THE OVERPAID AND THE WILL-PAY-FOR-WORK

Two stories in today's New York Times caught our attention because the contrast between them was so stark. 

This article adds fuel to the explosive debates over "guaranteed" bonuses awarded to the dealmakers on Wall Street, regardless of their performance or the financial state of their companies.

Over in the business section, we read a story about college graduates, who are now competing with laid-off workers for work. The article touts the services of a company that charges $8,000 or more to land students placements into unpaid internships (in many cases, parents are writing the checks to ensure their kids don't get left behind.) Other companies are creating auctions, selling off internships to the highest bidders. 

We admit to a bias, as our daughter, who has a master's degree in nutrition, just paid $5,000 for a 9-month unpaid internship so she can get certified by the American Diatetics Association. (We, however, did not write the check.)

So one system pays out millions, regardless of performance, and another requires you to pay for the privilege of working for free. There seems to be a statement about our nation's values there, and it leaves us feeling uneasy.

STEP ON UP

What do we like about Stew Friedman, (who Jamie met while he was doing consulting work at Ford Motor company many years ago)? Well, for starters, Friedman believes the best leaders “act with authenticity.” And that starts with clarifying what’s important, seeing the whole person at work — worker, colleague, member of a family and of a community — and treating them with integrity and respect.

YOU CAN'T AFFORD A BULLY

We have a list of manipulative language techniques that we developed from 25 years of experience with organizations, which we use in our workshops and incorporated into the book. It includes techniques such as intentional deception, disguised agendas, name-dropping and spinning information. We’ve never claimed it to be comprehensive, but even so, we were surprised to have missed one so obvious—bullying.

“Backlash: Women Bullying Women”, an article in the New York Times business section, made us realize it belongs on the list. The report contends that women generally pick on other women, but it’s likely they learned some of the finer points from male bullies, who don’t tend to discriminate based on gender. Bullying is seen by many women as a way to advance to a limited number of senior positions protected by the glass ceiling. According to Catalyst, a nonprofit research group, more than 50 percent of management, professional and related occupations are women, and only 1 percent of directors and officers in Fortune 500 companies are women.

Nearly 40 percent of all workers say they have personally experienced bullying, according to a study conducted by the Workplace Bullying Institute. Even so, it generally is ignored by employers, even though it directly affects bottom line business issues in healthcare costs, turnover and productivity loss.

A case in point is Selina, who was featured in the March edition of Inc. magazine. She   is a self-described bully who reformed when she realized the damage it was doing to the business. While her aggressive, fist-pounding style as a sale manager was tolerated because she got results, it took a toll on the people she worked with. In some cases, employees became physically ill from the stress of working with her.

When she became CEO of a wi-fi start up in California in 2004, her bullying tactics came back to bite her in the behind. She found she couldn’t recruit top talent because no one wanted to work for her, no matter how attractive she made her offers. And after she finally found people to hire, she began to see that she couldn’t “build a successful company with nervous people.” 

Bullying is another glaring example of how everyday conversations affect organizational culture and business results. Using language to manipulate others is a direct descendant of the thinking and organizing principals still found in many businesses today. It is grounded in two myths:

1. We must hold others accountable for success.

2. Competition brings out the best in people and gets superior results.

It is impossible to hold another person accountable. Accountability is something each of us chooses. The freedom we have, and the consequences that come with the choices we make, is one of the blessings and curses of being human.

And competition? An abundance of data shows that collaboration and cooperation yield far better results. (Author Alfie Kohn devotes more than 65 pages of his book No Contest citing such references.)

As a CEO, Selina eventually realized that her bullying techniques were counterproductive, and hurting the bottom line. She might win, but the business would lose. Self-awareness about how you are using manipulative language and techniques is a useful first step. But she had the courage and will to change her intentions and actions. Among her changes: incorporating group decision-making to force herself to consider others’ opinions. She stops everything when employees come into her office so they get her full attention. And she is unflinchingly transparent about every aspect of performance, good and bad. She credits that in part for the success of the company, which in 2007 had 147 employees and generated nearly $40 million in revenue.

Clearly, bullying doesn’t pay.

If you want to weigh in on this issue, check out Kathy Caprino’s survey on LinkedIn.

JAMIE & MAREN

ADD WATER AND MIX

Barbara Rose Johnston, an environmental anthropologist at the Center for Political Ecology, was a featured speaker at the recent 5^th Water World Forum last month in Turkey. The mission of the forum, held every three years, is to “address growing water scarcity, the risk of conflict as countries squabble over rivers, lakes and aquifers, and how to provide clean water and sanitation to billions.”

Johnston’s accounts of her experience in Water Culture Wars are interesting and instructive, including this excerpt:

 “I arrived here on a Monday to the news that two friends from International Rivers were arrested at the opening session of the Forum. They unfurled a protest banner inside the conference that said “No risky dams” and chanted this slogan five times, a protest that involved all of a minute before they were pulled out, and arrested. The next day they were given the option of a minimum one-year sentence in prison or deportation. Their crime? Attempting to influence public opinion."

In her writings, Johnston describes myriad attempts by various parties at the forum to control the conversations by suppressing relevant information and dissent. She describes how powerful authorities described circumstances in a calculated way, withheld relevant details and spun information to influence outcomes.

Apparently the attempts were successful. She writes:

“The primary message from the water and cultural diversity sessions organized by the international community was: Water is a fundamental human right and a core element that sustains cultural ways of life and the environments on which we all depend.”

The political statement that emerged from the forum, however, called for action to recognize water as an essential human need rather than a fundamental human right.

This is another example showing how our conversations help create the world in which we live.  Whether the topic is water, energy, housing or global economics, systemic thinking and authentic conversations will help us more easily find solutions that work for everyone.

A conversation about water that focuses only on creating more infrastructure, for instance, is short-sighted and dangerously narrow. By squelching other perspectives and dissent, a narrow solution gets crafted that benefits a few and harms many. Ignored are important issues such as conservation, population growth, cultural perspectives and a host of other things that have a huge impact on a natural resource without which humans cannot live.

Manipulative conversations derail true progress. By being transparent in our intentions and conversations, and learning to raise the difficult issues with good will, conversations can help us find sustainable solutions that take into account the good of the whole.  Unless we can talk openly about our doubts, concerns and fears while seeking common ground, we will opt for solutions that create winners and losers.  And that will only lead to new and different problems.

JAMIE