absolutely wrong. Science does not support you, nor does history.
I failed to mention the train wreck that is Google right now.
One engineer writes a manifesto claiming women are emotion-driven and as a result are not as capable at STEM careers as men are. Google fires him, there is a major uproar and everyone now has an opinion.
One article I read showed how Google is acting as thought police preventing any idea that is not approved from being made public. Other articles I read show how, if we appease intolerant viewpoints, we risk allowing intolerance to abound and have extreme cases, such as Nazi Germany.
What does all of this say for society? I believe it shows that we are now on the margins of culture.
Only the extreme survive.
If you have an easy going and inclusive view on society then you are not to be trusted. However, if you take a hard stand on either the left or right, you are to be championed.
When did this culture of extremes become the norm?
Entrepreneurs face difficulties that are hard for most people to imagine, let alone understand. You can find anonymous help and connections that do understand at 7 cups of tea.
Crises never end.
$10 really does make a difference and you’ll never miss it,
A few weeks ago Wharton professor Adam Grant wrote 
