The Holiday Gift of No Arguments and How To Pull That Off

Posted on December 21, 2013 by Kathleen Kelley Reardon

We’re entering the season of URPs or UREPs if it helps to remember the “E” for episodes (Unwanted repetitive episodes) in our conversations.  As you may have read in The Secret Handshake and It’s All Politics and in the story from my debut novel Shadow Campus, where a brother and sister can’t extricate themselves from a dysfunctional way of relating, we are often creatures of bad habits.  For families and friends, these next two weeks are a time when URPs are likely to creep into our conversations and put a damper on the holidays.

You may know that one of your relatives or friends is easily provoked by the mention of politics.  He states his opinion, you state an opposing one and off the two of you go into a dysfunctional pattern that affects everyone.

Why not take this knowledge about someone you care about and use it as a edge against what “ALWAYS” seems to happen.  We all have unwanted repetitive episodes with people who are close to us at work, home and in our communities.  We have them with our children.  In class, I’ve often used a simple one as an example.  A college student comes home for the holidays.  He and his dad are washing the car.  This is how their URP goes:

Dad:  So, when are you getting your hair cut?

Son:  I like it like this, Dad.

Dad:  It’s the holidays and you look like a mess.

Son:  Let’s not go there again.

Dad:  What is that supposed to mean?

Son:  You know.

Dad:  You’ll just upset your mother.

Son:  If I’m such a problem, why don’t I just go back to school?

Dad:  If that’s how you’re going to talk to me and your mother, go ahead.

The father and son in this scenario may have been looking forward to seeing each other for some time.  But they slipped into a pattern they do nearly every time they get together and so they put the holidays and their relationship in jeopardy.

When we’re creatures of pattern to this extent, we are oblivious to the choice points we have in every conversation.  We react rather than respond because we’ve done these patterns for so long that we’re in them before we know it.

That doesn’t have to be the case.  Communication is a lot like chess.  Every move that one person makes, limits or expands the move of the other.  That means we can be victims of our conversations or active in managing them.  We just need to know how we’re letting ourselves be limited and slightly change what we’d normally do.

What could the son have said to stop this URP in its tracks?  Perhaps “I’m thinking about doing that, Dad.”  If that’s untrue, then “I’m going to go in the house after we finish here, comb it, and decide what to do about it.”  That would at least break the pattern.  The Dad could still slip back into the URP by saying, “Well, you should just go get it cut.”  A possible response to this:  “You’re probably right” or “I wonder where to do that.”  This second one is a “one-across” move, meaning it does not acquiesce or challenge, but is neutral.  Even, “I’ve been so busy studying I hadn’t thought of it” is a possible choice that doesn’t disagree or agree.  The father could make similar choices to alter the course of the conversation.

One of the best gifts we can give is to not allow our conversations, especially URPS, to ruin the holidays.  Cut someone some slack.  Respond in a slightly unexpected way.  “Hmmm, that’s a thought” not said sarcastically could be useful.  Talking about how you tend to talk can work too.  “This is when I usually disagree with you and ruin the dinner conversation.  But you actually have a point.”  That doesn’t mean you agree.  It acknowledges that the other person’s thought has some merit.  Most do.  It also avoids an URP.  That’s a gift to everyone at the dinner table with you or gathered around to open gifts.

Besides, it’s actually a great feeling to know that you can manage a conversation onto a positive path.  The best of negotiators do this.  Not being predictable is an important skill to develop. If you are predictable, more skillful communicators can manage you.  So, why not try tweaking this holiday season?  It costs so little and may be the best gift of all.

Have a merry, happy URPless holiday.

 

Posted in Choice Points, Comebacks, Dust Ups, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

When Is It The Thought That Counts in Gift Giving? And When Is It Not?

Posted on December 11, 2013 by Kathleen Kelley Reardon

If you’ve traveled on business, you may be familiar with the research I conducted on international gift customs some years ago.  It became the “seminal work” in this area about which travel expert and publisher Fred Hornbruch wrote other references to gift exchanges emanate.  The Chief of Protocol of the U.S. and heads of protocol in government and business around the world have turned for years to advice derived from the research.

My first Harvard Business Review article, “It’s the Thought That Counts,” comes from that research and is a satirical look at the many mistakes we make when we rely on our own taste and customs in selecting and presenting gifts around the world.  For me it was a natural focus of study as my work has been in persuasion, politics and negotiation — all affected by the perfect or perfectly awful gift.

You may be reading this, however, because gift giving has never ceased to be both a desirable form of expression as well as one of great relational risk.  This is also the season of gift giving.  A look at the types of gifts and a few faux pas from the research might go a long way to help raise awareness of how much thought you should put into a gift and whether you should give one at all.

Here are some excerpts:

Gift giving is part of every culture on earth.  Why is this so?  One reason is that language is often a poor vehicle of expression.  There are thoughts and emotions that defy verbal expression.  When we wish to tell others we love them, words of love can be awkward.  Gifts often say what words cannot, such as “Thank you,” “I’m sorry,” “I’m thinking of you,” and other difficult-to-express thoughts and feelings.

Gifts are often more enduring in impact than words.  Flowers, jewelry, books, rings, and other gifts serve as reminders of a sentiment long after it has been expressed in words.  Gifts are tangible representations of intangible thoughts and emotions.  The recipient of a well-selected, well-presented gift, has received a visible sign of affection or gratitude.

Gifts are also given for a reason that most of us would just as soon ignore — to incur obligation.  Some, like the Japanese, find a social debt a great burden even in today’s modern times.  A person can lose face if it is not repaid.  Gifts can be used both to create and to dismiss obligation.  

There are four types of gift-giving:  expressive, normative, strategic, and ulterior-motivated.  Expressive gifts are of the heart.  They are given to express good feeling toward the recipient.  They are not intended to incur obligation, nor are they given with any expectation of a return gift.  

Normative gifts are given because they’re expected.  In the United States, there are many holidays when gifts are expected:  Christmas, Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, birthdays of relatives and close friends, and anniversaries generally fall into this category.  Normative gifts can be expressive.  However, the primary reason for normative gifts is that were they not given, the neglected party might feel hurt, annoyed, or even angered.

Strategic gifts are given to get something in return, or to create a positive impression.  Most business gifts are of this type.  They are given with the hope that something will be received in return, even if that something is only good will.  Strategic gifts, if effective, encourage the recipient to give something in return.  They can courage a secretary to place the gift donor’s request at the top of a work pile.  They can be used in courtship to encourage continuation of a relationship.

Even if the gift donor is not consciously aware of his or her strategic intentions, the motive may still be there….

Ulterior-motivated gifts are given with the sole purpose of obligating the recipient.  They are not given with a vague, subconscious hope that the recipient will respond favorably to the donor, but with the clear intention to get something of value in return.  These “gifts” may actually be bribes.

While these categories divide gifts neatly, the reality of gift giving is that there are always at least two people interpreting the message of a gift — the donor and the recipient.  While a donor may have every good intention, the recipient of his or her gift may interpret the gesture as an attempt to create an obligation.  Similarly, the donor who gives a strategic gift may discover that the recipient interprets it as a loving gesture from which no obligation need be derived.

The opportunities for misinterpretations during gift giving are extensive.  This why it is important to take care when selecting and presenting gifts, especially when the people involved are from different cultures.  The truth is, though, cultural lines don’t have to be crossed for gift giving to be a complex, delicate form of communication.

Here are some general do’s and don’ts of gift giving around the world.  There are many more:

1.  Don’t rely on your own taste.  Rely on research and good listening.

2.  Don’t bring a gift to the wife of an associate if you are a man unless you know that in his culture this is accepted.  Also women must consider the meaning of a gift to a man in cultures where business relationships between men and women are not relaxed.

3.  Don’t outgive the Japanese.  It can cause great embarrassment and obligation.  In fact, this is a delicate matter in many regions of the world and one to consider even within our own cultures.

4.  Don’t insist that your counterpart from another culture open a gift in your presence.  That is not done in many regions of the world.

5.  The element of surprise so valued in the U.S. is often offensive in other parts of the world where being caught without a reciprocal gift is very embarrassing.

6.  Be careful about colors and numbers of items.  They can have negative connotations.

7.  Know the gift-wrapping customs and stick to them rather than your own, especially if you are the visitor.

8.  Knives as a gift can signify the cutting off of a relationship as handkerchiefs can suggest sadness.  A clock is not a good gift in China.  It is a symbol of bad luck associated with death.

There are many more considerations.  In all cultures there are unstated rules for gifts. Within company cultures and families there are expectations as well.  Some gifts are too personal, too impersonal, too expensive, too late, irrelevant to the recipient’s interests and thus reflective of inconsiderateness, or presented with too much or too little fanfare.  It isn’t as if only people from other parts of the world have expectations regarding gifts.  We all do.  It’s unwise to ignore this.

The most appreciated gift anywhere in the world is one that indicates the person giving it has thought about this, done research, has been paying attention to the recipient’s likes, dislikes and desires, and has chosen the right nature, time and manner of presenting a gift.

In my research, one of the most appreciated gifts was not an expensive one.  On the occasion of the marriage of the daughter of a business counterpart, the gift that brought tears to the eyes of the recipient and much gratitude was a beautifully framed photo the person giving the gift had taken when the bride was a little girl and he had met his business friend’s family for the first time.  He presented it, not to the bride and groom, but to his friend.  It was never forgotten and forever appreciated.  Very often, it is indeed the thought that counts.

 

 

Posted in Holiday Conflicts, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Are We Asking The Right Questions About Women Getting Ahead At Work?

Posted on December 9, 2013 by admin

The Sunday New York Times front-page story “Wall Street Mothers, Stay-Home Fathers” is a look at how women can make it to the top by engaging in an increasingly popular form of “marrying well” — having a stay-at-home husband.

An interesting article, it nonetheless points to yet another avenue women may take to get ahead that is nearly impossible to find. Where does one look for a spouse who aspires to stay at home with the children? Sure, they’re out there. But is this a viable path for women wishing to reach the top? Or is it another intriguing, rare-as-hen’s-teeth option that opens doors for a very few?

The NYT article is about wealthy women of Wall Street and so it was not intended to be representative of the majority of women working in corporate America. How couples work out “who buys the wife’s jewelry when she makes upward of a million dollars a year and the husband earns little or nothing” is interesting. But it’s difficult to feel too sorry for their dilemma. Similarly, when the husband won’t or can’t host parties for his wife’s clients, limiting as that might be, it’s hardly an unsolvable problem when you’re bringing home a bundle of money each week.

Women need solutions that can actually be applied if they are to advance in organizations dominated by men. Those come from good questions about the inner workings of such organizations. Women need to learn what makes organizations tick and that usually means politics. Yet, as a rule, women come late to taking an interest in and understanding politics.

The dearth of female mentors is one reason. Another is the tendency for women to be mentored by men when they’re “cute-and-little” and a threat to no one. They become comfortable with this, often thinking those feminists had it wrong. When they start going for the big jobs, however, competing against often similarly competent males, they often find advice is not so readily available.

By the time most women reach the point where promoting them to senior levels means not promoting a man, they have offended someone. Who hasn’t by then? Wells are easily poisoned with comments like, “She’s brilliant and everyone loves her, but is she a good fit?” When women don’t know this sort of seemingly nebulous way of judging them is in the works, they are blindsided.

Political purists don’t survive in highly and pathologically political organizations. You have to be on your toes, know what goes on behind the scenes, read the tealeaves, and position yourself for promotion by establishing as irrefutable a case as possible. You need to find comfort with power and learn how it’s obtained and used by those who get ahead.

That’s a tall order. But it’s not as tough as finding a future spouse, or converting a current one, who’ll stay at home with the kids when you need to fight the good fight at work. It’s one way forward on Wall Street, but it’s not the solution to women’s low representation at high levels and lower salaries across the board.

Front-page articles like the one by Jodi Kantor and Jessica Silver-Greenberg in The New York Times are important to the goal of discussing and grappling with why women lag behind their male peers in so many fields. But when the rubber hits the road, what women need to do for starters aside from make themselves valuable, if not in some way indispensable, is to know why highly competent women who came before them didn’t make it to the top and why others did.

You have to ask yourself if you’re in an organization where your preferred style of politics is suited to the prevailing one and whether you’re willing and able to adapt. Are you where what you have to offer adds value, where what you have to say is heard, and where your management/leadership skills have been duly noted?

If the answer is “no” to any of these questions, then the task before you is not to find a stay-at-home spouse to care for the kids, although a possible asset, it’s to begin teaching yourself more about politics and to stay far away from full-fledged “leaning in” until you’re sure where you are is where you’re likely to thrive.

This blog also appears on Huffington Post here

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Wrong Question: Is This Person Worth a Favor?

Posted on December 2, 2013 by Kathleen Kelley Reardon

People are linking all around the globe.  It’s supposedly savvy to know and be known, to connect and be connected.  But too often these connections are peripheral.  People don’t mind knowing you so long as they don’t have to provide help or advice.  It’s a one way street, and that’s unproductive politically.  Takers ultimately lose and they don’t have much fun in the process.  After all, helping other people is usually enjoyable.

If, however, you’re not of that mindset, then think about this:  Unexpected favors can be especially powerful.  While doing research for The Secret Handshake, I met a woman who years earlier had helped other middle managers by providing them with copies of two of the six systems engineering exams she’d taken.  One of these managers later became her boss.  Because of the unexpected favor she’d given him when she had nothing obvious to gain, he ordered all the books and materials she later needed to excel in the remainder of her exams.

Giving credit when it’s due is another way to do favors that cost next to nothing.  The politically astute are not arrogant.  They know that giving someone a chance to be an expert, to look good, is not their loss.  If the recipient has done his or her homework and contributes constructively, it’s a favor well deserved.  “I hadn’t thought of it that way,” “That’s a new twist and interesting too,” and “That really helped clarify things” are examples of compliments that may make someone’s day at no expense.  Yet, so many people think giving a compliment causes them to lose something.  In negotiation, we refer to such people as having a “fixed pie” view of things.  They perceive that every little benefit given to one person is a loss to them.  They want the whole pie.

What goes around does indeed come around.  So what’s the harm of sending around a little good news?  None.  When we take more than our share, others become defensive. When we give more than expected in a gracious and competent fashion, others are usually more willing to give in return.

Being politically astute is not about being the person with all the marbles.  It’s about sharing when the time is right.  I’ve consulted for organizations where too many compliments were passed around to the point that they were meaningless.  I’m not suggesting this at all.  “That’s awesome” is usually a silly compliment.  Rarely is something awesome.  If people get used to hyperbole in their compliments, there is no room for something simply being a “good job.”

So, don’t overdo.  But avoid the opposite as well.  All this connecting and linking peripherally to people without expecting to help any of them out now and then is a poor substitute for actual connectedness where reciprocity is an important part of being human and a far more important aspect of political savvy than most people realize.

 

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

Know The Politics Where You Work Before You “Lean In”

Posted on November 30, 2013 by Kathleen Kelley Reardon

Why are women not reaching the top of their fields in the numbers expected?  According to Catalyst, “high-potential women advance more slowly than their male peers, in terms of both career progression and pay, even though they employ career management strategies similar to men.”

Only 4% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women and they fill a mere 16.6% of board seats.  Yet we’re told over and over of their value to organizations.  So why are they so underrepresented at higher levels of major corporations?

The focus often turns to effective leadership skills.  Leadership ability is a primary component of career progression, but we have been missing the boat on another crucial aspect of advancement for both women and men – one that women face more intensely later in their careers.  If you do not understand politics in organizations, and do so early and often, then your chances of success are significantly diminished.  This rule applies no matter where you work.

Let’s start with power.  It’s one important aspect of politics.  Yet, it’s one women often mistakenly think takes a back seat to competence.  In some organizations it does.  But given two candidates for promotion approximately equal in job competence, the one who understands politics, and particularly power, is more likely to be promoted.

Power is not a thing people have or they don’t.  Certainly status enters into the equation.  Power is more often gained and lost because of communication by which it is developed, exercised, maintained, diminished, and destroyed.  Power is negotiated and renegotiated.  It is defined in the course of relating to others.  Status can facilitate power but it does not provide or protect it.

If you have something others need or want, you have power.  Effectively communicating possession of the needed skill increases power.  If you feel powerless, it is likely because you’ve allowed someone else to have too much power, failed to recognize your power or underestimated its value.

Women play catch-up with regard to power.  They are socialized, in large part, to not appear powerful.  Labels are used to keep women from developing a comfort with power.  Rather than expect such labels and respond to their use effectively, too many women expend energy avoiding them.  Rather than run from labels, it’s better to use them in your favor.  “Yes, I came on strong in that meeting and for a good reason” and “If having an opinion and expressing it makes women loose canons around here, then a lot of good ideas are not going to be heard” are two examples of constructive responses to labels.  Once people realize you aren’t afraid of labels, they tend to give up using them.  If you can be easily managed by the use of labels, your power is compromised.

Early in their careers, many women don’t think they need to understand power.  When they’re young, not posing a threat, senior people mentor and guide them.  That phase passes, however, and many highly competent women come unprepared to deal with power plays happening before their eyes and behind the scenes.

A good start on developing a greater understanding of the politics of power is to honestly answer the following questions:

  1. Do you study how power is established and used where you work?
  2. Do you take steps to establish your credibility with others rather than assuming your work will do it for you?
  3. Have you established yourself as the one to go to in terms of specific types of knowledge?
  4. Are you skilled at making people feel good about working for or with you?
  5. Can you use words in ways that convey a sense of confidence and power?
  6. Do you make sure that your energy isn’t devoted to small issues?
  7. Are you strategic about whom you depend on for appreciation, reward, and so on?  These are the people to whom you have GIVEN power.  Do they deserve it?
  8. Can you tip the balance of power to your favor when it appears that you are the underdog?
  9. Do you avoid flaunting power, but not avoid communicating it when necessary?
  10. Do you choose your battles wisely and learn from each one?

There is much to learn about politics and I’m convinced by years of study and observation that women need to be engaged in grasping how politics works much earlier in their careers.  The astute observer of politics has a considerable edge.

We all need to be students of politics, and the power aspect, because they are facts of business life. If you’re going to commit yourself to a career and/or organization, “lean in,” and go for the gold ring, it’s good to know what you’re up against.  Until women do this, we will be looking at low representation at the higher levels of organizations and scratching our heads wondering why so little has changed.

 

Kathleen’s latest book is a narrative look at power and politics. Her debut novel,  Shadow Campus , was recently described by Dorie Clark at Forbes as a “masterful debut mystery.”  Also see the “Tutorial for Women” section here.

Posted in Politics, Shadow Campus, Tutorials for Women | Leave a comment

Empty Seats in the Senate Make Persuasion Impossible

Posted on November 21, 2013 by Kathleen Kelley Reardon

Persuasion is something you do with people, not to people.  And that’s why my blog at Huffpo today is a bit on the miffed side.  We’ve been scratching our heads and wondering why so little gets done in the U.S. Senate and House while all along a key reason has been staring us in the face — empty seats.

There are certain types of agreements that can be made via e-mail or telephone.  But when it comes to issues of significance, nothing beats face-to-face communication.  If the government were composed of teenagers, we could look to social media for a reason why they don’t even show up when their colleagues are presenting ways to deal with serious problems.  But senators and congresspeople are adults.  Yet, we’ve come to accept that they will address empty seats when advocating for their views even on issues as critical as 26,000 unwanted sexual contacts and assaults in the military during FY2012 — to say nothing of that being up by 37% from the year before.  That’s a crisis!

For persuasion to be effective on such issues, there is no substitute for talk.  There is also no excuse for leaders not showing up unless they’re speaking into a camera.  The result is a series of televised gotcha moments.

Mass media and social media have many positive attributes.  Being vehicles of effective persuasion and negotiation is not one of them.  It’s likely that my complaint will fall on deaf ears in the Senate and House.  But I’ve been itching to bring up an obvious reason for so little progress on so many important issues.  There’s no one home.  When that happens discussion and creative solutions are out of the question.

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

No One is a “Young Invincible”

Posted on November 15, 2013 by Kathleen Kelley Reardon

I just posted a blog on Huffington about this.  Most of us know people who have had health challenges in their youth.  At the age of 30, I was unfortunate to find a lump but fortunate to have had the health care coverage to allow me to find the best doctors.  They saved my life.

While we muck about with the problems of signing up for Obamacare, frustration is growing.  Add to this the tendency for so many in the press to focus on the negative — all that has gone wrong and could go wrong in the future — and lives are being put at risk. Senators and Congressman are busily pointing fingers while young people already inclined to think they’re invincible, walk away from the only hope they’ll have if they become ill.

You would think that after the CBS 60 Minutes apology for sloppy reporting about Benghazi, other “journalists” would be endeavoring to get their facts straight.  You would think that most of them would understand the dangerous repercussions of providing constant doom-and-gloom scenarios.  The result may well be young people with serious illnesses unable to get the care they need to survive.

When young people fall seriously ill, multiple people suffer.  Family members worry and if the patient does not have healthcare, they often spend whatever they have to save their loved one’s life.  It’s irresponsible to not remind those who think they can do without health insurance that their decision to take a risk takes a risk for everyone who cares about them.

It’s time to get that message out before it’s too late.  We’d all like to deny that we’re vulnerable rather than invincible.  Young people are particularly prone to that fiction, especially if they feel good.  Those of us who have seen the sharp curves life can present should be getting the message out that youth is not adequate illness prevention.  And saving money on healthcare is shortsighted at best.

Posted in Politics | 2 Comments

Google VP Megan Smith and URPs in the Way of Women Engineers

Posted on October 27, 2013 by Kathleen Kelley Reardon

My last blog looked at the challenges women in academia face getting ahead in a number of fields.  Rather than conscious discrimination, though that exists, women business and academic leaders are talking about unconscious patterns or habits that keep women out of the top jobs.

Google may not be calling these patterns URPs as I have done in several of my books, but the patterns Megan Smith refers to are indeed unwanted repetitive episodes.  And as she says, you can only break out of those by (1) recognizing they exist and (2) doing something different than the predictable — responding rather than reacting.  Sometimes just raising awareness can make a big difference in getting rid of URPs.  In terms of the advancement of women, such pattern recognition and alteration of them is crucial.

Posted in Choice Points, Unwanted Repetitive Episodes | Leave a comment

Are Women Still Facing Promotion Problems in Academia?

Posted on October 26, 2013 by Kathleen Kelley Reardon

After writing Shadow Campus, some people asked if the difficulty Meg faced in getting tenured in a primarily male business school actually still happens.  I can’t blame people for thinking that situation surely must be fiction by now, and indeed Shadow Campus is fiction.  But the issue of female advancement in especially “leading” business schools and other predominantly male departments is consistent with the issues still plaguing nonacademic organizations.

A telling article in the September-October 2013 edition of Harvard Magazine describes “stubborn limits” in the gender composition of tenure-track faculty” even in the faculty of arts and sciences.  In fact, at Harvard “the female proportion has fluctuated between roughly 30 percent and 40 percent for nearly two decades — and recently declined to 35 percent.”

Bussey professor of organismic and evolutionary biology, Elena M. Kramer, chair of the standing committee on women, presented these data and her analysis to the Faculty of Arts and Sciences last spring.  She asked later with the rising proportion of women earning doctorates, “Why can’t we break out of this 30 percent ceiling in our tenure-track appointments?”

The gender skew exists in economics among undergraduates, according to Lee professor of economics, Claudia Goldin, and president of the American Economic Association.  Here there is early attrition from the field.

There’s what’s been called an “homophily” effect where people are more interested in and attracted to people like themselves.  Does this, akin to what is called a “conservative effect” by Kramer, take hold more during a recession?  This would suggest that the underrepresentation of women in many parts of academia and business is due at least in part to a kind of subconscious effect or habitual effect rather than anything intentionally discriminatory. Of course, it’s difficult to say whether both are not operating.

You can read the Harvard Magazine article to see what is being done at Harvard to offset this problem.  But it is clear that the issue of being attracted to tenure track positions and being able to become tenured is indeed still a significant issue for women in academia and a dilemma for administrations of universities friendly to women but unable to put an end to their continued underrepresentation.

Shadow Campus is fiction.  The issue around which the story evolves, we keep learning, certainly is not.

Shadow Campus Amazon Kindle link also here.

Posted in Politics, Shadow Campus | Leave a comment

Shadow Campus “Masterful Debut Mystery Novel” Writes Forbes’ Dorie Clark

Posted on October 23, 2013 by Kathleen Kelley Reardon

Take a look at Dorie Clark’s Forbes.com thoughts on Shadow Campus here.

Posted in Shadow Campus, Uncategorized | Leave a comment