Comebacks at Work, the newest book, The Secret Handshake and It’s All Politics have been Amazon best- and top-sellers. Today, on a Sunday when books are being bought based on Sunday reviews, It’s All Politics is on the Kindle Bestseller lists for Business Life, Management and Leadership and Advice- How To.
Last night former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, attempted to undermine Governor Mitt Romney’s claim that as a businessman he’s better suited to be president in these harsh economic times. Romney’s implication is that he is not a career politician. Gingrich went on the offensive by saying that Romney would have been a career politician had he not lost a senate seat to Ted Kennedy. That was a choice point for Romney. His comeback was unfortunately late. When it came, it was intelligent and funny. Instead of countering Gingrich’s attack with defensiveness, he agreed with him in part. Romney replied that had he made it into the NFL, he would have had a career in football. And, went on to say that the loss to Ted Kennedy was a good thing as it brought Romney into business — preparing him for the presidency in these tough economic times. Good, but late.
Romney’s response is what I’ve termed “linking” in THE SECRET HANDSHAKE and THE SKILLED NEGOTIATOR. Rather than attack your attacker’s argument, you agree with part or all of it and then link that premise to support of your views. Romney’s loss was in terms of timing.
Romney needs to be quicker on his feet. He needs some ready comebacks to buy time. He might have said with a smile, “You must have been up all night thinking of that one” or “You’ve certainly set the tone for this debate. And it’s not looking pretty.” After such a comeback, he could have delivered a blow to the former speaker who prides himself as an historian. “As an historian you would know dates and times, but this country needs someone looking forward not backward.”
Had Romney and the other candidates been less kind when answering the family values question — whether infidelity is relevant to being president — he would have demonstrated that he, too, can give as good as he gets. He might have said, “Taking your directness lead from earlier, let me say this. You may regret choices you’ve made in your personal life, but you left two wives who were ill to be with other women. One had cancer.” Is that too rude, too beneath Romney? Not if Gingrich is delivering low-blows. And not if Romney really believes such decisions are important to the presidency. Instead he talks about having 16 grandchildren. They all do that. It’s a numbers game. Congratulations! But what does that have to do with bad choices and unethical behavior? Is someone with sixteen grandchildren a better person than someone with two? Not necessarily.
One of the candidates may have said, “We could dance around this issue, but it’s too important” and then addressed Gingrich’s marital choices.
Effectiveness depend a good deal on how comebacks are said. But it was rather chicken of the other candidates to not take on Gingrich where they say it matters — family values choices.
Today on Meet The Press, Lisa Myers said that Gingrich’s response to the other candidates’ views on family values resulted in perhaps Gingrich’s best moment. The other candidates gave him that moment — on a silver platter.
Gingrich is not so much a wonderful debater (this from a former one) as he is up against people who aren’t. The next time he attacks, the other candidates would be wise to be less sheepish. They needn’t go over the line with nastiness (and admittedly that’s a fine line), they simply need to let the American people know that they aren’t going to tip-toe around an issue that they say is so relevant to the presidency.
Instead of foolishly telling us how many children or grandchildren they have as if that tells us what kind of spouse and father/mother they’ve been, they should focus on the heart of the issue. Gingrich was not a boy when he left his cancer-stricken wife. He was even older when he did the same to his second wife — also ill. He’s counting on the other candidates thinking the issue is too delicate. I don’t think Barack Obama is going to let him get away with that. Apparently, the Republican candidates are.
That’s the subject of a blog I posted today on Huffington Post. It pertains to presidential candidates, but there are a few lessons and reminders in it for all of us. When someone is running for President of the United States, serial affairs and dispensing with spouses who fall ill is a tall order for forgiving and forgetting.
Perhaps it isn’t our place to forgive the moral and ethical violations of people who haven’t harmed us personally. But forgetting that they harmed other people who trusted them when their current goal is to take on responsibilities that affect the whole world is another consideration altogether. When we start telling ourselves that what powerful people do to others they won’t do to us, we’re in trouble.
As we write about in COMEBACKS, we’re creatures of pattern. Sure, there are one-off moments when kind people do unkind things, but if that lack of civility is egregious or repetitive, forgiving and forgetting are ways to place oneself back in harm’s way.
So, when is it wise to forgive and/or forget? When you participated in bringing on the insult might qualify. When the friendship is extremely valuable to you and the event in question is an exception to the rule may as well. Also, when doing so does not give this person the power to harm you again.
But when the crass, careless, or cavalier behavior in question caused intense pain, if it was public, if it served the accused at your expense, or if it has happened before, forgiving is possible but it’s not wise to forget. Proceeding with caution is better.
It takes more than a short blog to determine when forgiving and/or forgetting are the best comebacks. We’ll look at this topic again. This blog provides some food for thought on the issue. Just remember: What comes around usually comes around again. Be generous, but keep your eyes open.
We’ve all been there. Someone you’ve helped whenever he or she needed it just couldn’t do a small thing for you. Perhaps you’ve tortured yourself over the disappointment or you flown into a rage. Either way, you’re the one who suffered.
There are many people who don’t understand quid pro quo. And while doing favors for people with the expectation of an equivalent return is often a recipe for disappointment, it’s only human to expect that someone you’ve helped over and over or reached out to at great expense to you will be there for you should you need a small favor. And yet, so often that’s not what happens. This is especially possible in cultures like that of the U.S. where a sense of obligation doesn’t run as deep as it does in countries like Japan. In research I conducted on international business gift customs used by the Chief of Protocol and around the world, that difference was evident. Obligation to reciprocate is not engrained. This is why Bob Cialdini, author of Influence, recommends when doing a favor, it’s often useful to respond to the other person’s thank you with something along the lines of, “I’m sure you’d do the same for me.”
You may wonder: “Why should I have to do that?” After all, shouldn’t people realize that receiving repeated favors obligates them to at least return one? Maybe so. But I find that people used to asking for favors and getting them often don’t recognize or remember their good fortune. Sometimes they think their status justifies it. Perhaps they are “nice” people, so doing things for them is easy. But what if the one time you ask for help, they just can’t see their way clear to providing it?
That’s when you should stop providing favors to this person. If their refusal is eating up brain space, causing you to feel miserable, you might address the issue. You could wait for their next favor request or, when you’re feeling calm, consider saying: “I’m reserving my favors for people who reciprocate.” It’s harsh, but perhaps deserved. It might lead to a fruitful conversation if you can stay calm.
If that’s too direct for you, consider saying, “When you next want a favor, call me after you’ve done at least one for me.” Okay, for some people still too harsh. But maybe that’s the problem. If you say these things without defensiveness, it may just be the wake-up call needed.
If you just want to tweak a person’s sense of obligation, another option is: “Just so you’ll know, my favor bank is empty.” See where that takes you.
In the Comebacks at Work chapter on brainfreeze, we discussed recent research demonstrating that the mind can hold on to social pain for a very long time. And, in so doing, can elicit during similar, subsequent situations a fear or freeze reaction. Perhaps you’ve had such experiences and didn’t realize that they were linked to prior embarrassing moments, such as losing your train of thought during an important speech. After that, at least for a while and perhaps for a long time, even getting up to give a speech can bring back the mortification you felt.
Whether you’re a fan of Governor Rick Perry’s presidential run or not, it looks as though he experienced brainfreeze when he couldn’t remember the third government agency he plans to terminate should he become president. This is not the first time Perry has stumbled publicly. His comeback has been, “If we’re electing a debater-in-chief, don’t elect me,” along with humor.
But it’s likely that he either hasn’t been advised to prepare himself adequately or effectively for debates to avoid such situations or he isn’t taking the advice. Especially when a topic is introduced with conviction and a major part of a political candidate’s platform, it ought to be on a card and committed to memory in an easily retrievable manner. The best way to avoid needing a comeback for a “gaffe” is to be so prepared that the gaffe isn’t going to happen.
A lesson comes from Perry’s experience. You can’t wait around to be a sitting duck if you know you’re subject to brainfreeze. By now, Rick Perry should know he is subject to this reaction. And, that it’s likely an entrenched one made worse by the latest “gaffe.” The lesson for the rest of us is to learn to bypass such reactions. Sometimes that means changing something about the context so brainfreeze isn’t elicited or relying more on visual aids. If that can’t be done, focusing on fewer points can be useful. Here’s part of what we wrote in Comebacks:
If you experience, as most of us do, some semblance of “shock” when verbally attacked (or in some other troubling situation), it’s time to learn how to bypass that reaction. It’s a matter or rerouting, retraining the brain to see such situations as opportunities or challenges, whichever gets you moving, rather than entrapment… Once you see that social brainfreeze is a chemical reaction, you don’t have to treat it as an inevitable aspect of you. Just as meditation can slow heart rate and exercise can make us more fit for most of life’s ups and downs, training the mind to see a potential social disaster coming your way and learning how to prevent or deal with it is no different than being a firefighter who knows how to get up a ladder and save a life. He or she doesn’t do that without a lot of learning and practice. That’s what it takes to bypass social brainfreeze.
Is there a comeback Rick Perry could have used to save himself from the gaffe that rocked his campaign? He had gone too far into his list of three agencies he plans to disband to say, “You know, I’m going to stop there and bring the agency issue up in a few minutes. Let me stick to the topic at hand right now” or “I’m going to leave it at those two and discuss the third agency more extensively in a few minutes.” But, such responses can work for many situations where memory fails. Had Perry not introduced the subject of terminating agencies with such conviction, had it not been central to his campaign, a memory lapse wouldn’t have been so difficult to reverse or dismiss. His best hope is extensive practice and better organization in terms of the notes he has in his hands in the future. Key topics need to be there with bullet points. If brainfreeze is part of your experience, it does little good to think it’s not going to happen again. Better to be prepared. It probably will happen, but you’ll be prepared.
You may have noticed that what passes for evidence on televised news is often weak. “Some people think” has replaced references to experts, research findings, testimony, perspectives advanced in books or highly regarded journals and even common wisdom. I marvel, as perhaps you do, at how political candidates respond to questions that contain, “some people say” or “some people think.” They should be responding with a question: “Are these people experts in some way?” “Who are the people who think this?” or “Some people say a good many things, so it’s difficult to respond without more information about them.”
These are just a few comeback options that we should hear more often. Otherwise, we allow ourselves to be taken down conversational or interview paths based on worse than flimsy evidence. We essentially let a lie live each time we react rather than thoughtfully respond to opinions posing as facts. We lend credibility to such comments by dignifying them with responses that fail to challenge their veracity.
How did we come to be so easily led? Just when did we start treating references to “some people” and “many people” as adequate forms of support for assertions?
In our own daily lives, we should also be wary of weak support. Does a comment or question deserve a thoughtful response? Should we just go along with assumptions that have no credible basis for existence?
There’s a natural tendency to answer questions — even absurd ones. It’s a conversational reflex reaction. But, a question is a choice point in any conversation. It can be answered, partially answered, redirected, or reframed. And these are only a few comeback options.
As I mentioned in a blog on Huffington Post, the next time you hear, “Some people say (think)” on the news, consider changing the channel. That’s not journalism, it’s not honest, thorough, or worthy of your time. And if you find yourself on-the-spot based on a poorly supported assertion, instead of reacting with an answer try responding with: “On what do you base that observation?” or the more polite, “You’ll need to tell me more.”
This raises the standard for conversation with you and buys you some time for finding an effective reply. Besides, you owe yourself the benefit of trustworthy evidence before adopting a view as your own.
You’ll rarely find me writing about baseball, though I love the game. But here it goes. I would be truly surprised if the Red Sox aren’t suffering from an increasing case of pathological politics. If you’ve read Comebacks at Work or my book The Secret Handshake: Mastering the Politics of the Business Inner Circle you’ve read about levels of political pathology at work. The four types are minimal, moderate, high and pathological. This last one is evident when the organization or business actually starts eating itself alive. The competition and jealousy issues are intense and embedded so deep it’s difficult to identify them. Everyone has to watch his or her back. And the leadership hasn’t a clue about how to stop this or else they are causing it either purposefully or inadvertently.
In any case, I was listening yesterday to channel 103.7 FM (WEEI) and the discussion began to veer into who on the team and among the leaders dislike each other. It was speculation, but based on considerable observation. A baseball team, like any team, is not valuable because of its stars and talent alone. Communication needs to be effective or the team begins to turn in on itself. Pathological organizations eventually self-destruct. But, they usually take a lot of good people with them on the way down. It doesn’t have to be this way. Turn-arounds are possible, especially if the political level isn’t yet truly pathological, but heading that way.
I suggest the Red Sox look long and hard at the politics off the field. Money, of course, is an issue, but there are likely many more concerns eating at the players. While it may be admirable for these young guys to not wear their hearts on their sleeves, in another sense it’s extremely damaging to not address what concerns them most, no matter how minor, and get it behind them. I’m not referring here to psychoanalysis. We’re talking about assessing the dynamics of communication and relationships. That’s about much more than what is troubling a player. It’s about how they relate and why it’s simply not working.
See what you think. Here are some signs of organizational pathology.
Some tell-tale signs of organization or team pathology:
Frequent flattering of those in power. Far less encouragement downwards.
Daily interactions are fractious.
Conflict is long-lasting and pervasive.
There’s a good deal of not saying what one is thinking — an attitude of “If they wanted to know, they’d ask.”
Too much time goes into people covering their backs and watching their backs.
“Poisoning the well” – fabricating of negative information about others even if in small drops.
Most people fear being dispensable and feel that way.
A sense of teamwork is absent as there’s a good deal of mistrust.
Today I shared with a writer one of the pivotal moments in my life. We all have them – those times when someone, usually more senior, says something that causes us to reflect and to change. For me it was when I went to a professor’s office to pick up the first paper I’d written for her class. I’d graduated early from college, so I was a young graduate student. The class was Ph.D. candidates, all male, except a woman who had been one of my undergraduate professors, and myself, a lowly master’s degree student. I’d been quiet in class, learning the lay of the land. I entered the professor’s office hoping for a good grade on my first paper. She handed it to me without saying a word. Her expression was, at best, noncommittal. On the front page was the grade – an A. “Thank you,” I said smiling. “Don’t thank me,” she said with annoyance, “and don’t come to class on Monday.” Needless to say, I was floored. “Excuse me?” I said. “If you can write like that and won’t say anything in class, then you might as well not bother coming. Maybe you’re intimidated. Maybe you want to date those guys. Whatever the reason, there’s no use coming Monday if you aren’t going to speak up. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Otherwise you’re wasting your time and mine.”
From some professors this might have seemed a display of power. From others it might have seemed a way to act superior. But she was brilliant and I wanted to learn from her. I stood there for a moment, my knees locked. “I can take the heat,” I said with as much conviction as I could muster. “And I’ll talk in class.” She nodded. “On Monday?” she confirmed. “Yes,” I said. “I guess we’ll see on Monday,” she said and returned to what she’d been reading before I’d entered her office. I departed quietly – never to be quite the same.
I talked on Monday and all the Mondays after that. Pivotal moments in our lives provide opportunities to change. They shake us up, revise our priorities and, if we’re lucky, they cause us to grow. Some of the most harrowing moments are often the ones we most need to become better versions or ourselves. It’s worth thinking about so you’ll be ready when one of those events happens. They happen fast. But the effects last a lifetime.
One of the more difficult comeback challenges occurs when people embed an insult in an otherwise seemingly pleasant conversation. It’s more common in cultures where directness is socially discouraged. You’re speaking with someone who appears to be pleased to see you and offers a few compliments before slamming you with a direct insult or attempting to undercut your “face” (as Erving Goffman would refer to it).
What do you do? Preferable is a comeback indicating that you haven’t missed their intention. “Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone, I always say” is one option. There’s also, “And to think we were having such a pleasant, mutually supportive conversation,” is another. “Whoa, I didn’t see that one coming” might serve.
As we wrote in Comebacks at Work, if people intend to humiliate you, especially in front of others, it’s important to let them know you’re not going to crawl into a corner. That only encourages them to strike at you again. “Well done insertion of an insult there” might be too strong, but it’s an option if the person clearly intended to get your defenses down with pleasantness and then slap you.
Hopefully this happens rarely in your life. Most of us don’t totally escape. There will always be people who raise themselves up in their minds by putting others down. If there is an element of truth to the the hit or you can see that they’re not well informed, then “You’re not entirely wrong there” or “I can see why you’d think that not knowing the whole story” might work. There’s also, “Sometimes a little bit of knowledge about someone else’s life is worse than none at all.”
If it was just mean, then “Next time I’ll know to duck earlier when I think you’re being kind” or “You would know as you’ve been in my shoes” could prove useful as you turn to leave. That should keep them thinking for a while.
Some days it’s tough out there.
So what do you say as a woman when someone questions why you’ve decided not to support a certain female candidate? It’s a silly question in a way, but as Sarah Palin contemplates entering the presidential candidate field, should we be asking ourselves how much of her lack of support from women is because we’re so much harder on each other? How much is the fact that she’s not an intellectual, which is something we don’t hold against men? Does something about her hair, her walk or her clothes not suit us because (as Deborah Tannen has observed) what women do tends to be “marked,” that is to say, more noticeable than a man’s fashion style. We’ll criticize a woman’s hair, clothes, speech and gait much sooner than we’ll do for a man.
Assuming some of the above paragraph has merit, how would you respond when someone asks you why you don’t jump at the chance to help put a woman in the White House? Shouldn’t people who were enthused to see a black president be equally excited about a female president?
Yes, we should be enthused about the possibility of a female U.S. President. Such an event would only be playing catching up with a good part of the modern world. We should avoid being too hard on women, noticing every move and choice they make. When a woman enters the candidates’ field with the smarts, skill, political savvy, historical and current events knowledge and dedication of Hillary Clinton (for example), then no matter her political party women should be taking a hard look before dismissing her out of hand.
But what do you say when someone asks why you’re not supporting a particular woman. You counter the question with a better one. You ask, is she smart, skilled in politics, honest, experienced, an effective communicator and able to play political hardball? You’re not looking for a female candidate who is far superior to the male candidates (as so often required for advancement to high levels). You’re looking for a woman who is every bit as effective as the better male candidates. They’re certainly out there.
