Defining sexual harassment

Apropos my last post, about sexism and misogyny being alive and well--the Norwegian newspaper Morgenbladet, in a rather timely fashion, ran an article today about sexual harassment in academia. It was mostly depressing reading. Not only is sexual harassment underreported, there appear to be few to no rules and criteria concerning how to define it. Most of the behaviors described end up in a ‘gray area’, and most of the cases that are reported end up as a ‘his word against the victim’s word’ scenario. Few cases go further than university leadership, where they are reviewed and then dismissed. Generally, those who have been sexually harassed by their professors and mentors don’t report the harassment for fear that doing so will damage their careers. And why? Because it does. Because the focus falls on you, you become ‘the victim’. You become the center of unwanted attention. You become the difficult female employee who cannot take a joke. Because these male professors have a lot of power and prestige. They can make or break your career. So, like many of the women interviewed said, they put up with the gray area behavior.

What is sexually-harassing behavior in the academic workplace? That was a question that the article did ask. I said to my husband that maybe we have reached the point where we have to spell it out in black and white so that the rules and boundaries are clear, and crossing them gets you into big trouble. Most intelligent people I know have no problems with these boundaries; in fact, most men I have known in academia are not disrespectful toward women. It is the one or two rotten apples that spoil it for the many. Unfortunately, many of the rotten apples have an immense amount of power; they are institute leaders, department leaders, mentors, and so on. They know how to play the game, and how to use their power, and they do use it to subjugate women.

In my long experience in the workplace, here’s my list of how male mentors should not behave toward their female students. They should not be touching them, at all, anywhere on their bodies. They should not be hugging them or putting their arms around them. A handshake is fine. A smile is fine. They should not make sexual innuendoes or crude jokes about sex or about blow jobs or any other sexual activity to their students. They should not be having sex with their students. If a male mentor falls in love with his female student and the student reciprocates, then the appropriate conduct on the mentor’s part is to cease being that student’s mentor if both desire that the relationship continue. There are good reasons for this. If we love someone, we will support and defend them at the expense of others we care much less about. This cannot take place in the workplace; other students are bound to feel that the mentor favors the person he is in love with, and that is often the case. An already unbalanced work arena (academia) becomes even more unfair and unbalanced. I have seen all of the above-mentioned behaviors—institute leaders grabbing at the breasts of female students, a group leader starting off a dinner party by asking his guests, more than half of whom were females, if they knew what a blow job was. I’ve heard stories about male professors getting naked in their offices in an attempt to seduce their female students. Most common are the men who invade your private space, who cannot keep enough distance between you and them when they are sitting talking to you in a personal meeting. Then you have the men who ask inappropriate questions and are extremely interested in the intimate details of your relationship with your husband or boyfriend. In the end, it all comes down to and back to sex.

I simply did not expect to find these types of behavior in academic workplaces when I started out. I considered academia to be a noble profession, a cut above many others. My biggest disappointment about the academic workplace, after more than thirty years in it, is this. That to be treated as an equal, as a professional, remains a distant dream for many women. It has been hard enough for women in my generation to make inroads into the male-dominated academic arena and to be accepted as professionals. Adding sexual harassment into the mix is a bitter pill for those women who have experienced it. I always remember my father and how he treated me; he taught me to take myself and my intelligence seriously. I cannot ever remember him telling me that I could not reach this or that goal because I was a woman. He set me up for success in that respect; he was not a dinosaur, he was forward-thinking when it came to his daughters. I think he would have been as disappointed as I was and am to find out that academia is no better than many other professions when it comes to sexism and sexual harassment.

When I worked at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF), I signed some form of contract as I remember, saying that I was bound to report any sexual harassing behavior that I experienced personally or witnessed around me. That was in 1993. I googled sexual harassment policies at UCSF today and this is what I found:
University of California – Policy Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment Friday, December 18, 2015: 
I. POLICY SUMMARY The University of California is committed to creating and maintaining a community dedicated to the advancement, application and transmission of knowledge and creative endeavors through academic excellence, where all individuals who participate in University programs and activities can work and learn together in an atmosphere free of harassment, exploitation, or intimidation. Every member of the community should be aware that the University prohibits sexual violence and sexual harassment, retaliation, and other prohibited behavior (“Prohibited Conduct”) that violates law and/or University policy. The University will respond promptly and effectively to reports of Prohibited Conduct and will take appropriate action to prevent, to correct, and when necessary, to discipline behavior that violates this policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment (hereafter referred to as Policy). This Policy addresses the University of California’s responsibilities and procedures related to Prohibited Conduct in order to ensure an equitable and inclusive education and employment environment free of sexual violence and sexual harassment. The Policy defines conduct prohibited by the University of California and explains the administrative procedures the University uses to resolve reports of Prohibited Conduct.
Sexual Harassment:
a. Sexual Harassment is unwelcome sexual advances, unwelcome requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal, nonverbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: i. Quid Pro Quo: a person’s submission to such conduct is implicitly or explicitly made the basis for employment decisions, academic evaluation, grades or advancement, or other decisions affecting participation in a University program; or ii. Hostile Environment: such conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive that it unreasonably denies, adversely limits, or interferes with a person’s participation in or benefit from the education, employment or other programs and services of the University and creates an environment that a reasonable person would find to be intimidating or offensive. 
b. Consideration is given to the totality of the circumstances in which the conduct occurred. Sexual harassment may include incidents: i. between any members of the University community, including faculty and other academic appointees, staff, student employees, students, coaches, residents, interns, and non-student or nonemployee participants in University programs (e.g., vendors, contractors, visitors, and patients); ii. in hierarchical relationships and between peers; and iii. between individuals of any gender or gender identity. 
c. This Policy shall be implemented in a manner that recognizes the importance of the rights to freedom of speech and expression and shall not be interpreted to prohibit expressive conduct that is protected by the free speech and academic freedom principles discussed in Section III.F. 3. 
Other Prohibited Behavior 
a. Invasions of Sexual Privacy i. Without a person’s consent, watching or enabling others to watch that person’s nudity or sexual acts in a place where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy; ii. Without a person’s consent, making photographs (including videos) or audio recordings, or posting, transmitting or distributing such recorded material depicting that person’s nudity or sexual acts in a place where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy; or iii. Using depictions of nudity or sexual activity to extort something of value from a person. 
b. Sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 18. 
c. Exposing one’s genitals in a public place for the purpose of sexual gratification. 
d. Failing to comply with the terms of a no-contact order, a suspension of any length, or any order of exclusion issued under this Policy.

Norwegian academic institutions and universities do have similar policies, e.g. the University of Oslo's outlined here (https://www.uio.no/om/hms/arbeidsmiljo/prosedyrer/trakassering/). How well the policies are enforced is another story. Notice that the UC policy above does not spell out specific offensive behaviors; I would imagine that it doesn’t because women experience sexual harassment differently. And some sexually-harassing behavior is blatant, whereas other behavior is more subtle. The latter is the most difficult to identify and discuss and put an end to. Let’s hope the coming generations manage that. In the meantime, I can’t wait for the dinosaurs and the sexual harassers to become extinct.

Time wasters

There are people in this life who enjoy wasting their time and others’ time. You can usually find these kinds of people in the workplace, but also in one’s personal life. These are the same people who complain about never having enough time to do what it is they’ve planned to do, but who seem to be deaf to the complaints of others (that take the form of requests--asking these people to stop wasting their time). Time wasters are procrastinators, big talkers (with no action that ensues), and are the types of people that can induce irritation and aggression in others. After they’ve said what they’ve wanted to say (and used up to a half hour to say it), they calmly walk away from the aggression and damage they’ve instigated. As is probably clear to my readers at this point already in this post, I cannot abide these kinds of people. My workplace is full of them. They are usually ‘leaders’ of some sort, although God knows what they really have responsibility for. All they seem to do is wander from one place to another, bothering employees with useless meetings that waste more time, and then complaining about all of the other people who are not stepping up to the plate to help them with their work.

Perhaps I should amend my first sentence. Perhaps these people don’t enjoy wasting their time or others' time. But it’s become a habit, and a dangerous one. In my current workplace, people like this get promoted to top positions. It’s all talk, no action. God forbid they should actually act on what it is they talk about, and if their employees try to do so, they’re quickly shot down. So what do time wasters wish to achieve?

These people like to complain. They have low self-esteem and they cannot abide seeing others working hard and achieving their goals, when they cannot reach that point. They want to be recognized and do it in a way that annoys most people around them in the long run. In the short run, they create some sympathy for themselves that is quickly used up. They are stuck in a loop from which they cannot extricate themselves. I’d feel sorry for them except that they cause so much chaos and uncertainty when they’re done talking. You know you’ve met a time waster when you are livid after a seemingly ordinary project update meeting, where the time waster has regaled the audience for about the fiftieth time with all the wonderful projects he or she is ‘actively’ involved in, but from which no results appear to be emerging (publications and/or grant applications). The rest of us are happy to present, within the space of a few minutes, the few achievable projects in which we are involved. The time waster will use thirty minutes to do the same, and expect complete attention. The time waster is a poor listener and an even poorer organizer. He or she resents others who manage to organize their time effectively. These people are really looking for someone to ‘take the reigns’ for them; to step in and write the article or grant that they cannot seem to write. Time wasters are often people who complain about their small aches and pains that ‘prevent’ them from achieving their goals. We all have small aches and pains. I used to feel sorry for some of these people, but no more, not after knowing several people who struggle along in this life with major chronic illnesses. Time wasters should get over themselves. They should buckle down and get their job done, and leave the rest of us the hell alone. The rest of us end up completely pissed off and demoralized after meetings with these kinds of people. I’ve known men and women who are time wasters, but by and large the majority of them are men, perhaps because my profession is dominated by men. However, female time wasters are worse than their male counterparts; why? Because in addition to wasting our time with useless meetings, they have to add the social aspect into the mix, so that the tone of the meeting shifts from professional to personal, which is another aspect I cannot abide. Here’s what I want from a project update meeting—a meeting of no more than twenty minutes, professional in tone, with a short presentation of what’s been done that week or that month, and what is planned for the next week or next month. Nothing more, nothing less. No discussions of minor aches and pains, of office politics, or of yet again new workplace goals that lead to nothing. Just the work at hand, no more, no less. I behave like this with the people who work for me, and they are motivated and productive. I don’t waste their time, and just as importantly, they don’t waste mine.

Extroversion, introversion, and ambiversion

Apparently, it is now acceptable and even cool to be an introvert in the workplace, after many years of hearing about how important it was to be an extrovert in the workplace. Saturday’s NY Times ran an article about exactly this-- http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/26/fashion/susan-cain-instigating-a-quiet-revolution-of-introverts.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur. I guess it’s a good thing if introverts are finally being appreciated in the workplace. But I have to wonder why we cannot all just ‘live and let live’, generally in society and in the workplace specifically. I wrote a comment in the article’s Comments section; to wit—“It would be great if we were all allowed to be who we are--introvert, extrovert or somewhere in-between--and to contribute accordingly in the workplace. Why must everything become a trend? Extrovert last year, introvert this year. What's cool for next year? Why can't we accept that people are different? We cannot all be the same--God forbid. What a boring world that would be”.

I cannot understand why workplaces are so fickle and so insecure. Some people do not want to be social all the time, or spend all their time in meetings; they simply want some alone time to do the best job they can with the talents they are given. Do employers actually think that if all employees were pure extroverts, or pure introverts, that workplaces would be better places? These trends are the new flavors of the month, and I’m betting that most employees are sick of them. Employees have had extroversion pushed down their throats during the past decade, with no consideration for whether that particular personality trait was even helpful or good for them. I can attest to that; scientists have been pushed hard to sell themselves and their research, in ways that seem so foreign to the profession. It’s as though we were supposed to be salespeople selling a product. Frankly speaking, I’m not sure you can just switch from one to the other at whim if you are a true introvert or true extrovert. I happen to be one of those people who does not believe we can just toss off our old coat and put on a new one at the behest of our employers. One does not go from being an introvert today to being an extrovert tomorrow; it wouldn’t matter to me how many motivational, marketing or sales courses one attended. To some extent, we are the products of our genes, and to some extent, our environment can modify their expression. I’m not saying we can’t modify our behavior or personality traits, but I’m willing to bet that most people understand whether they are more introverted or extroverted from a young age, and choose their professions accordingly. I’d bet also that sales and marketing professions attract more extroverts, while research and laboratory professions attract more introverts. I’d need to see the statistics on this though, before I could come to a reasoned conclusion.

The workplace needs introverts (those people who are energized by being alone and whose energy is drained by being with other people--see http://giftedkids.about.com/od/glossary/g/introvert.htm), extroverts (those people who are energized by being together with other people--see http://giftedkids.about.com/od/glossary/g/extrovert.htm), and all those who define themselves as in-between (those who have the qualities of both). I fall into the latter category, which certainly seems to include the majority of people. After some searching online to find out what these people are called, the word ambivert popped up--someone who exhibits qualities of both introversion and extroversion. I am an ambivert—I enjoy (and need) my quiet alone time as a scientist, but also the social interactions at work. I enjoy (and need) my quiet alone time at home, but also the social interactions with family and friends. When it comes to social interactions, I prefer to have the element of choice—to choose how, when and where I will be social. I cannot be around people or talk to them every second of every day; I have no desire to be ‘on’ all day, every day. I need to be alone at times in order to recharge my batteries; and sometimes I need to be with others in order to do the same. It seems to balance itself out rather nicely for the most part.

Even with these definitions though, we need to stop ‘labeling’ people in the workplace (and in society too), and let employees contribute how best they can. It makes no sense to force a true introvert into an extrovert’s role, or vice versa. You will only create fearful, stressed and unhappy employees. I think the time has come to appreciate employees for their uniqueness and unique ability to contribute in the ways that make them feel comfortable. I’m not saying employees shouldn’t be challenged, but those challenges should have more to do with the framework of their work projects (e.g. giving them more responsibility within the confines of the project) and less to do with their personality traits.  

What I've learned from cats

Back in the 1980s, I shared my life with two cats, a mother and daughter combo. Smoky was the mother’s name, and Mushy was her daughter. They were as different in personality as two cats could possibly be. Smoky was in a constant state of snit, whereas Mushy was in a constant state of happiness. Even when Smoky was a new mother, she seemed irritated by the constant need that her kittens had for her. Perhaps what annoyed Smoky was that her daughter was a much happier cat than she was. It’s hard to know. I loved them both and respected their different personalities. Both of them were affectionate in their own ways. Smoky’s affection was on her terms; she came to you when she needed some stroking or a hug, but didn’t always take kindly to being petted or fussed over if you wanted to give her some affection. Mushy was the complete opposite (hence her name); she was a people-pleaser and loved nothing more than to go from one guest to another for some affection and cuddling when I had family and friends visiting. Before I moved to Norway, my friend Cindy suggested I stay with her for a few months in order to save some money, which was a wonderful idea and one for which I am very grateful to her. However, it involved moving myself and my two cats into her home, something that Cindy’s cat Burgoo did not take very kindly to. He was used to ruling the roost and was very territorial about his house, especially the kitchen, which was of course the one room in the house where we all liked to congregate. My cats did not exactly know how to deal with him initially; he would pick fights with them (especially Smoky) no matter how much berth they gave him when they walked past him. Smoky especially did not like him, something he must have sensed very early on. Their fights escalated in intensity and ended with her being relegated to the cellar in order to prevent her being injured by him, since he was larger than both my cats and quite aggressive. I spent a lot of time in the cellar with her after that. With Smoky out of the way, Burgoo tolerated having Mushy around. He permitted her entrance into the kitchen, on his terms of course. And those terms translated into her becoming a completely subservient cat. She would slink past him, body hugging the ground, not looking at him. Her behavior signaled ‘harmless’; it also signaled to him that she would not and did not want to fight him, oppose him or take control of anything he ‘owned’. She was willing to let him rule the roost whereas Smoky was not. Smoky did not take kindly to any person or any other cat telling her what she should or should not do, and she was certainly not willing to become subservient in order to deal with the situation. Looking back on it now, I wish it could have been otherwise. I wish I had not put them through that stress, even though I found a good home for them afterward where they both were happy. Had I had wanted to take them with me to Norway, they would have spent over four months in quarantine before being allowed into the country (those were the rules at that time), something I did not want to put them through since they were already older cats.

I learned some things while watching and taking care of Smoky and Mushy when we lived in Cindy’s house. The first was that Mushy was none the worse for wear after her short stay in Burgoo’s house; she adapted to that situation and dealt with it in the best way she could. When she and her mother went to live in my friend Judy’s house, she adapted to that situation as well and became a beloved member of Judy’s family, which included a dog and two cats from before. Smoky also adapted in her own way, but stayed mostly to herself, as I might have expected. I’ve thought a lot about both of my cats since then, and about how they adapted to change, new situations, and potential threats. I have a bit of both Smoky and Mushy in me. I haven’t backed away from a fight if felt that I was threatened or if I found myself in an unfair situation; I have not had any problems stating my opinion or making my wishes known. I haven’t had major problems with change, although it does take me a while to adapt to new situations. And if change or unfair situations threaten me or those I care about, I am more likely to respond as Smoky did. But what if Mushy’s way is the better way? What if choosing not to fight gets you what you want? Mushy did not want to end up living in the cellar like Smoky; she wanted to make sure she could always be in my vicinity. So she gave Burgoo what he wanted in order to get what she wanted, which was me. She was smart. I don’t know how she figured that out, but she did. And she definitely understood that the cellar was not where she wanted to be; she avoided going down there when I went to visit with Smoky. Mushy wanted to be with me and with people generally; she cared more about that than about doing what she had to do to appease Burgoo. She appeased the aggressor. I have to wonder how she knew how to do that, and why Smoky could not learn that behavior. But we humans don’t always manage that either; some of us will fight forever against what threatens us and it can end up literally killing us (stress, heart attacks, poor health). Whereas some of us will try to appease those who want to keep us down or take us down, by giving in, letting it happen, dealing with it and moving on. I have a hard time with that. I have a hard time ‘giving in’ especially in situations where I know that being in opposition would be the more ethical and fair way to proceed, for example, in work situations where workplace leaders harass others unfairly because they sit in power positions. But let’s suppose that appeasement might get you what you want, e.g. to an organizational level where you could make a difference? Where you could fight for the rights of those you meant were treated unfairly? I suppose what I’m trying to say is that you’ve got to strategize; you’ve got to give in order to get in a world that is not fair from the get-go. Strange that I should be learning that now at this point in my life. But now the goals are clear and more important than trying to change unfair and unethical leaders into fair and ethical ones. I am not the person who is best suited to taking on that fight, and I’m not sure I ever was.  

Update October 2014: One Hundred Haikus for Modern Workplaces

October is drawing to a close, and November is soon upon us. I've been busy with different projects, among them finishing up a collection of haiku poems that is now available as a Kindle edition on Amazon. This collection is entitled One Hundred Haikus for Modern Workplaces. It's a short collection that deals with workplace behaviors, bureaucracy, leadership, politics and trends, each summed up in short poems called haikus, which are three-line poems consisting of seventeen syllables--first line five syllables, second line seven syllables, and third line five syllables. It was quite enjoyable to write them, and the strict format actually helped to make each idea more concrete and focused. This collection does not cost much, just a couple of dollars, and can be downloaded to a Kindle or an iPad. I hope you will take a moment to check it out. You can find it here:
http://tinyurl.com/lkm6po4. 

Thanks!

Here is the book cover:

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.    

Celebrating a network of women

There is a lot of emphasis at present placed on the importance of building networks in the work world, and how employees won’t get very far professionally without them. Women especially are admonished for not working harder to build and maintain their professional networks. You never know when you may need them, and you never know when your network may need you. I’ve reflected upon how this relates to my own life. Most of my professional network contacts are women. Many of my contacts/friends entered my life via my different jobs, others through schools and universities, still others from the neighborhood I grew up in. Those I’ve met via my different jobs have become my friends, and we’ve stayed friends even after we’ve left the jobs where we met.

My professional and personal networks overlap to a large degree; I consider my professional contacts to be my friends. And my friends from outside of work, from my childhood neighborhood and schools, are a support network for me in all ways, sometimes even professionally. One of my friends and I collaborated on a consulting web project together a few years ago, at her initiative. I wrote a report for another friend who was thinking about investing in the building of a private lab for the production of a malaria drug, also her initiative. Another friend--a research scientist—asked for my help in publishing two articles on which we’d collaborated during the past few years, and another friend asked me to provide photos for a scientific writing project she was working on. I have helped a teacher friend who had her grammar school class write letters to me to ask about what’s involved in becoming a scientist. I organized a tour of my hospital laboratory for the high school class of another teacher friend, so that the students could get an idea of what it’s like to work in a lab on a daily basis, and to see the techniques and instrumentation we use in our research. A photographer friend asked me to model for her a couple of times, and has taken some nice portrait photos of me that I have used professionally. Another photographer friend designs and formats the text and covers of my published books.When I think back over the years, we have helped each other in different ways. We’ve stepped up to the plate for each other and gotten involved in interesting projects as a result, all of which have enriched our lives, personally and professionally.

I want to acknowledge these women (of all ages) who are a part of my life and who have enriched it beyond measure. I consider each of them friends, including those who are family. They come from all walks of life, and all of them are wonderfully different and talented women. Many of them have combined work and family life with all of the attendant difficulties and joys. Without naming them personally, I can list their various lines of work here:

1. at least ten scientific researchers, one of whom is an author and consultant , another who is an author and owner of a scientific publishing company
2. two photographers and small business owners
3. two social workers, one who heads a non-profit educational organization
4. two teachers (one retired)
5. supermarket head cashier
6. president of a city university
7. global marketing manager for a scientific company
8. fundraising director
9. a minister
10. conflict resolution counselor, author and coach
11. part-time educational and programming consultant
12. university administrator
13. owner of a scientific consulting company
14. three doctors
15. hospital and health professional
16. soil conservationist
17. paralegal
18. computer services manager
19. writer and editor
20. national scientific liaison manager
21. three librarians
22. obstetrics nurse
23. horseback riding instructor
24. three senior research technicians (now retired; all women in their 70s, one of whom works as a consultant)
25. nurse (retired)
26. apartment superintendant (now retired; a family friend who is in her early 80s)
27. tour guide (now retired, 85 years old)
28. secretary (was my oldest friend from my first job, who passed away last year at the age of 86)

Society should be celebrating the lives of real women in all of the different media formats, instead of focusing ad nausea on worn-out celebrities and celebrity wannabes. There are, dare I say it, things to write about other than the size of this or that celebrity’s engagement ring or who had a wardrobe malfunction. Who cares? Is this what makes women interesting? The answer is no. That’s my take on it, and that’s my challenge to society at large. Celebrate the interesting women--the women on my list. They are the women who are advancing the world, one small step at a time, and they’re doing it without a lot of fanfare.

‘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.

Figuring out the Norwegian workplace

The job section of this past Sunday’s Aftenposten had an interesting article about Norwegian workplace culture entitled ‘How does the Norwegian boss think’? Foreigners who work in Norway often find themselves at a loss when it comes to figuring out how their bosses think and how to interpret what they say to you—what do they really mean by their comments and remarks, and have you understood the context of what was said? The importance of understanding your workplace and the signals given you by your bosses and colleagues cannot be overemphasized, especially where career advancement and salary are concerned. The article interviewed three Norwegian company directors/leaders who are Norwegian and who had worked internationally; they were asked to comment on what makes Norwegian workplaces different from workplaces in the rest of the world, since Norway’s workplace culture is quite unique (of course, why is this not surprising to me). Here are their thoughts:

• Leader #1 meant that Norwegian workplaces are ‘process-oriented’, not ‘solution-oriented’, and that a problem or an issue could be discussed ad nauseum before a decision is made
• Leader #2 had a similar opinion to leader #1, stating that many foreigners are simply not used to having the entire organization get involved before a decision can be made about a particular issue
• Leader #3 meant that Norwegian workplaces are relatively ‘flat structures’ where each individual employee has a high degree of authority to make his or her own decisions without having to consult a boss

Whenever I read such articles, they trigger some interesting feelings and thoughts, so that I ‘feel a blog post coming on’. I can relate to the first two leader comments; specific issues are discussed over and over in multiple meetings over many months, perhaps years, before decisions are reached. Frustrating? Yes. My question is why this has to be the norm. However, and this is the crux of the matter, someone ultimately has to make the final decision. Whether it is a committee at the top of an organization, or one person, someone has to take the ultimate responsibility. An organization of several hundred individuals is not responsible for a final decision; some of them may come with input and advice toward a decision, but the responsibility lies ultimately with company leaders. Who makes the ultimate decision can often be a mystery, and whether or not employees are informed about a final decision rests with those who are responsible for communicating it. Information flow downwards can be a true exercise in frustration. There is no transparency at the top of huge public sector workplaces, in any case. And I disagree entirely with the third leader; it has not been my experience in my public sector workplace that each individual employee has a say concerning a decision to be made that will affect them. Simply not true. The third leader has simply not visited my workplace recently; the six or more levels of (administrative) leadership between the individual employee and the top echelons ensure that you as an individual employee have little to no authority to make decisions that affect your daily work life. You can individually be the most ‘solution-oriented’ employee in the world; it won’t matter. You are forced to deal with the top-heavy administrative levels above you. Take ordering a lab reagent or small piece of equipment, for example; before a necessary item can be ordered, at least six to eight people need to be involved in the process of ordering—the person who needs the product and who informs the relevant department person who then registers the order and passes it along in the system to the person (or persons) who actually order the product on the computer. But we’re not done yet. They may order or they may pass the order along to yet another office that will do the ordering. It all depends, on what I’m not sure. Project funds have to be checked to make sure there is enough money to order the product; that can involve the accounting department. And if the item is actually ordered, it is shipped to a central receiving department that then delivers the item to the person who registered the order, not to the person who needed the item. This means that the secretarial consultants who register the orders receive on average ten packages a day. They must check their files to find out who needed the product ordered and then chase down the relevant person who requested the item. The actual invoice goes to an unknown place; no one is really sure where it ends up or how it gets paid. If this was truly my call (if I had any real authority), I'd call, fax, or email the company myself with my order, cutting out the multiple middlemen, and have the item delivered directly to me. The current ordering process reminds me of the excellent film Brazil, about the tentacles of bureaucracy and how when they find you, they can destroy your life and peace of mind. My question is—why do we need all these people involved? This was not my decision, to make it so complicated. And perhaps more importantly—is there any one person who understands the system well enough to explain it to others? No one seems to have thought of that. 

My conclusion is that these three leaders espouse a politically-correct rhetoric. It makes employees feel good to read that they have some autonomy and can influence the decision process; in truth they have little autonomy and little influence, at least in the public sector. We may have had more of both back in the 1990s, but no more. 

According to the article, a number of companies have started to offer courses about understanding Norwegian workplace culture, to employees who come from other countries/cultures with a different way of doing things. Such courses, along with formal career guidance, were non-existent when I arrived in Norway. I don’t know if they would have helped or not, since I work in the public, not the private sector, and most of these newspaper job articles seem to deal with the private sector. But one thing is certain; communication with bosses in the public or private sector can be muddled, messages from them unclear, ditto for job tasks and definitions. How can you know for sure if your recent efforts on a particular project are praiseworthy or not? Are you being considered for advancement in your organization? Should you actively seek out career advancement, mentors and advocates? Will you be considered too aggressive if you do, or will it be considered appropriately professional to do so? No one really tells you what to do or how to behave, at least not directly to your face. You have to figure out most of these kinds of things on your own, because communication is often very indirect, and suggestions to employees as to how to go about doing things may be presented in a rather offhand informal manner. This is the art of thinking like a Norwegian in your workplace—figuring it all out for yourself, except that if you are Norwegian, you have understood this from the get-go. As a foreigner, you will miss the signals that tell you that what you’ve just been told is important, you will make a fair amount of mistakes before you understand how to respond or react, how to deal with your bosses, and how to understand their dealings and communication with you, and you will waste a fair amount of time trying to understand a system that cannot be understood (my impression). In that sense, I miss the directness and assertiveness of American workplaces; communication between boss and employee is often much clearer and easier to understand, perhaps more formal and professional, yes, but I prefer that to ambiguity and vague promises and suggestions.  

What cats have taught me

I have been a cat owner for most of my adult life, and have learned a lot from them by watching their behavior in different situations. Unlike dogs, they are quite independent and somewhat antisocial. Or rather, they choose when they want to be social. All of my cats had different personalities. The first two were a mother-daughter pair that came into my life in 1980. The mother, Smoky, was a feisty loner type; her daughter, Mushy (so named because she was so affectionate), was the opposite. She loved being around people, she loved being picked up and hugged, and she didn’t mind at all when the children I babysat for occasionally put doll shoes on all four paws. My husband used to call her a 'non-cat'. She never hissed at or nipped anyone. I don’t think I ever saw her get angry, except at her mother, when they both competed for my attention and affection when I was sitting on the couch relaxing in the evenings. She was an extraordinarily well-rounded cat, and I’ve never had another cat quite like her since. Being social came easy for Mushy, even with other cats, but not with her mother. She tolerated her mother, but not much more. I often wonder if it was because she knew that her mother didn’t really want any involvement at all with other cats or with people generally. She liked to be left alone, and I’m sure that annoyed Mushy at times. I remember when a little kitten joined us a few years later; I named her Minou. Mushy immediately became her ‘mother’, washing her, playing with her, and following her around the house as Minou explored it. Watching her do this endeared her to me completely. Smoky wanted nothing to do with either one of them; she mostly wanted to be left alone, and if Minou bothered her, she hissed at her. Minou quickly learned, and avoided Smoky as much as possible. Unfortunately, she did not live long, succumbing to a feline viral infection, which broke my heart. I am convinced that Mushy had empathy; she was intuitive, she understood in her way if someone was sick or if another animal needed help. She understood that Minou was sick and I think she understood that Minou wasn’t coming home from the veterinary hospital. Smoky remained unaffected by it all. Mushy also understood if I was sick or depressed, and was good company at those times. I loved them both, but it is Mushy’s way of being that I remember all these years later, because I think she was on to something. I remember when I moved in with my friend Cindy several months before I moved to Norway; she had a male cat, Burgoo, who did not take kindly to having his territory invaded. The house that we shared was quite large, but Burgoo made sure that Mushy and Smoky had limited access to most of it. Smoky and Burgoo fought so intensely that we had to physically keep them apart; Smoky ended up living in the basement while Burgoo had the first floor along with Mushy. What surprised me is that Mushy did not engage with Burgoo at all; she understood that he did not want her there, and her body language told him that she accepted that. When she passed him, her head and tail were down in a submissive posture, and she slunk along the floor. He never attacked her or went after her. When she saw me, she was her old self—affectionate and loving. Mushy was mostly adaptable and tolerated change, even though I know it made her anxious at times. As long as she saw me during anxious times, it calmed her. Smoky did not adapt and did not tolerate change. I loved the both of them to pieces, but could not take them with me to Norway, as they would have sat in quarantine for six months or more before being allowed into the country, and I didn’t have the heart to do that to them. Another friend of mine, Judy, was kind enough to take them both; she could tell me some time later that it didn't take Mushy long to become a part of her family, which included a husband, several children, a dog and two other cats. That made me happy; unfortunately, Smoky did not seem to adjust to her new family, disappeared, and did not return, which upset me a lot when I heard about it.

I was thinking about Mushy and Smoky today, because I realize that I have a little bit of both of them in me in response to dealing with major life changes and with a workplace that prizes networking and being socially and politically adaptable. Work environments often reflect societal trends; the emphasis in most workplaces these days is on networking, collaboration, communication, being a team player, and being creative and spontaneous in a group setting, all things that were not emphasized as much in my generation of scientists. We were rather encouraged to be loner types, independent and assertive thinkers, quietly creative, able to defend our ideas, able to work alone and to enjoy being alone. Being an astute assessor of the political landscape around us was not deemed very important. The current emphasis is on interacting and working together with other employees, listening to others, adapting to group dynamics, understanding workplace politics, sharing ideas, taming your individual will, being patient and not being a loner type. Those who succeed in the current workplace are good at these things. I used to think that Mushy would have benefited from learning to take on a challenge and to fight like her mother Smoky, but these days I’ve come to see the value in avoiding or not provoking conflict, maintaining some semblance of peace, trying to adapt to change as best one can, and flying under the radar in difficult times. But it's good to have people in your life (a spouse and/or friend) that you know will be there for you--constants in a life filled with uncertainties--especially during difficult times. 

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.

Saying goodbye to loyalty in the workplace

A colleague and friend retired this past week after a long work life (forty years). As is often the case with employees who retire from my workplace, she will come in to work from time to time as a consultant to help with specific projects that require her expertise. At her retirement party, there were several speakers who commented on her expertise and her dedication to her work. But one speaker in particular commented on her loyalty to her workplace, her willingness to speak up when there were problems, and her desire to help make it a better workplace by speaking up, even if it put her in an unpopular position with management. He commented on the fact that the workplace doesn’t need and won’t function at all with only yes-men and yes-women, but rather with employees who are willing to speak up and to say no when necessary. In other words, such employees are willing to stick out their necks, to rise above the radar, to create discussion and debate when warranted and to take responsibility for their choices. They are willing to risk disagreements with management and to risk unpopularity with fellow colleagues who would rather they kept their mouths shut rather than create discord. You would think the workplace would encourage these sorts of behavior and would want to hire such people—people who open their mouths, tell the truth, and are honest, trustworthy and loyal. These are the people who are the backbone of an organization, who know it in and out, who know the history of a workplace (for better and for worse), and who can tell you how the system and infrastructure function. In other words, these types of employees are worth their weight in gold, in my opinion.

The opposite is true these days, that workplaces seem to only want yes-employees around them. It’s fairly simple to figure out--it makes life easier for everyone, especially management. But it may not be a smart management philosophy in the long run. There are several reasons for that, which the speaker above touched upon. He meant that it was necessary for employees to speak up in order to prevent a workplace from disintegrating, to prevent it from self-destruction. When I think about it what he said, it makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, there is too much of the opposite—employees who simply agree with the boss when asked their opinions about a specific issue. If you are asked your opinion, and the only thing that preoccupies you is figuring out what management’s stance would be so that you can parrot management’s ideas back to your boss, who will be pleased that you are in agreement with them, then you are a good employee, at least these days. To voice the dissenting opinion, to talk against a specific management philosophy or dictate, to relate the problems associated with the aforementioned, are death knells for your career advancement. If you are direct, honest, willing to debate and discuss, have a sense of an organization’s history, bring up problems, or otherwise ‘bother’ management, you are not valued, or not valued as highly as those who nod and agree with the boss. And of course from a boss’s perspective, the path of least resistance is to promote the employee who agrees with you and your business philosophies and strategies. I get it. I just don’t agree with it. And I cannot see how this makes for a healthy workplace. But I’m of the old school, and grew up during a time when honesty, directness and loyalty were valued.

Some types of managers will tell you the following when you bring up a problem that exists in a workplace: that you are too focused on how things were done in the past (when you bring up historical references for how that problem may have been dealt with previously), that you need to forget the past and focus on the here-and-now, or that you are too direct, or that what you bring up is really not a problem (even though it really is), to name a few responses. They like to talk a blue streak about conflict resolution and the rampant belief that all problems can be resolved; my answer to this is that not all problems can be resolved, just as not all people can truly get along, and in fact to believe so is remarkably naïve and possibly dangerous. Of course, if all employees simply nod their heads and ‘agree’ to a particular resolution, regardless of whether they agree with it or not, then ‘conflict resolution’ has been achieved. But it’s not honest resolution. In the long-run, this type of agreement is not healthy for an organization. Because the result is that dissension rather grows in the corridors. Employees talk about and against management’s philosophies and strategies instead of talking directly to management. There are a lot of rumors and gossip. Management for its part thinks that all employees are happy with the status quo, and so on, and are free to proceed with their plans. But there is a reason for why employees play the yes-men role: they are afraid for their jobs. If you are not in a protected position (where you cannot get fired, e.g. civil service jobs), you can find yourself without a job when the first round of budget cuts comes along. Because the name of the game now is to save as much money as possible—that is the current management strategy—and you put yourself first on the cut list if you are a ‘dissenter’.

It seems to me that loyalty is a dying virtue in the workplace in any case. There is no objectively good reason to be loyal to a workplace anymore, because that workplace will not be loyal to you in return, not in the age of budget cuts and streamlined efficiency. There is no contract between an employee and his or her workplace anymore, the way there seemed to be in my parents’ generation. The workplace has changed enormously during the past thirty years. It would be unrealistic to assume that it would not. The changes may be for the good in some ways; I am in a wait and see mode. There are certainly long-term employees who have abused their positions, just as there are companies that have abused their long-term employees. But at present, there does not seem to be much point in sticking around in one workplace for years anymore; in fact, it may be a liability to do so, unless you find a workplace that values loyalty. Younger people coming into the workplace at present know that their prospects of landing a permanent job (cannot be fired) in an organization are few to none. Companies will not offer such positions now; young people know this and know that they will be out of a job after four or five years, after they have fulfilled training courses or reached the limit in terms of how far they can progress in one position. There is thus no real point in getting too attached, too involved, too dedicated or too interested in what goes on in your workplace; you won’t be there for more than four or five years. You know you will be moving on. The workplaces of the future seem to be places where mutual utilization of each other will define how things are done. Loyalty will be reserved for the personal arena—loyalty to family and to friends. Perhaps this is the way it should be. But a part of me still feels that it should not be necessary to comment on an employee’s loyalty at the end of a long work life—that this type of loyalty should be more the rule than the exception. My guess is that the workplaces of the future will be defined by short-term employees working on short-term projects that are led by short-term managers; employees and bosses will be project-dedicated but not necessarily workplace-dedicated or workplace-loyal. They know they are dispensable, that they can be fired, replaced at will, or rehired, but also that they can move easily from one workplace to another, without the feeling of attachment that long-term workers often feel after many years in their workplaces. The white collar workplaces of the future will be more like factories—producing what they produce without much attention paid to those who are doing the producing. But in return, the employees will receive training and a good income, but no more. Expectations of career advancement within one company will taper off, especially if an employee reaches an income level that is non-sustainable for the company. It will be cheaper to hire younger workers without much experience. In this way, loyalty will be discouraged and eventually obliterated. A glum scenario, perhaps, or perhaps not. Time will tell.  

Finding balance

It seems to me that the lines between our personal and work lives are becoming more and more blurred. They may not even exist for some people. I think much of it has to do with the prevalence of technology and social media and how easy these make connecting to others at all hours; we can be connected 24/7 to family and friends, so why not to colleagues and bosses as well? I know employees who can never let go of work, or vice versa--their bosses and workplaces can never let go of them. These employees leave their workplaces, go home, eat dinner, and work some more, sometimes right up until they go to sleep. Or they accept phone calls and answer text messages from bosses, colleagues and/or clients the entire evening. They never shut their phones off; they check their work emails constantly. They are on when they should be off; they are available to their workplaces when they should be doing other things. Those other things include having a personal life, a family life, a social life, a hobby or two, or doing volunteer work, or maybe just time out for meditation, relaxation, reading a good book or watching a film. The odd thing is that these people travel to an actual workplace each day; they do not work at home. Somehow they have a harder time physically and mentally separating themselves from their workplace than many of those I know who work at home or who work several days a week at home. I am not sure why that is; it would certainly be worth studying. It seems as though working at home forces those who do it to make rules for when they are available and when they are not, and they have learned to enforce those rules.

If a workplace expects the majority of its employees to be available at all hours or to finish work at home, I call that tyranny. Possible exceptions include high-level leaders in times of crisis. If employees cannot let go of their workplaces and must be connected to them and their work at all times, I call that idolatry, especially if there is a certain amount of arrogance attached to the worship of work. These are the people who could choose not to idolize their jobs, but they choose otherwise. Not being able to let go of work can also be a form of addiction. The latter can sneak up on employees after several months of taking work home because they are interested in finishing up an interesting project or because they want the answer to the question now. And taking work home every now and then, by choice, is much different than being forced to do so by your workplace. But over time, the results can be the same. Employees become slaves to their work and to their workplaces. They cannot put their work aside; it preoccupies them to the point of nervousness and anxiety, which is not healthy in the long run. This happened to me a number of times during the past twenty years, I would take work home and stay up to all hours in order to complete it. But what happened was that one project would get finished, and then two more would take its place, and so on. My point is that we will never be finished with our work. It will always be there waiting for us the next day. It is absolutely fine, totally ok, to pick up the next day where we left off the day before, after an evening of rest, relaxation and a good night’s sleep. It is important to have balance in our lives. More to the point, it is important to maintain balance in our lives, because it is so easily lost to or disturbed by workplace tyranny, idolatry, or addiction. And that means shutting off the phone, not looking at work emails, not 'checking in', and not being available; no matter how much it plagues us (or tyrannical workplaces) in the beginning. It means cutting the cord and not worshipping on the altar of work. The rewards are that we find ourselves again in the process of deprogramming ourselves, and we find balance in our lives. It does not mean that we no longer enjoy our work, rather that we enjoy it within the context of a balanced life. 

Living on crumbs

It occurred to me this past week that perhaps abusive workplaces damage employees in more ways than we care to admit. After several recent conversations with colleagues and friends, I can only conclude that this seems to be the case. The type of abusive workplace I am talking about has little to do with physical abuse, although I know that occurs in some workplaces. The most common type of abuse is psychological and emotional, and I firmly believe that years of this type of abuse will damage the recipients, much as a psychologically abusive personal relationship does. And the damage may not be reversible. That is the frightening part. We don’t like to talk about this, but just because we don’t talk about it doesn’t mean the problem doesn’t exist. The recipients of the abuse may carry their feelings of fear, shame, guilt and loss of self-esteem home with them, and take it out on the people with whom they live. Or if they live alone, they may take it out on themselves by living in unhealthy ways. Whatever the situation, the abuse leaves deep scars, and the employees who have experienced this type of abuse may not be able to leave their work situations, in the same way as an abused spouse may be unable to leave his or her situation. There may be no energy left to do so, or to fight back, or to deal with the situation.

What type of abuse am I talking about? Bullying, derision, grandstanding always at the expense of others, total disregard for the feelings of others, lack of emotional intelligence, verbal aggression, cursing, domination of meetings or conversations by the same people who flatten anyone who tries to get a word in, freezing out specific employees, being negative to what specific employees suggest no matter what the situation, deriding ideas during brainstorming meetings, making employees feel like crap, embarrassing or harassing them publicly (telling employees, ‘if you don’t like it, leave’ or telling employees that they’re lazy or mediocre in a public meeting). The list is endless. Have I seen such behavior in workplaces? Yes I have. What does an abusive workplace do to its employees? What are the scars it leaves on them? I would suggest that it creates a pattern of hope and disappointment that becomes cyclical. In the hope cycle, employees experience a feeling of being uplifted, perhaps because a boss has acknowledged their work for once. I call the experience being ‘grateful for crumbs’. In this case, the crumbs can be, for example, a very infrequent acknowledgment of employees’ work (or existence) in an environment that otherwise criticizes or ignores its employees. In the disappointment cycle, employees feel that their situation is hopeless and that there is little possibility of change. And then comes the hope cycle that brings with it that feeling that change is possible. This is very similar to an abusive relationship—between spouses, or between children and parents, between siblings, and so on.

You can imagine how children would develop in a home environment where parents were critical of and negative about most things they did, and only occasionally ‘threw a dog a bone’. That’s living on crumbs. Or parents who ignore their children, except to ‘show them off’ to others when it’s time to be politically correct. Children are highly sensitive to parental behavior, and they will work overtime to try to ‘read’ their parents. The appreciation of ‘crumbs’ becomes learned behavior after a while, but the recipients of abusive behavior are so focused on trying to ‘please’, that growth in other areas becomes stifled or stunted. They never completely learn self confidence, they become afraid of authority, or they became afraid to voice their opinions or ideas for fear of being derided, yelled at, or embarrassed publicly. The scars persist well into adulthood. The mistake we make as a society is to think that adults can tackle everything that is thrown at them, just because they are adults. The assumption is automatically that they have to tackle everything. What happens when or if they cannot? I’ve seen one example of that recently—someone who hit the wall big-time. There are bullies in the workplace, just as there were on the school playground. When the bullies get control of the workplace, the employees who get beaten up are often the ones who may not have had a lot of self confidence to begin with. Or they may be the ones who are living on crumbs in personal situations as well. Or they may have self confidence, but were raised to not question authority, to not stick their heads up. So if they are unfairly treated, there is no real recourse for them. They are not the ones likely to go over the boss’ head to complain to the higher-ups.

I have been told sometimes that I bring up problems but that I don’t discuss the solutions for them. That may be the case at times, but it may be the case simply because I don’t know what the solutions are. What do you do if you are an older man, for example, whose workplace bullies him, whose wife is sick, whose children depend on him, who knows that his chances of finding another job are next to null at his age? What then? What do you tell that person? Go find another job? Think positive and it will all work out? Blame him for his situation? And even if he is partly to blame, because he has let himself be satisfied with crumbs for many years, how does it help him if society blames him for his entire situation? We like to think that this is not a common situation; the fact is, in my father’s generation, this was a quite common scenario, at least where I grew up. It’s so easy to judge others, and in the end, ourselves. We are often as hard on ourselves as we are on others. The key word is hard. Maybe things would change if more people practiced being softer. Kindness is so underrated. We need more of it in society, in workplaces and in homes. Perhaps the next time a boss is abusive, we need to remind him or her of the value of being kind. That’s at least one solution I can suggest; I have no idea if it will work.  

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.