Susan Marshall’s Media

The May 10, 2009 Sunday Business section of the New York Times ran an article entitled “Backlash: Women Bullying Women.” The article laid out the problem of women’s bullying, postulated reasons for it, and offered solutions. I found it disappointing on several levels.

First, the article cites a survey by the Workplace Bullying Institute that says “a good 40 percent” of workplace bullies are women and that women tend to “prefer their own kind, choosing other women as targets more than 70 percent of the time.” (Men, on the other hand, are more equal opportunity bullies, “mowing down men and women pretty much in equal measure.”)

This bullying of women by women is referred to as “the pink elephant in the room” by a California executive coach who wonders how women can break through the glass ceiling if they are “ducking verbal blows from other women in cubicles, hallways and conference rooms.”

Oh, how I wish women could get past the glass ceiling mindset! Now we need to be fending off attacks at every turn? How many barriers—real or imagined—must women continue to learn about and rail against? How much energy do we have for this?

Next, bad behavior is chronicled, with comments from a variety of sabotaged women across the land. Reasons for this bullying are postulated: Gender stereotypes create inequality in leadership positions—men hold more of them and that’s not fair. Double standards with regard to aggressive behavior among men and women set women off. No matter what women do, it’s “never just right.”

On top of this, companies simply don’t address bullying at work and it costs them in higher turnover, higher health care costs, and reduced productivity.

What to do?

Well, let’s study it. Researchers from the State University of New York at New Paltz and Wayne State University “have developed a questionnaire to identify the full range of behaviors that can constitute bullying, which could help companies uncover problems that largely go unreported.

Their 29 questions include: Over the past 12 months, have you regularly: been glared at in a hostile manner, been given the silent treatment, been treated in a rude or disrespectful manner, or had others fail to deny false rumors about you?”

Stop right there. A visit to the grocery store on any given day with an average wait in line will likely expose you to every one of these behaviors, either directly or as overheard conversations between cashiers and baggers.

What value could there possibly be in asking women to keep track of these incidents? More to the point, what might these distractions prevent them from noticing or doing that would actually advance their learning and enhance their contributions on the job?

The article continues with additional researchers, programs, and hypotheses about why women are so mean to women at work.

Bottom line: We’re taught at an early age to compete for attention and we never quite get over it. So we’d better track it, report it, and hope our companies are wise enough to do something about it.

Articles like this suggest that learning to deal with bullies is more important to a woman’s career health and longevity than making herself knowledgeable, useful and productive.

The article makes me shake my head. Thanks for the insight. This is help we do not need.

To all who face a challenging decision or dilemma: Keep on thinking!

Truncated thinking is the all-too-common phenomenon in which the thinker encounters an aspect of a decision that is really tough and decides to postpone additional thinking in order to ‘do something more productive.’

To illustrate, let’s say a new product design reaches a ‘go’ or ‘no-go’ point. Stakes are relatively high because a substantial amount of time and money has already been invested in the design.

A ‘go’ decision requires further investment and a test in the marketplace. A ‘no-go’ decision begs justification of the investment already made. There is potential for embarrassment in either case and in some instances jobs may be on the line.

Individuals get paralyzed by the negative what-if’s and truncated thinking causes the project to stall. No resolution is actively taken; oftentimes the original idea dies for lack of follow-through.

Truncated thinking can sound like this: “We can’t do that.” “My boss won’t go for this.” “We don’t have the resources.” “That’s not our business.”

To the extent that there are solid reasons for the above declarations, they may be true. But oftentimes, they are pulled out when people get tired of thinking, are preoccupied with other matters, or simply don’t know what to do next.

Truncated thinking is a confidence killer. If it happens often enough, the very process of thinking deeply and creatively is destroyed. Thinking becomes more a review of recent successful history than an exploration of what might be possible given the resources and opportunities at hand.

“We can’t do that,” is often an expression of concern about talent, resources, or permission. Probing these concerns can yield new ideas or understanding that rejuvenate confidence.

“My boss won’t go for this,” indicates some trepidation between thinker and boss. Perhaps the manner in which an idea is being presented has been rejected in the past. To continue productive thinking, ask: “What would my boss go for?”

“We don’t have the resources,” is a painful reality for many today. However, allocating resources is still a management responsibility and examining new allocations to spur growth is worth the exercise.

“That’s not our business,” is a buggy whip classic. Business people build confidence by continuing to look ahead and think deeply, paying close attention to shifts in demographics, economics, social trends, business developments, regulations, and resources.

Each new day brings a fresh combination of elements that can create hurdles, clear pathways, or simply muddy the waters. If truncated thinking becomes a part of your culture, hurdles and muddy water will likely obscure any new pathways. Beware this confidence killer. Make time each day to think deeply and well about your decisions. Your future awaits.

Learning a new skill or adopting new behavior is a process. A process, by definition, consists of numerous steps usually followed sequentially and often requiring that one step be completed successfully before another can begin.

Computer processes take a substantial amount of time to design; when complete they can make a lot of work seem automatic. Think of the calculations done by spreadsheet programs or the instant corrections to grammar and spelling by word processing programs. The speed creates an illusion of ease.

This illusion spills over into other areas of work and creates frustration when something takes longer or seems more difficult than it should be. Professional development is a classic example of this.

Training programs that promise more effective managers, more productive employees, and more accountable leaders in just a day away from the office are just plain wrong. They create expectations for fast and supposedly lasting learning that are simply unrealistic. Confusion, frustration, and disappointment are natural and inevitable by-products.

The simple truth is that growth takes time. While we may be able to pick up new concepts quickly, executing new behavior is a different prospect altogether. How many times have you known the right thing to do but found yourself unable (or unwilling) to do it?

Accepting the fact that growth takes time leads to the question of how much time is enough? The unsatisfying but true answer is: It depends. The variables that influence the answer include the desired outcome and how different it is from current norms, a person’s willingness and capacity to change, the resources available to support learning, and the urgency of the situation. There is no one-size-fits-all formula.

This makes workforce and executive development a messy, uneven, tough-to-quantify prospect. No wonder organizations struggle with it!

Success requires a change of mind regarding planning and implementation of development programs. Standardized programs and mass education are dinosaurs of the trade. E-learning enables individualized study, but it does not necessarily promote changed behavior. Only work ‘in the field’ can provide the practice and feedback necessary to change old ways. Coaching is often very effective in helping to learn and cement new practices, but it may not be practical or affordable on a grand scale.

The work of development must be done on a daily basis. It must become part of every meeting, every exchange of ideas, and all communication. Just as a dieter gets used to taking the stairs instead of the elevator, people at work can successfully challenge and change habits that no longer serve them.

Leaders must accept the responsibility for modeling desired behaviors both in terms of providing guidance and receiving feedback. The higher up one goes, the rarer feedback becomes. To change this, leaders must ask for and be open to feedback.

Cultures transform when people at all levels and across all functions teach and learn from one another. This transformation is neither sudden nor easy. It takes time and full measures of patience, persistence, and practice. Given today’s challenging circumstances, I can’t think of a better time to get started.

When did it begin, this kinda, sorta, maybe way of thinking that makes right and wrong nothing more than intellectual exercises?

When did we become a nation of slick marketing geniuses at the expense of truth, which is the foundation of capitalism? When did a handshake become a chuckle up the sleeve because some dope believed you would do what you said?

Watching the truly pathetic parade of mealy-mouthed liars at the center of our political and economic stages is crazy making. Watching the American people leap like sheep over the edge of relativism is heartbreaking.

We used to revile snake oil salesmen! Now we examine our perceived wounds, ponder his salve, and decide that his quick fix is better than a longer process of natural, more reliable, healing.

I cannot wrap my mind around the reality—and it is that—that truth has become a throw-away commodity in our world. Negotiating deals based on promises of power or advantage trumps alliances based on values and truth and performance.

What good can we expect to come of this?

I remember as a kid being drilled about the importance of truth. Telling a lie was about the worst thing you could do because it besmirched yourself and everyone else who had a relationship with you. When you lied as a kid, the credibility and goodness of your parents was called into question. So, too, was the validity of the school you attended, the teachers who instructed you, and any other authority figures who vouched for you.

If you told a lie, you broke trust. There was nothing more dishonorable you could do.

How alien the notions of those days.

Today, if you can’t command media attention, you don’t matter. Outrageous acts are celebrated. Deviance is the new social order.

What is the end game, I wonder? Where are we going with fast talk, high fives, and unholy alliances?

When truth becomes a subjective matter, we are in serious trouble.

Houston, we have a problem.

Like many of my fellow citizens, I watch the news with growing concern and, on some days, a hint of fear. I work hard to maintain a sense of perspective and as I review my current situation, I must admit that I have everything I need to make my way through this day with confidence and good cheer. Whether that will be true six months, a year, or ten years from now I certainly cannot say. I may not be here.

We all face challenges as we weave the stories of our lives. Most of us, at one time or another, will confront at least one challenge that taxes us beyond what we believe we are capable of enduring. Yet somehow we survive. We learn that danger can be overcome.

But the times we face today are different from others I have known, experienced, and endured. The difference I see is that so few people speak with simplicity, clarity, and truth.

There have always been hustlers and charlatans among us, people who play fast and loose with money and morals and who don’t bother to remember what they said because they don’t intend to live up to their promises. Politicians, as a class of people, have always been considered in this band of thieves.

But the behavior is more widespread today. And that is very dangerous.

Capitalism is built on trust. Historically, a handshake was enough to seal a deal. A person’s word was his bond, respected and honored by all parties. Contracts were once considered inviolable, so we signed them with thoughtfulness and care. We were careful with our language, too, knowing that it reflected the quality of our thinking.

Oh, the good old days.

The financial turmoil and political nihilism that form the backdrop of our current existence did not come about because a few rogues somehow overtook our systems. They seeped into our culture over decades of tiny little concessions of truth, the little white lies about everything from how we look to how many pennies were on the desk, from how faithful we are to how accountable we hold each other to things we agreed that mattered.

Close enough was good enough for long enough to make everything negotiable. But negotiating in good faith is in jeopardy because we can no longer tell who is telling the truth.

It is a dangerous place we live today, recoverable only if we can muster the courage and character to take ourselves in hand, to tell the truth, manage selfish desires, and act in the best interests of our communities and the future, not just ourselves.