Real change in the workplace

I got the chance recently to tell a former leader what I thought about my former workplace when it came to attitudes toward research and the politics it practiced. We were together at a garden party hosted by another former colleague who seems to have managed the workplace politics better than I did. It's not that I didn't try; it's just that at some point I refused (inside myself) to compromise my beliefs and how I view dealing with employees and the jobs they do. I am totally uninterested in micromanaging employees or in forcing them to accept change just for the sake of change. I am interested in engaging them in useful and productive work and in listening to what they have to say and to teach me. The latter is important, and more leaders should try to listen better and to learn from their employees, rather than preaching to them that they are 'resistant to change', ineffective at their jobs, or treating them as though they are little more than a budget post on an accounting sheet. 

The interesting thing was that my former leader agreed with mostly everything I said, which was not the case when I was still working, and said further that attempts have been made to get current leadership to see new points of view when it comes to research policies, to no avail. Current research leadership thinks it knows best, and has thought that way for the past fifteen years. And they talk about resistance to change. My opinion--start at the top and work downward. Get rid of the heavy weight of too many leaders at the top (six levels of leadership) and focus on using the salary money saved to employ truly professional individuals who actually do useful and productive work. I reiterate, as I've done so many times in this blog before--leadership is not a career in and of itself. Being a leader in one specific area does not necessarily qualify you for all leadership positions. Current management in many places seems to think it does, and it is one of the biggest mistakes ever made during the past twenty years. How one could believe that being a top-level company executive entitles you to run a hospital department with no prior medical experience is beyond me. But tell that to the politicians who leave office and are appointed leaders of boards and companies. What experience do they have that qualifies them for these positions? The worst thing that ever happened to academic research science was giving these bureaucrats the power that they now have to wield over ordinary scientists, many of whom have simply given up and left for the greener pastures of industry. The same is true for many of the pathologists I know, who simply cannot abide the understaffing (a perpetual shortage of necessary professionals) and inefficiency of many public hospital workplaces. 

Things need to change, and if that change entails admitting that current leadership trends are simply 'the emperor's new clothes', then so be it. Admit it. Just do it. Get rid of the dead weight at the top. Hire the people needed to do the necessary jobs, who actually do the work. Stop micromanaging. In short, listen to your employees and respect their expertise. You hired them for a reason. 

Leadership and followship

I've been thinking about leadership, about leaders who inspire and have inspired me, and it occurred to me that I have been willing to follow such leaders during my long work career. I have not been willing to follow leaders who do not inspire me. For me there is a clear-cut line between real leaders and fake leaders, and what separates them is their ability to motivate others, to inspire others with their ideas and thoughts. Fake leaders are those who are leaders in name only; they are only interested in the title, prestige, and money attached to the position. They have no idea of how to lead others or how to motivate them. Unfortunately, there are too many of the fake leaders and not enough of the real leaders.

I've been thinking about this since I found out that all three of my managers at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center have passed, the first in 2013 and the other two during the past six months. They were my managers, but they were real leaders, all three of them. One was an innovative pathologist who led the pathology department, the second was an idea-rich medical doctor/researcher, and the third was an attention-to-detail basic researcher who pulled it all together. They were an excellent team that managed to present their ideas to their team of employees, who worked hard to translate those ideas into reality. The results were good publications, successful grant applications, money to hire people and to buy consumables for the lab, travel to conferences to present our data, and money to buy state-of-the-art flow cytometers that our lab used at that time. 

There really is nothing new under the sun. I've googled the terms 'leadership and followship' and discovered that I'm not the first one to coin the term 'followship'. As I've pointed out above, followship is a good thing if those one follows are real leaders who inspire their employees. Followship is not a good thing if it is characterized by passivity, conformity, lack of good ideas, lack of motivation, and a pervading sense of mediocrity. Negative followship implies that the leaders employees follow are not real leaders. Unfortunately, there is too much negative followship afoot, also in society at large. Rather than think for themselves, many people prefer to simply accept what they read online or in the media generally, without weighing the consequences or debating the wisdom and truth in what they read or watch on television. They would rather be passive and conformist, and those traits can be manipulated and abused by unethical leaders. 

When I had the chance to lead a small project research group over ten years ago, I managed to do a good job, according to the feedback I've gotten from those who worked for me and with me. One young woman even said to me that she hoped she would be like me when it was her chance to lead others. Others have said that they have learned a lot from my leadership style. I've been told that I am a good people manager, but I know too that many of my scientific ideas were good and that the research projects that we were involved in were interesting and timely. Ground-breaking, no. But relevant, yes--work that may have advanced some of the knowledge in the field. I can live with that, now that my career is nearing its natural end. I would rather know that when it was my turn to lead, I stepped up to the plate and did a good job of leading and inspiring others. That's all that matters to me at this point. 

One long scream

Some people will assume that this is a Covid-19 post because of the title, but it’s not. The pandemic is a part of what I write about, but it’s not the sole focus. One long scream has been building for years in many workplaces, not just mine. But during the past decade, life in my workplace changed irrevocably for many. As in, there was no going back to what was, only moving forward to what could be. The focus became the future. The past was never talked about; the history of my department, how it came to be the way it was, was unimportant. Those of us old enough to remember the past, or who had worked there long enough to know about it, were told that it wasn’t important; no one wanted to hear about it. The present was just ignored in favor of the future. But the present was what needed to be dealt with, except that no one knew how to deal with it or wanted to deal with it because the problems were too many. So it was ignored in favor of all the fancy buzzwords, slogans and catch phrases that would create the future that ‘everyone wanted’ or said was important to have for the sake of productivity and effectiveness. When we were children that was called ‘let’s pretend’.

I don’t mind playing let’s pretend. It’s just that let’s pretend has gone on for many years, and has worn down those employees who tried as hard as they could to implement the many changes and trends that were laid on the table and prioritized. The problem was that there were too many changes and trends, and one could never be certain which change or trend was the one to be prioritized, since priorities shifted on a monthly basis. Courses in how to lead were important, but they didn’t produce better leaders. They produced leaders who were only interested in forcing their employees to adapt to change for change’s sake. There were never good explanations for why this or that change or trend was important. Employees who were resistant or critical were pushed aside, and are still pushed aside, in favor of those who are receptive to every change or trend that gets suggested. It doesn’t matter if the changes or trends cause a lot of upheaval, waste time, are ineffective, or lead to demotivated employees. The leaders and their loyal employees continue on, while those who are critical find it harder and harder with each change to start over and plod on, dreading the next major change, the next trend to attack the workplace that its leaders will embrace warmly and force down the throats of their employees. The pandemic has brought to light how stupid some of these trends that workplaces adopted without question actually are. One of them is packing as many employees as possible into tiny offices, with little room to move or to spread out. Another stupid trend is open office landscapes—placing an entire workforce into one large room, no individual offices, no dividers, no cubicles, no privacy, no quiet time, constant distractions, and a lot of noise. The party line was that open office landscapes were conducive to interaction, communication and collaboration. Employees should embrace them without question. The reality was something else entirely. Most employees want and need some private time, some quiet time, at work. That’s the purpose of offices—one can close a door and shut out the noise if one needs time to think. But that was no longer ‘allowed’. The reason for open office landscapes, as we all know if we cut through the piles of bullshit that have built up, is to save money. Workplaces save money by forcing their employees to sit in one large room together. The pandemic however, has shown just how stupid this trend is. Suddenly the hunt is on to find new solutions for dealing with this problem—the spread of Covid-19 (or any virus for that matter)—in an open office landscape setting. So the solution has been to tell employees to work from home if they can. That must really rub some leaders the wrong way; after all, they lose the ability to totally control their employees. I’ve seen other solutions that have to do with erecting Plexiglas dividers between adjacent desks, or enclosing individual desks in Plexiglas cubicles. It seems to be a return to some kind of individual office thinking. Dare one hope? Can one dream?

I’ve come to the conclusion that leaders and employees who can shift from one change to the next, from one trend to the next, without problems, are surface skaters. They are not interested in depth; it’s unclear what they are really interested in except control. They should be interested in depth; they should be listening to their employees. Because not to do so is simply to invite trouble. Some few do at present. But most do not. They have their visions and preferred ways of doing things, and they simply expect employees to fall in line. After a decade of multiple leaders, multiple leadership styles, fragmentary visions, shifting priorities, stupid changes, stupid trends, wasted time, wasted breath, useless meetings, endless budget cuts (to no avail), poor strategies, poor planning, yet more meetings to undo what was decided upon two or three years ago that took up valuable employee time—some employees experience only one feeling—the desire to scream into the wind, into the boundless future that was promised them, the golden land of promise and opportunity, the utopian landscape, where all workplaces are effective and productive, where all work output can be measured and controlled, where all employees can be controlled. It’s one long scream, a primal scream, a plea really for a return to sanity and to peace, a plea for a return to a time when freedom from control was still to be found in a workplace.

Good riddance to a bad leader

Those of you who know me and who have followed my blog during the past decade know that I have written frequently about bad leaders and bad leadership. The definition of a bad leader can certainly vary from person to person, but in my book, a bad leader is one who does not appeal to the best in people, but to the worst. A bad leader is one who finds the basest character traits and behaviors in all human beings, including himself or herself, and elevates them to something noble. Traits and behaviors such as narcissism, selfishness, egotism, aggressiveness, violent talk, bullying others, harassing others, greed, cowardice, making fun of others, being deceitful, lying, and lack of accountability for one’s actions and speech. I could go on, but you get the picture.

All of these traits and behaviors I’ve mentioned describe Trump very well. They perhaps describe his supporters to some degree, but I have a problem with this aspect, because many of the Trump supporters I know call themselves Christian, are good people, would never think of behaving the way he behaves, and would not teach their children to behave in this way. So what is the explanation for Trump’s popularity? I think it is horrifying that half of the US population voted for this man. It wasn’t just that they didn’t want Biden. They wanted Trump. They like him. They see him as a great leader. They see him as a Christian. This is what I don’t understand, and what I would like them to explain to me. How is he Christian? Is it so simple as to say that because Trump says that he is anti-abortion or holds a bible (upside down, no less), that this is enough to label him a Christian? What about his making fun of a man with cerebral palsy at one of his rallies? What about his vulgar view of women, of wanting to grab women by the pussy? What about his making fun of John McCain, who served the country in Vietnam and suffered greatly as a POW, something Trump never did? What about all the lying, the lack of accountability, the chaos around him, the lack of reflection, the lack of interest in a peaceful life? What about the constant aggressiveness and anger in tone, speech and behaviour? How come there exists such a huge disconnect between what he says and does, and what his supporters want to believe about him? Because there is a huge disconnect, there is no denying that.  

I have written a number of posts about him. I had his number a long time ago. He is a bad leader and a dangerous one, because he basically encourages others to do his dirty work for him. I’m guessing he’s always been like that, so it’s nothing new. He is a mouthpiece for the disgruntled in our nation, but they in turn do his bidding. It’s a sick and abusive relationship he has with his supporters. Unless you’ve been bullied/harassed yourself, you will not understand the dynamics of such a relationship. You can fight a bully, or you can cave in to him or her. If you fight a bully, you risk being physically attacked, verbally attacked, threatened, having your name dragged through the mud, and having your family suffer consequences as well. If you cave in, you ‘make a deal’ with the bully that if you do his or her bidding and keep your mouth shut, you will be left alone. You will not be attacked or hurt. The bully controls you because you fear him or her; the bully brainwashes you to think that he or she is your protector or savior, that your behaviour prior to caving in was what caused the bully’s aggressiveness toward you. You learn not to say anything that may offend the bully. That’s a sick relationship. Trump exploits others--their weaknesses, their cowardice, their lack of motivation. That’s why he is a dangerous leader, just like Hitler was. Trump uses the people in his administration as his personal lackeys; their loyalty is all that matters to him. In a similar way, Hitler rose to power because those who worked for him turned a blind eye to what he said and did, and did not stop him. Those that tried to stand up against him were fired or re-assigned to positions in places where they could have little impact.

We should learn from history. There is no guarantee that the USA must remain a democracy; the only guarantee we have is that good people stand united to fight those who want otherwise. Trump wanted to be a dictator. His followers don’t see it that way. He is a bad leader; his followers don’t see him that way. The good thing is that our founding fathers drew up a system of government that divided political power among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Power is not concentrated in one place. The president is not a king or a dictator; he or she does not have absolute power. That is a good thing and that is what will save the USA from becoming a fascist country. Trump has been a test of how well that system works. In the final analysis, the system has taken a severe beating but has survived, in no small part due to the judicial branch that rejected most of his attempts to undo the election. Trump himself is nothing more than a failed president, a bad leader, a bully, and a coward. That is his legacy, and history will not be kind to him. 

The importance of good leadership

I’ve written about good and bad leadership many times over the past ten years, mostly as relates to a workplace setting. It’s clear to me that bad leadership has a major impact on how employees view their jobs and their career prospects. Bad leadership is narcissistic leadership; leaders who are most concerned about what their employees can do for them, rather than the other way around. Narcissistic leaders are not interested in serving their company or their employees; they are interested in serving themselves. That can define a lot of modern workplaces; one need only take a look at the hefty bonuses given to crappy leaders at the expense of loyal hard-working employees who will never in their lifetime see a fraction of the amount of money that some of the bad leaders rake in. Many of the bad leaders make a mess of one workplace, only to then move on to the next one that is waiting to welcome them with open arms. They are not or cannot be held accountable for the chaos they leave behind, which I think is wrong, especially in public sector workplaces but also in private ones. Your reputation as a destroyer should follow you and hinder you from getting a new leadership position.

Most employees who have been treated poorly do not want to stay in their jobs; unfortunately many do, either because they cannot afford to quit without another job waiting for them (not always the case) or because they have lost the necessary confidence to seek other positions. The latter is not talked about very often, but it is important and an absolutely decisive factor in whether or not an employee actually gets a new position. Nowadays you have to market yourself to the nth degree, and if you don’t have the confidence to do that due to constant harassment or badmouthing by bad leaders, you’ve lost the battle before you even started fighting.

Bad leaders should be fired, pushed aside, frozen out, or ignored. However it happens, they should have their power stripped from them. Unfortunately this rarely happens. But if you work in a workplace long enough, you can be witness to the karma effect, as in, karma is a bitch. Time heals all wounds, as is often said, and it does. What doesn’t kill you does make you stronger. But time often wounds all heels, and that is a good thing for the heels and for those who have been mistreated by them to see, even though it involves the downhill slide of once-deemed-important leaders into a deserved oblivion. No one will miss them or care about them, and in fact, workplaces can begin to really thrive again once they are gone.

And that brings me to the presidential transition in the USA. A transition from a bad leader to a (hopefully) better one. Biden is at least a decent human being, something that cannot honestly be said about Trump. Decency is a good start in my book. If Trump is at all decent, I haven’t seen evidence of it, and I would need to see the evidence before I can change my opinion of him. But he is absolutely not a good leader. I have said it many times before; he squandered the wonderful opportunity he had as a non-politician to really lead the country into a different future, to implement policies and ways of doing things that could have had good effects and lasting change. Instead he chose to dabble with the alt-right, with white supremacists, with haters and bigots, with conspiracy theorists, with the fringe elements that were enabled by him to slither out from under their rocks into prime time. America got a good look at what lives in its underbelly, and it is none too pretty. If you think it’s cool that the underbelly exists, then you must be prepared to live with the consequences. I for one do not think it’s cool that an American president sanctions racism and white supremacy, yells at reporters, makes fun of the disabled, or acts like a spoiled brat on the world stage. I am praying that the era of narcissistic leaders is coming to an end; it has reigned in politics and modern workplaces for far too long. We need a long era of leaders who are willing to serve their constituents (the whole USA when it comes to politics) and their employees when it comes to workplaces. I cannot see how the world will move in a better direction without such leaders to guide us. We must demand good behaviour of our leaders, and they must listen and act accordingly. And if they don’t, we must get rid of them until we find leaders who fit that bill. Anything else is to choose destruction of the values that most of us cherish.  

Another post about leadership and new challenges

I have taken on a new role at work, one that's moved me out of my comfort zone into a more fast-paced daily existence. The fact that it happened at all is due to a new department leader who wanted to shake things up a bit, and she's done just that. She's given chances to new (untested) people like me rather than just settling for the old guard. I'm glad she's done that, because I was ready to step up to the plate, and I have. This past year has been a bit of a whirlwind in terms of contributing to all of the activities that are a part of my new job. I really enjoy contributing to building something new and to changing how things have been done. The tasks seem daunting at times, and sometimes I wonder what co-workers think when they're presented with the new ways of doing things. Are they skeptical or will they embrace change? I see that many of them are glad for the changes--they embrace them. Giving presentations on short notice, writing grant applications on short notice, leading meetings, and speaking up more--new challenges. I'm happy that I've learned to open my mouth more and express my opinions. The role requires meeting and talking to people, those I know and those I don't. It means meeting people where they are--I travel to meet them because I know that talking to them is valuable--for me and for my organization. It requires taking the reins and starting conversations, asking people for advice and giving it when asked. It requires problem solving, and I've realized that I genuinely enjoy problem solving; I finally understand that about myself--that I'm good at it. I like the puzzle aspect of it--how to fit the pieces together so that we get the results we want without alienating employees. Because no one wins when employees feel alienated. There is discussion and more discussion, but there is also taking the risk of making a decision that will affect employees' work lives. But that's ok, because when I look at my department leader, I realize that she is doing just that, taking the risk of making a decision without knowing for sure that it is the best decision to make. But it may be the right one--she and we cannot always know the outcome. Those are the leaders I will follow, because they do not require unquestioning loyalty, nor do they disrespect their employees. They can agree to disagree if necessary. But they do require their employees to move out of their comfort zone and to take responsibility. That's a leadership language I can speak and understand.

You reap what you sow

It's been said many times before, but it's worth repeating, especially in these times of hate rhetoric and incitements to violence. "You reap what you sow". If you open your mouth and nothing but anger, hatred, aggression and meanness comes out, you will attract the same. You will attract the types of people that most well-behaved people wish would stay hidden under their slimy rocks. The types of people who will feel emboldened by you, and who will repay your bad behavior in kind. The types of people who use social media as their soap box to unload their vitriol on others. If you are the president of the USA, this is not a good thing, no matter how much you would like it to be. The fact that these types of people are your supporters should trigger every alarm inside you. But it doesn't. You seem mostly unperturbed by it. Yet it would behoove you to behave decently, properly, kindly, and carefully, rather than incite these types of people to behave badly. It would behoove you to lead the nation in the right direction. It is not a good thing that your behavior opens the doors to all sorts of terrible behavior. A truly intelligent leader would have understood this by now. And if you are truly intelligent and still choose to lead the nation in the wrong direction, then that is evil. Because really, what else is evil but the deliberate choice to do wrong in the face of right? We as a nation are reaping what we sow. We persist in prioritizing the right to own and carry guns rather than tackling so many other important issues that should have been prioritized a long time ago, like universal healthcare for all Americans. We persist in speaking unkindly, aggressively, meanly, because we are led by someone who does so, who has made it a priority to do so. He is making a mockery of all that we stand for as a Christian nation. We are letting it happen, and we let it continue.

I find it strange that in 2018, we are going backwards. We are regressing as a nation. Our values as a nation are at stake. What do we stand for? We need to figure that out rather fast, because we are sliding quickly down into the muck. Who knew that it would take so short a time to undo the progress that has been made concerning racism and personal rights? Who knew that there were so many white supremacists just waiting in the wings for their turn to walk onto the stage? Who knew that a nation could be so divided? Who knew that there was so much hate bubbling under the surface? 

But now we know--where we came from, and where we are going to. It's neither a pleasant journey nor a pleasant destination.

Losing and regaining workplace motivation

There are many reasons why employees lose their motivation for doing their jobs well. Burnout as a result of a poor work-life balance may be one reason, lack of feedback or recognition from management may be another. Unclear and constantly-shifting goals and strategies will also destroy employee motivation gradually over time, which is understandable. It’s hard to aim at a constantly-moving target. It’s not possible to continually start over, reorganize and restructure, working toward yet a new goal that management has suddenly decided to prioritize, and retain motivation. Change is fine and necessary in workplaces, just not continual change. Harassment and bullying in the workplace also contribute to loss of employee motivation, especially if they are allowed to continue once reported. All of these are important reasons for why many employees simply give up and stop trying or stop caring. Many of these employees should probably quit and find other jobs, but if you’ve been treated poorly over the course of many years, your self-confidence may not be at an optimal level, so there’s no guarantee that you’ll do well in an interview for a new job. Additionally, many employees need their jobs for economic reasons and cannot just quit.

When employees are treated poorly by management or ignored by management, employees will lose their motivation. They will slow down, be less effective, produce less, and complain more. If they don’t complain, they will find other ways to undermine what they perceive to be a system that is completely indifferent to them or that rarely listens to them. They will say that ‘they could care less’, but in truth, they do care, and wise leaders will recognize this and do something about it.

Leaders make all the difference, and they should remember that. In all my years in the workforce, I have yet to meet employees who are motivated solely by money. Most employees are inspired by leaders who know what they want and know how to impart that message to their employees. Most employees want to know that their work counts and that it is important to the company. They want to hear that they’ve done a good job when they’ve done a good job; they want to be seen and they want their hard work to be acknowledged. Many leaders seem unable to do this. They have difficulty praising employees for a job well-done. They have difficulty offering constructive criticism, whereas most employees understand the need for constructive criticism when necessary. It’s how you learn, grow, and progress professionally.

It’s possible to regain motivation for one’s work, even after many years of minimal motivation. A change of leadership may do the trick. A wise leader takes over for one who was clueless, ineffective, or unprofessional in tone and behavior. A wise leader meets with his or her employees, takes the time to talk to them about their work and how they feel about their jobs, discovers the strengths in his or her employees, and builds on those strengths. When employees feel that they’ve been listened to and then given new tasks that match their strengths and abilities, they regain their motivation. It may be a slow process, but what’s important is that those employees are once again effective and productive employees.

An excellent article about identifying the next generation of leaders for your company

Leadership is a topic that I've written a lot about during the past decade, in this blog but also in several books that I've published. I've written a lot about the poor leadership I've seen and experienced personally, but also about the good (and even great) leaders for whom I've had the privilege of working. What characterizes the latter is their generosity, expansiveness, visionary abilities, and their emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence involves knowing your employees' strengths and weaknesses and acting on that knowledge when trying to find the right person for the job. In order to know this as a leader, you have to be able to talk to your employees.

It's a pleasure to come across an article that makes a lot of excellent points about how to identify leadership potential. More specifically, this article focuses on identifying the next generation of leaders in your company:
https://www.clicktime.com/blog/identify-your-companys-next-generation-of-leaders/

It also makes the point that extroverts don't necessarily make the best leaders. I couldn't agree more. So many 'introverts' have been ignored or passed over when it came time for promotions to leadership positions. During the past decade, the focus on extroversion has been intense. I have no idea why. I've participated in countless numbers of meetings, many of them dominated by extroverts. There was little exchange of ideas; the outcome was often that the introverts declined to participate in future meetings or found ways to get out of them if they could. Not a win-win situation for a company.

Modern workplaces during the past fifteen years or so have often been dominated by extroverts, by Newspeak, by trendy business philosophies, and by a dilution of responsibility that serves no one. Let's hope that the next generation of leaders gets back to business and to an understanding that "your company is only as good as the employees who work for you, and your employees are only as good as the leaders who lead them".

How to achieve better employee engagement

An article worth reading.......https://www.clicktime.com/blog/5-steps-towards-better-employee-engagement/

Employee engagement is a tricky subject. I agree with the points brought up in the article, but emphasize that good managers and leaders are what lead to engaged employees. Employee satisfaction starts at the top and works its way down. Leaders and managers are employees too, and if they are engaged, motivated and happy, if they believe in what they do and in the goals of the company, those who work for them will be motivated as well. In some few cases, I've experienced the opposite--that engaged and motivated employees re-inspired their bosses who had lost their motivation. If that happens at times, that's good too. But leaders must understand their role in keeping employees motivated. They have a responsibility to do so. That is what leadership is about.

Questions I have for those who appoint leaders

• Why is it that so many current leaders seem to have risen to the level of their incompetence?
• Why are cowardice, silence in the face of tangible problems, and lack of honesty rewarded with appointments to key leadership positions?
• Why are employees who tell the truth, give feedback, and inform about potential problems often pushed to the side, ignored or frozen out of the leadership pack?
• Why is it necessary to resort to embarrassing lazy incompetent leaders in front of others in order to get them to do their jobs and to take responsibility?
• Why is it necessary in 2017 to have to explain to leadership that infrastructure is important? That without a well-functioning IT infrastructure, you may as well work at home where the IT infrastructure is optimal (of course it is—you cannot keep up in society without updating your computers, software, phones, TVs). That without an annual stipend from one’s workplace to purchase consumables, little will get done because there is no money to buy necessary items.
• Why is it necessary in 2017 to have to explain to research leadership that technical positions (research assistants) are alpha and omega in terms of getting things done in the lab? Why isn’t this a given, that a research group has automatic access to a full-time permanently-employed technician? Does leadership really think that senior research personnel are going to do all the lab work themselves, do all the procedures required for research projects, summarize all the data, perform statistical analyses, write articles, write grants, review others’ articles for journals (for free), review grants for national and international funding agencies (often for free or for a nominal payment), attend a plethora of (mostly pointless) meetings, act as mentors for PhD and Masters students, teach junior personnel, hold lectures, travel to conferences, etc.? Excuse me for saying so, but if they think this, they are just plain stupid. I have a colleague (over fifty years old) who told me that some of her worst work weeks have involved attending eighteen hours’ worth of meetings (that works out to almost 2.5 days a week devoted to meetings). It stands to reason that she will not have any time whatsoever to do routine work or lab work. 
• Why is it considered ok for leadership to not inform employees about important matters, but not ok if employees ignore the regulations stating that they must file periodic progress reports and account for every penny they spend?
• How did it get to the point where a research career can end literally overnight when funding dries up, and more to the point, who thinks this is a good system or a good approach? Many of those careers belong to highly-competent and efficient scientists who just don’t happen to be doing trendy research. 
• How can one honestly encourage young people to stay in academic research when the prospect of them attaining a permanent research job/steady funding/tenure is slim to none? Is it ok to essentially lie to them, to tell them that it will work out for them (it won’t in most cases)? 
• And finally: why do we older scientists even entertain the possibility that we have a snowball's chance in hell of getting research funding? Of writing a fundable grant? If I have learned anything these past five years, it’s that even though I managed to write good grant applications that got me external funding to work as a post-doc and junior scientist during a ten-year period from 1999-2008, that’s not good enough anymore. And it will never be good enough. The past does not count. Realism is what counts. Luckily I have a permanent staff scientist position so I cannot be fired because I am older, but there is no funding for consumables. It's a strange situation to be in. But I now focus on other things that give me satisfaction and a sense of accomplishment. None of them have to do with my career. 

Worth reading

More important than ever---what employees really want

Be the Best in Business: What Are the Barriers to Becoming an Effective Leader...

An excellent post from the blog Be the Best in Business--about the barriers to becoming an effective leader; one of those rare posts where what you read is truly educational and inspirational.

Be the Best in Business: What Are the Barriers to Becoming an Effective Lea...: In 2011 Anne Morris, Robin Ely, and Frances Frei highlighted five barriers to becoming a truly effective leader. Read more about them here.    

Women and top leadership positions

Women in top leadership positions—a topic that continues to fascinate the business media. There aren’t enough women in top leadership positions, we’re told. Those women who make it to the top tell us that there is no longer a glass ceiling for women (there once was, but it’s not clear exactly when it disappeared); they’ve made it to the top, so that’s proof of its non-existence. So the question at present is why there aren’t more women at the top, especially in Norway where women get long maternity leaves, where daycare is a given (not free, however), and where men are raised to pitch in and do their share. Even in this country, women are not aiming for the top-level leader positions, and it’s been written about and discussed in the media. Women no longer hit a glass ceiling on their way to becoming top leaders; the problem is rather that women don’t choose top leadership positions, for a variety of reasons. Some feel that they are not qualified to be leaders; others know that they simply won’t be able to juggle a top-level job, a household and a family, without help. And some families cannot afford help in the form of nannies, housekeepers or maids. But such help is essential if you’re going to be a top leader. Because company expectations for a top leader are high when it comes to job commitment and availability (often 24/7). How top leaders plan their days, when they start work and when they leave for home, is a personal challenge for each of them. They don’t get all their work done between 9 am and 5 pm, even though they may go home at 5 pm. They are working in the evenings at home while trying to spend quality time with their families, if they have them. It’s a superb act of juggling; some women manage it, many do not. But many men do not manage it either, especially if they are part of a two-career family, like most are these days.

It’s not just women who don’t choose top-level leadership positions; it’s men too. I know a number of American men who are/were middle-level managers, and that suits/suited them just fine. They were content to stay at the level of middle manager, because they at least got to leave the office by 6 pm to get home in time to see their kids and spend some time with them before they went to bed. In the New York City metropolitan area, a commute into and out of Manhattan from a surrounding suburb can take a commuter an hour or more at the very least, depending on where the commuter lives. Even if a train or bus ride into Manhattan is thirty minutes long, getting around in Manhattan by subway or bus can easily add another thirty minutes to the journey. There are transit delays; traffic corks if you drive or take the bus. Nothing flows smoothly all the time; you’re lucky if it does. It’s a crap shoot when it comes to commuting; I can attest to that personally. My forty-five minute commute by car into Manhattan from New Jersey took me two hours door-to-door by bus. If I had had a family at that time, I would never have gotten home before 7 or 8 pm each day. That’s no way to have a family life, and my job was just a regular job, not a top-level one. I know some men in New York who were ‘reprimanded’ for leaving the office early (5 pm) to get home at a decent hour in order to spend time with their children. I know some women here who experienced the same when they left early (4:30 pm) to pick up their children at the daycare center. It’s tough to find a balance; I see that with younger people now as well. Husbands and wives drop off and pick up children at the daycare centers; they take turns doing so. A two-career marriage with children can’t work any other way. Sacrifices must be made, and two people must make them. The sacrifices can involve spending less time at the office. However couples manage it, the fact remains that choosing to be a top leader means sacrifices, the kind of sacrifices that the majority of men and women won’t be making, by choice, in this lifetime, especially once they have a family to consider. Top-level leadership is not for everyone.  

Some good quotes about leadership

• “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” ~ Mahatma Gandhi
• “Before you are a leader, success is all about growing yourself. When you become a leader, success is all about growing others.” ~ Jack Welch
• “If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.” ~ John Quincy Adams
• “Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it.” ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower
• “I was never the smartest guy in the room. From the first person I hired, I was never the smartest guy in the room. And that’s a big deal. And if you’re going to be a leader – if you’re a leader and you’re the smartest guy in the world – in the room, you’ve got real problems.” ~ Jack Welch
•  “Too many companies believe people are interchangeable. Truly gifted people never are. They have unique talents. Such people cannot be forced into roles they are not suited for, nor should they be. Effective leaders allow great people to do the work they were born to do.” ~ Warren  Bennis
• “Leadership is an action, not a position.” ~ Donald McGannon
•  “The challenge of leadership is to be strong but not rude; be kind, but not weak; be bold, but not a bully; be humble, but not timid; be proud, but not arrogant; have humor, but without folly” ~ Jime Rohn
• “Leaders think and talk about the solutions. Followers think and talk about the problems.” ~ Brian Tracy
• “Successful leaders see the opportunities in every difficulty rather than the difficulty in every opportunity” ~ Reed Markham
• “Leadership is solving problems. The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help or concluded you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership.” ~ Colin Powell
• “To handle yourself, use your head; to handle others, use your heart.” ~ Eleanor Roosevelt
• “One’s philosophy is not best expressed in words; it is expressed in the choices one makes… and the choices we make are ultimately our responsibility.” ~ Eleanor Roosevelt
• “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
• “The art of leadership is saying no, not yes. It is very easy to say yes.” ~ Tony Blair
•  “Become the kind of leader that people would follow voluntarily; even if you had no title or position.” ~ Brian Tracy

‘Fake it until you make it’ (then what?)

I subscribe to a number of email publications having to do with the business world and its ever-fascinating opinions, buzzwords, mantras and current trends. Nothing too complicated; most articles debate the following types of issues: qualities of good leaders, how to break through the glass ceiling, is there a glass ceiling for women, have we achieved gender equality, how women should act in a male-dominated profession, and so on. The new mantra for women on the way up is apparently ‘Fake it until you make it’; this is proffered as a way for women to feel ok about the fact that there are a number of men in top-level positions who are not qualified for them, but since they act as though they are (they fake their competence and/or readiness), they get promoted whereas women don’t. So if men do it, it’s ok for women to do it too. This expression makes me cringe whenever I hear it uttered, at least in the way it’s currently used. It conflicts with nearly every moral principle I was taught since I was a young child. We were taught to be honest, forthright and not to lie. We were certainly not taught to ‘fake’ anything. Fakers were frowned upon; if you look up the word ‘faker’, some of the synonyms are liar, pretender, fraud, phony, pretender, and impostor. Sorry, but these are not the type of personality descriptions you want attached to you, not in the business world, and definitely not in the academic research world. We were taught to work hard at whatever course of study we chose to pursue, and in that way, we would achieve success in our chosen profession. And if our eventual goals were to be the boss or leader of a department, for example, we accepted that we had to earn that position; that it would not be handed to us in our twenties or early thirties without having earned it. And by earning it, I mean, working your way up from being a project and/or team leader with responsibility for one or two people, to a larger project with responsibility for a few more people, and so on. Slow but steady progress up over. In this way, you gained the necessary emotional intelligence as well as the professional qualifications necessary to assume a leadership position. So that perhaps after ten or fifteen years in the workforce (closer to thirty-five or forty years old), you could be considered qualified to lead a large team of people or even a department. At this point, there would be no doubt that you were qualified for the leadership position; there would be no need to ‘fake’ anything.

Nothing is worse than ‘feeling/knowing’ that you don’t measure up or don’t fit the criteria necessary to do a good job; I have felt that way once in my life, when I was elected student council president in my senior year of high school. I was totally unprepared for the job, naive, not a spontaneous idea-maker, and not particularly social. But I was the smartest student in my class, and that was enough to get me nominated. Enough people had faith in my abilities such that they voted for me. But I lacked faith in myself and my abilities, and I could not fake my way through that year. I cannot say that I failed at the job, but I did not succeed at it either. I walked around with a constant knot in my stomach, worrying about how lousy a job I was doing, about my lack of spontaneous creativity and ability to pull a team together with inspiring words. I do not remember that time as enjoyable; it was a stress I could have done without. I should have said no to the nomination, but I did not, and I don’t know why. Part of saying yes was out of a sense of duty. Many years later, I understand that this type of position was simply not a good fit for me; I did it, but found no joy in the job. Nothing is worse than feeling that the eyes of those you lead or those who look up to you are constantly upon you, waiting for you to slip up so they can say ‘I told you that you weren't good enough, smart enough, confident enough, etc.’ This is how you feel; the reality may be quite another story. Most people probably wish you well and don’t think much more about it. They’re certainly not overly-preoccupied with whether you succeed or fail; they have enough to do in their own lives. Nevertheless, the fact remains that I was not qualified for the job. Several years later, I experienced the opposite. I got a summer job that I mastered with ease; I was hired to ease the backlog of returned orders of pens and pencils whose logos were misspelled or wrong.  We were a group of about ten women, working in the returned-goods department; our jobs were to tackle the returns, figure out the mistakes, and send the orders on for re-processing. I loved this summer job. I got to work mostly alone (my preference in most jobs) on the tasks at hand—dealing with the processing of returned orders and the requisite associated paperwork. Once I learned the rudiments of the job (which forms to file and where they should get sent), it was clear sailing from thereon. It was a simple job, but one that instilled confidence because you knew what to do and when to do it, and you got the necessary feedback (good work, or work harder). The department head took notice of me when I managed to clear my desk of the hundreds of returns assigned to me within a few weeks as well as to motivate the ladies in my department to plow through the backlog and get it done. We hung up posters with the numbers of ‘how many returns down and how many to go’; that sort of thing. We made it and helped the company out of a real tight spot. At the end of the summer, I was offered a full-time job as leader of that department; I was nineteen years old. I would have reported to the man who noticed my work, and would have replaced the woman (in her mid-thirties) who had the position (they would have fired her and instated me). The job would have been a springboard to a career in business. But I did not feel that I was at all ready to lead a department at nineteen years of age; I had no real people skills in the sense of knowing how to deal with different personalities in the workplace. I was ‘book-smart’ but not ‘people-smart’. I am fairly sure that I would have been an unprepared and nervous leader, in short, not a good leader at that time. I chose rather to fulfill my degree in science, and ultimately chose research science as a profession. I did not feel like an impostor in my little summer job, but I might have felt like one had I said yes to taking on department leadership at that age. I don’t feel like an impostor in research either. My view is that you have to like the work involved, but also feel that you can master it. Additionally, you have to have bosses/leaders who give feedback and constructive advice, and who are honest with you about your chances of succeeding in that profession. You have to be able to trust their motives where your future is concerned. These types of people seem to be at a premium these days.

I know that this phrase arose as a way for employees, mostly women, to deal with and overcome feeling like impostors in their positions. The impostor syndrome seems to be widespread among highly-educated intelligent women from what I read; something that strikes me as quite irrational. But does faking feeling successful make you feel better about yourself when you feel like an impostor? Does it make you do a better job? And just because a number of men do this, do women need to do it? What I guess I am saying is that if you feel like an impostor in your job 100% of the time, perhaps your brain and heart are telling you something important that you should listen to—that maybe you’re in the wrong job or wrong profession. Nevertheless, I think we need to reevaluate this expression and stop using it to falsely bolster confidence, especially where women are concerned. Perhaps a better way to phrase it would be: ‘Visualize mastering what you work so hard at. Visualize succeeding at it. Visualize yourself doing it in your mind’s eye. Visualize your impact on those around you’. And if your mind’s eye cannot ‘see’ you doing it with a fairly high degree of confidence, rethink your goals. If you feel only dread and fear about being at the top or doing what it is you think is expected of you, is it worth it? There’s nothing worse than ‘arriving’, only to wonder, ‘what do I do now that I've arrived?’ ‘Making it’ is not a goal in and of itself, no matter how much ‘faking’ is involved; there has to be more substance to the goal. What do you want to do with the top position, and why? Do you want to help your company and your employees, or just promote yourself and your career? I think those questions are worth exploring and answering, and will go a long way toward making you feel like you have the right to be where you are, that you've earned that right, and that you go forward with confidence and the smarts necessary to do a good job. Because there are too many men in top positions who have no business being there; who are miserable leaders and who do not know how to listen or to communicate with their employees. These men have risen to the level of their incompetence, which in some cases is quite high within an organization. I don’t think we need more bad leaders in the form of women who are just like these men. I’m looking for real leadership, inspiring and competent leadership; I’ll take a truly-qualified, honest, humble man or woman over a faker any day.

Weighing in on women and leadership

There is a new book out called Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead by Sheryl Sandberg. I have not read the book; I may do so at some point. I did read the recent Time magazine article about her and her book; she graced the front cover of the magazine and the headline accompanying her picture read ‘Don’t hate her because she’s successful’. The article about her was well-written, but points out some of the anomalies that one will always find in the lives of the truly successful. I agree with much of what Ms. Sandberg says about being efficient and ‘ruthlessly prioritizing’ in terms of dealing with the many challenges the workplace throws at you; I disagree with her on other points. No matter. She is a good example of a successful woman leader in the business world, and more power to her. But she got to that place with help; as she says herself in the article, ‘I was hugely lucky, and that explains most of my success.......just like every man'. Indeed she was, to know some of the enlightened men she knows, who were not afraid to head-hunt her to specific jobs or use their clout to get her on board. And therein lies the rub, at least for me. You don’t get anywhere in life without support and help from others. Call them whatever you want—sponsors, mentors, advisers. You need them in order to rise in whatever hierarchical workplace or organization you find yourself. Unfortunately there are not enough of them to go around; even if there were, the current way of doing things focuses on finding the best candidate in any branch and grooming him (or her—perhaps less often) for a top position. I would argue that this perpetuates an elitist system; I am not necessarily opposed to that. However, the ramifications of this type of system are that not everyone can be a leader. Even those who are qualified to be leaders may find that they are pushed aside in favor of another; that happens to both qualified men and women. I know just as many men as women who were pushed aside or ignored in favor of ‘better’ candidates. You can of course question whether those other candidates are ‘better’. Much of the time it’s ‘who you know’, not ‘what you know’ that gets you ahead. And the 'who you know' is what comes from networking, which not all qualified candidates master.

Sandberg argues in the article that women prepare for other things in life—getting married and raising a family—and thus do not follow (or choose to not follow) opportunities to move vertically, thus narrowing their chances of getting closer to the boardroom. So that by the time they actually have children, they are not even in the running for consideration for a leadership position. When I was younger, I used to wonder about this too, except that my generation grew up thinking we could have it all, that we could find time for it all, and that we would have complete lives in the process. It was a myth and it was painful to let go of it. Men and women compromise and make choices all the time not to pursue specific avenues in order to make their lives work; we cannot have it all. But it is no surprise to me that self-help books about how to have it all are still best-sellers. We want to believe the hype. Reality is something else altogether.

That is one consideration. The other considerations have to do with how women are treated in the workforce. I know many women who followed the opportunities that came their way, only to encounter unenlightened male leaders who held them down, ignored them, or pushed them aside in favor of male candidates. Gender bias is nothing new. I remember an interesting story reported in the media from a few years ago about a Swedish man who held a high position in a personnel department in a big company. He admitted that he tossed most of the resumes from female applicants into the waste basket, and had done so for most of his work life. He was married with a family. When he reached middle-age, it suddenly dawned on him that his daughter, who was now in her early twenties and entering the workforce, might encounter the same type of treatment that he had been dishing out to other women for years. Bing—a light went on in his head, and he became an enlightened man, but only when he understood that if his daughter encountered his type of behavior in her own attempts to rise in her career, that it would harm her chances of succeeding in the work world. I have tried to find the story online but failed. But the long-term effects of this type of behavior may be what we may be seeing now in the business world, as Ms. Sandberg points out—many women assume that they will only come so far and no further, so they reach a certain level and stop there. They resign themselves to (without necessarily accepting it) the (often covert) gender bias in the work world in order to be able to do their work well and to have some modicum of peace in their lives. It is very stressful to try to fight or to change unfairness; more power to those who try. It is my contention that change comes via example, and that perhaps it is best to start small. The only way to get women interested in taking leadership positions is to set an example for them as a woman leader; if you actually maneuver your way through the system and manage to get to the top, you should mentor and/or sponsor other women. Women should be helping other women at the top levels; I haven’t seen much of this, unfortunately, at least in academia.

But perhaps there are other aspects that must be considered in these discussions. Perhaps younger women (and men) are re-evaluating what they want out of life, searching for new definitions of success, and looking for ways to live simpler, less stressful lives. Because that is one thing I noticed in the article about Sandberg; she goes home each day from Facebook (where she works) at 5:30 pm to be with her family—to eat dinner and such—and then returns to the office later that evening. This is simply not possible for most employees, many of whom commute long distances to and from work; and even if it was, is it desirable? There are so many articles about employees who must be constantly available to their workplaces via computer and smart phones. Aren’t they allowed to have a life outside of work, whether or not they have families? If you are single, you also need down-time from work. Are you a better employee if you are always working? Is it so important to be available 24/7? I think the answer is no, but it is unpopular to say so. 

Where does the buck stop?

I don’t know that I was ever very good at working in a team setting where all members of the team had equal input and worked together on one project or sub-project. I did not enjoy this when I was younger, and I don’t really enjoy it now. I am not comfortable with ‘shared leadership’ or having to report to multiple ‘leaders’. I come from a generation that feels more comfortable with one leader who plans and delegates individual projects/sub-projects to the different group members, each of whom will then be responsible for his or her specific task. But it is the group leader who has the ultimate responsibility for the outcome of a project or new venture, because it is that person who planned it and delegated it. In other words, it is important to me that each person in a group understands his or her function and role in the group, and can proceed accordingly with the tasks in front of them. I think that each member of a group should have responsibility for a project or a sub-project, and that the success of that project or sub-project is dependent primarily on individual input, not on teamwork. Your contribution to the team is your piece of work. A bit daunting perhaps, but the feelings of responsibility and happiness from a successful project outcome are worth their weight in gold. You progress intellectually from such experiences, and that in my opinion should be a goal in the workplace. I have been a group member who was given responsibility for specific projects, and I have been a group leader who has done the same with the people who worked for me. From the feedback I received from them at that time, I know that each person was satisfied with his or her individual projects. There was no overlap between projects, so there was no danger of one person feeling as if his or her project was merely a regurgitation of someone else’s project, or worse still, ‘busy work’ that was of little to no interest to anyone. That is the worst feeling of all—that what you are asked to do is just busy work and not really important overall. If someone hit a roadblock, I discussed the problems in detail with the person involved, not with all members of the group. I did not feel that it was up to the other members of the group to solve whatever problems arose for one of the group members; that was my job as leader. I still feel that way. Group members may talk among themselves, suggest different ways of tackling a situation or problem, but in the end, the decision about what to do was mine to make after discussing the problem or setback with the person involved. This is my approach and I am relatively unapologetic about it.

I chose to write about this today because I saw a poster ad for a new TV show the other day that essentially says the following: ‘when you are faced with one of life’s most important decisions, thirty heads are better than one’. There is a picture of a young woman standing in front of a group of about thirty individuals, to emphasize the fact that no important decisions should be made alone or in a vacuum. This does not resonate with me at all; I think it’s quite ok to ask others for advice, but asking thirty people for such advice seems a bit much to me. To then require that they help me make a crucial decision that affects my life seems untenable; it would never cross my mind to behave like this. An important decision that affects my life is mine to make, and mine alone. Of course this means that I alone bear the responsibility for a bad decision, but that’s the way life works. One head or thirty heads cannot ensure the perfect outcome to a decision, because we don’t live in a perfect world. There is no such thing as a perfect decision or a perfect outcome. You take a risk each time you make a decision; you also take a risk in the sense of knowing that you must live with the ramifications of your decision. It is possible to learn from mistakes or bad decisions, although as I get older, I don’t look at my bad decisions as mistakes; they were simply bad decisions that in many cases were rectifiable. You are allowed in this life to make another decision to counteract a bad one. Nothing is set in stone. We are flexible individuals who change and grow with the years. If we stay fluid, we don’t trap ourselves in outmoded ways of thinking and behaving.

I guess what bothers me about this particular ad is the emphasis on group thinking. It makes me nervous, because it seems to me that we are giving away our personal responsibility for our decisions to others; we are in essence diluting out our personal responsibility. We can always blame ‘the group’ if things go wrong. In this way, we don’t have to feel bad about the outcome of ‘our’ decision. But is this a good thing in the long run? If we extend this type of thinking to the workplace, what are the long-term effects? Who has the ultimate responsibility? Should there be one person who sits with that responsibility? President Harry Truman had a plaque on his desk that said ‘the buck stops here’. I have more respect for that type of thinking than for a plaque that would say ‘the buck stops here, but also in the next office, and in the office down the hall, and in the office after that’.

There are ‘too many chiefs and not enough Indians’ in modern workplaces. That may reflect to a large degree the complexity involved in running modern workplaces in today’s world, most of which are too large. But it’s gotten confusing—confusing to try to figure out who you should talk to when there is a question or a problem. If I want to or attempt to solve a problem myself, I am discouraged from doing so. We are informed that there are others we should talk to—this or that office or department that deals with this or that. So yes, I attempt to contact them, in accordance with company policies. I speak to one person, who then refers me further on in the ‘chain of command’. It’s often difficult to get an answer or a solution to a problem, such that the problem or question is then put on my ‘to do’ list (which is essentially my ‘must wait indefinitely’ list). In this way, problems ‘go away’; there are no problems when you cannot get the answers. It’s a type of contradictory logic that leads to an obstructional workplace. I’m sure there are many such workplaces these days, characterized by multiple levels of leadership, ‘team leadership’, group thinking, dilution of responsibility, confusion as to who’s in charge, too much bureaucracy, and systemic obstruction. Ultimately, these organizations will come to a standstill after a while in terms of innovation and efficiency. If the problems arise from the fact that most companies are too large, then I am all in favor of returning to smaller and better-run companies, where it is clear to all who work there who the leader is and where the buck stops. And I am all in favor of working at a job that is clearly-defined and not to be shared with others; not diluted out to the point that there is little point left in doing that job. ‘Too many cooks spoil the broth’, as the old saying goes. It’s true.

It takes two to tango

Sat down to breakfast this morning, and was flipping through the newspaper sections rather randomly. My husband was reading the front section of Aftenposten, so I settled on the Jobs section, where there are not only employment ads, but often articles about new trends in the workplace as well as advice from headhunters and work-life coaches. Wouldn’t you know, there was a photo of two couples dancing the tango in connection with a leadership course they’re taking. This particular course encourages its participants (leader personnel from the company Siemens Healthcare) to learn to dance the tango as part of learning how to team-build and be a better leader. In this particular case, since there were no women attending the course (which is telling in and of itself—not many female leaders out there, apparently), males were dancing with other males, and the photographer snapped a photo of two of these couples. There was talk about ‘stepping outside of your comfort zone’ and all that. I’m sure it’s a lot of fun and hard work to learn the tango, and I would be stepping out of my comfort zone as well to learn the tango and any kind of ballroom dancing. But I would do this in my free time, not during work time, so it wouldn’t matter that I was a slow learner. I’m not sure how learning the tango has anything to do with learning how to be a better leader. Does it have to do with learning to lead and have others follow, or vice versa? What happens if you are trying to follow the lead of someone who never learns the dance, as is often the case in the workplace? What happens if none of the trendy leadership courses results in better leadership? I don’t get it, so someone has to please explain to me why companies are spending money on such courses at a time when the global economy is in a downturn. These courses cost money, a lot of money.

I have yet to see the solid research/statistics that demonstrate the absolute benefit of leadership courses for leaders. How do you measure the effectiveness of these courses; how can you assess the results? Can you be sure that the methods work? I’m a scientist, so I want to see the research data. Please show me the reports so I can read them. I have no problems with an annual daylong seminar where leaders can meet together in their workplace and share common problems, brainstorm, or otherwise come up with new and creative ideas about how to lead. I just don’t understand the emphasis these days (the new trend) on traveling to out-of-the-way hotels and resorts for this purpose, for two or more days at a time. The idea I presume is that you cannot just ‘go home’ at the end of the course day; you’re stuck together with other leaders during the evenings where social skills play a large role as well. Networking and more networking. I know several leaders who shun these trips (or want to) as often as they can. A decade ago, private companies spent money on sending their employees out into the forests and mountains to learn how to work together as a team to survive and maneuver through the inevitable problems that cropped up. These team building courses seem to have paved the way for the new types of leadership and team-building courses. Is this because the old ones didn’t work, or are the new approaches the ideas that sprang up during the old team building and leadership courses? Did someone ten years ago think—it would be cool to have leaders learn to dance the tango together? Is that how it works at the top?

As children, we learned the Golden Rule—‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. In other words, treat people as you would like to be treated. I learned this rule early on and it stuck. And when I have broken it, my conscience tells me that I have wronged someone and to go and make amends. I live this way in my personal life and I have behaved accordingly in my work life. I can honestly say that I have tried to the best of my ability to treat those who have worked for me with respect and honesty, and have been as professional as possible when dealing with them. The awareness of your behavior and how it affects others in the workplace are the two most important things one must learn as a manager, and if you manage this you can be an effective manager or leader. I don’t think it is more complicated than that. Unfortunately, when you are lied to, exploited or pushed aside by company leaders, it makes it that much more difficult to treat leadership with respect. It takes two to tango. You cannot expect respect from employees if you do not treat them with respect. It’s that simple, and that complicated. We say that about children and adults as well; you cannot expect children to respect adults who abuse them or treat them badly or indifferently. It doesn’t matter if the adults are parents, teachers or other authority figures. I could already differentiate very clearly when I was in grammar school, who were the good teachers and who were the abusers. You remember both and you learn from both. Had I been surrounded only by abusive teachers, I would have learned how to evade them to the best of my ability--how to lie to them and how to be dishonest—how to play the game to see who would eventually win control. They would not have deserved better treatment. The same is true for abusive or exploitive company leadership.

My view of workplace leadership is more along the lines of the top-down approach. If you want respect from employees, start at the top and look down. Take a really good look at yourself, and then your employees. Companies should hire leaders who know what the Golden Rule is, who have ethics and morals, who abhor corruption and political game-playing, and who are not just interested in their cushy titles and salaries. They should hire leaders who understand that the buck stops with them. But companies have to value these types of leaders. This is the type of leadership that employees will respect. This is the type of leadership that employees will listen to, when new ideas, change, and challenges confront them in a world of global uncertainty and instability. Employees will look to leadership for guidance, but they will also pitch in and do their fair share and more if they know it will help the company survive. I have yet to meet one employee who was treated fairly by his or her company, who didn’t want to give back his or her fair share to that company. In other words, those employees who have been kicked around, exploited, lied to or treated poorly, and there are a number of them, are those who do not want to give back their fair share to their companies anymore. They have felt the injustice that pervades the system; they know that they are dancing alone. Where they once followed another’s lead, they now dance in place. Their leaders bailed out on them a long time ago. I would say that’s the biggest problem in workplaces these days; employees have to figure out everything on their own. There is no one to look up to, no one to mentor them, no one to take responsibility for them and their professional wellbeing. There are few good leaders who take their employees into consideration, who prioritize them. I know of one leader who was told that she was too concerned about her employees; that as a leader, she should be concerned with the company views and policies and with getting her employees to ‘accept’ a new policy that amounted to nothing more than a new way to exploit their competence and dedication (getting them to work twice as hard for the same amount of money). Suffice it to say that this company has a lot of problems and that the turnover rate for employees is high. Employees can ‘see through’ a lot of the new trends in the workplace, and leadership courses are one of those trends. Bad leaders will not become good leaders by learning to dance the tango; they will become good leaders by practicing the Golden Rule. I have yet to see a course that focuses on the ethics of leadership. I have to wonder if it would be well-attended.