Gwyneth Paltrow Boiling or Not?

Ever heard of a bloody divorce? One of the most disturbing portrayals of the concept might be the 1989 black comedy The War of the Roses. In this film, a divorce lawyer tells the tale of a horrific divorce in which the conflict escalated to violence and eventually death. Unfortunately, violent disputes in married relationships, friendships and working relationships are not unheard of. These scenarios are examples of the highest degree of conflict temperature, which is boiling. Many times, both sides in the dispute are angry and willing to go to any length to “win.” Or sometimes, the conflict is instigated by an attacking side with malicious intent, which was likely the case in the recent attack on Zac Efron in Skid Row. Often both sides are in need of stronger emotional intelligence and guidance to help reduce tensions.  

At the other end of the conflict thermometer is a warm conflict. Based on her interviews, it would seem Gwyneth Paltrow’s break up would fall into this category. She says she and her husband, Coldplay front man, Chris Martin, are uncoupling. She says uncoupling “seeks to be very undramatic.” As opposed to a loud, name-calling break up, she described her split with Chris with terms of compassion and mutual understanding. Paltrow’s celebrity friend, Cameron Diaz explained to E! News “People want them to blow up and it to be ugly, but they're kind, generous, loving people who really care about one another… They are really good friends” (Huffington Post). This situation shows the signs of warm conflict in that both sides are still open to discussion and finger pointing is not an issue.  

Gwyneth Paltrow Photo
By: Jared Purdy Photography

In the midst of a dispute, pausing to determine conflict temperature, evaluate the cause of the conflict and learn about conflict resolution tools such as persuasion can lead to much better outcomes.  

Check out this video for more details on conflict temperature:

Related Reads: 
Mclachlan ConflictEI & Conflict Resolution: George Washington StyleMad Employee WildfireEI & Conflict Resolution: Leadership Negotiation Skills

The Hunger Games in Your Office

The Hunger Games has taken the world by storm. After all, who doesn’t love a post-apocalyptic adventure with a memorable heroine? I know I’ve enjoyed the film series. And like all great books and movies, The Hunger Games offers a feast of topics to consume. Specifically, the angle of competition in contrast with cooperation comes to light when considering the dynamics of the tributes in the games. And of course, competition and cooperation are important considerations when it comes to communication in the workplace and conflict resolution. Check out the video below for a deeper analysis on this subject.

Finding the balance of healthy competition and functional cooperation isn’t an easy task, unless one has the correct tools. These tools include strong emotional intelligence skills and effective communications skills. Become the girl on fire like Katniss, or the boy with the bread like Peeta, by defying the norms of viscous competition in conflict scenarios and stopping to think how working together can lead to even better results.

Related Reads:
Communication Training
EI & Conflict Resolution: George Washington Style
Mad Employee Wildfire
EI & Conflict Resolution: Leadership Negotiation Skills
Catching Fire on the Job?

Arian Foster: negotiating or “no-go”tiating?

Often times, whether within an executive board, a shareholder committee, a department or unit within an organization, or owners within a small business, individuals are not in agreement.  Either due to lack of negotiating skills, or an authoritarian style not suited for nurturing the team spirit, or simply personality differences and egotistical decision-making, parties in a group can feel estranged and act rebellious.  During these times, the options are to fight to the bone, separate the shares either through a buy-out or similar option, or to invite a third party to serve as a facilitator/mediator.  

Mediation is when two organizations, or two individuals, decides to let an unbiased party hear both sides of a situation and then come to some type of agreement that satisfies both parties as it pertains to a dispute.

If an organization decides to bring legal action against another organization or individual, then this process can bring a lot of negative publicity to the situation and most companies don't want this type of advertisement. Legal action can be a very time consuming process as well as being quite costly. One has to utilize a number of resources when it comes time for legal action. The process will take the focus away from the core business and will deplete profits, creating unwanted costs. No organization’s mission statement involves litigation, so anything close to that, is a step in the wrong direction.

It would be so much easier to have someone representing both parties and then get all the facts of the case and then work to a conclusion that is satisfying to all involved. Mediation is less conspicuous than legal action in addition to being hard on your time, money, manpower and resources. The current dispute between Arian Foster and Brittany Norwood that’s making headlines (USA Today) is a prime example. Mediation concerning her pregnancy and his reaction would save them and their families a world of heartache and money. Instead, it’s becoming a highly publicized dispute.

Imagine having to have someone within your organization have to retrieve files from 5 or 10 years ago, so that you can prepare for legal action. This takes the individual away from their duties they were hired to do. For all practical purposes this is down-time or unproductive business practice.

If you are ever at odds with a conflict situation that isn’t easily maneuverable, mediation may be a good option for you.  In order to help you choose the right mediator, below are some characteristics to look for.  Remember these are at the minimum, depending on your case, other details may need to be further considered:

1.      Impartiality – Independence and objectivity. Some people describe this characteristic as “being an honest broker.”

2.      Integrity – Mediators oftentimes convey information that parties may find disturbing, or difficult to accept. This requires the candor to communicate honestly, the courage to follow professional standards, and the strength to reject unethical suggestions occasionally advanced by participants.

3.      Respect – Responding to disputants as people with difficult problems under trying circumstances.

4.      Good listeners

5.      Ethical – Mediators face an array of ethical issues. Chose only those who have agreed to be bound by published standards from recognized organizations.

6.      Important Personal Traits – Other helpful qualifications include empathy, maturity, calmness, analytical skills, persuasiveness, and intelligence.

Liar, Liar

The trait of lying has often times been considered a repulsive trait and in fact pathological lying has been considered a neurosis in which there is habitual or compulsive lying.  The individual may be aware they are lying, or may believe they are telling the truth.  According to research, although little has been written about pathological lying, one study found a prevalence of almost 1 in 1,000 repeat juvenile offenders (Psychiatric Times). The average age of onset is 16 years when the level of intelligence is average or above average. Also, they have shown above level verbal skills as opposed to performance abilities. 30% of subjects had a chaotic home environment, where a parent or family member had a mental disturbance.

But what about everyday lying?  Leonard Saxe, Ph.D., a polygraph expert and professor of psychology at Brandeis University, says, "Lying has long been a part of everyday life. We couldn't get through the day without being deceptive."

In a 1996 study, DePaulo and her colleagues had 147 people between the ages of 18 and 71 keep a diary of all the falsehoods they told over the course of a week. Most people, she found, lie once or twice a day—almost as often as they snack from the refrigerator or brush their teeth. Both men and women lie in approximately a fifth of their social exchanges lasting 10 or more minutes; over the course of a week they deceive about 30 percent of those with whom they interact one-on-one. Furthermore, some types of relationships, such as those between parents and teens, are virtual magnets for deception: "College students lie to their mothers in one out of two conversations," reports DePaulo. (Incidentally, when researchers refer to lying, they don't include the mindless pleasantries or polite equivocations we offer each other in passing, such as "I'm fine, thanks" or "No trouble at all." An "official" lie actually misleads, deliberately conveying a false impression. So complimenting a friend's awful haircut or telling a creditor that the check is in the mail both qualify.)  Saxe believes that anyone under enough pressure, or given enough incentive, will lie. But in a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, DePaulo and Deborah A. Kashy, Ph.D., of Texas A&M University, report that frequent liars tend to be manipulative and Machiavellian, not to mention overly concerned with the impression they make on others. Still, DePaulo warns that liars "don't always fit the stereotype of caring only about themselves. Further research reveals that extroverted, sociable people are slightly more likely to lie, and that some personality and physical traits—notably self-confidence and physical attractiveness—have been linked to an individual's skill at lying when under pressure.

So are we giving a pass to lying? No. Absolutely not.  In fact the next part of this article focuses on how to detect lying now that we know lies are so common.

Here is how to detect lies:

1.     Differentiate between pathological vs. sociopathic liars: the latter tells lies because they seek to manipulate whereas the first lies to avoid facing consequences.

2.     Check for consistency by asking for details multiple times.  Record and don’t repeat back what they have said.  Pathological liars will lie all the time. Even regarding small details.

3.     Compare lies told to different people.  Pathological liars often change stories between people to get attention.  Their low self-esteem guides them to try to look good in front of others.

4.     Test whether the individual lies to get attention.  Pathological liars are motivated by boredom, coming out a winner or “upper” low self-esteem, sympathy attention. 

5.     Look to whether there are other addictions or secret habits that are potentially harmful.  There may be other personality disorders, such as narcissistic personality disorder, bipolar or borderline personality disorder.

6.     Examine the person’s reaction when their lie is discovered.  Possible reactions are extreme defensiveness, quickly fabricating another lie to cover the first, and becoming vindictive, regretful and retaliate.

7.     Determine if the person lives in reality.  Pathological liars, can’t hold relationships long-term, they wander around without routines and create a pseudo reality to keep them entertained and free from boredom. 

I hope that you don’t have to catch someone in a lie.  But given the statistics above, you probably will at some point of your life depending on the severity.  Keep these suggestions in mind and I hope love and truth will always protect you. 

Deal or No Deal?

Social norms, the customary rules that govern behavior in groups and societies, have been extensively studied in the social sciences. Anthropologists have described how social norms function in different cultures (Geertz 1973), sociologists have focused on their social functions and how they motivate people to act (Durkheim 1950; Parsons 1937, Parsons and Shils 1951; Coleman 1990; Hechter and Opp 2001), and economists have explored how adherence to norms influences market behavior (Akerlof 1976; Young 1998). 

However, somewhere between social norms and taboos is a gray line called expectations.  These are scenarios based solely on individual “preferences.”  There are the “picky, hard to please” types which aim for perfection.  The types that always can and do add to the status quo because that’s what they expect of themselves.  However, to those around them, they come across as too critical and demanding.  Then there are the “get it done” types.  The group that believes, if you want to do more, you have to expect to not do it perfectly.  Of course to the perfectionist, this group comes across as performing substandard and yet it seems they are liked by a large majority.  The last type of course is the “Keep them on their toes, “curb your enthusiasm” types.  This group is very capable and resourceful, but they waiver between one of the two types throughout days. They don’t like to be known as the perfectionist, but they are also go getters.  As you see, we are not even going to discuss the non-performers.  This group has a complete different frame of mind, and is frankly not our reader. 

So now that we have covered these three performance types, we will proceed to discuss why it matters.  In leadership, exchanges within the professional realm, between employees and employers fall within one of the above matches of categories.  The question is which types and what difference does the interaction between the various styles make on performance outcomes?  In other words how do employee/employer expectations of behavior, shape performance outcomes?

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of studies already published which demonstrate how a person's expectations can shape another person's behavior. One of the early studies of expectancy effects was conducted by Robert Rosenthal. He told elementary school teachers that some of the students had been identified as intellectual bloomers by a test they took. The teachers were told the names of those students and led to expect that those students would do particularly well over the course of the coming academic year.  In truth, the information given to the teachers was bogus. The students identified as bloomers were no different academically from the other students. Their names were selected at random. Only their teachers' expectations for them differed. Yet, sure enough, the students who were expected to bloom really did do better than the others by the end of the school year.

By now, the power of expectations has been demonstrated not just in classrooms, but also in workplaces, courtrooms, doctor-patient interactions, parent-child interactions, psychotherapy, consumer transactions, and more.  So you may ask, why is what we already know worth discussing now? The reason is that as a result of previous studies, the discussions involving expectations were mainly used in developing reward systems in organizations.  Well, these are tough times in the economy.  Wealthy and well-established organizations such as Darden and Chesapeake Energy have had to layoff 500 to 800 employees at one time (Business Week).  Organizations globally, need to conjure other ways of motivating their workforce beyond the dollar amount increase on their paychecks.  So what gives? The answer I believe lies in the interaction we spoke of previously. 

The last quarter of the year, usually marks the time where many organizations have their yearly retreats and holiday gathering.  However, in truth, the majority do these as a tradition, rather than a ritual; the latter pointing to a set of objectives to be met, in addition to socializing and having fun.  So what are the objectives referred to here?  They can be summed up in one sentence: getting to know your employees.  Of course, I am not suggesting by any means that a once a year event can do miracles.  However, it is a great opportunity.   What performance standards do they adhere to?  What motivates them?  What is their view of themselves?  So one may ask: aren’t there a million things people are motivated by? A new car, a new house, days off, vacations, etc.? The answer is, no.  According to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs after our most primary need, which is basically surviving from hunger, we are pursuing one of three needs: 1.  Safety, 2.  Belonging, and 3.  Mattering. In every communication, in every conflict, we are subconsciously either reinforcing or yearning for safety, belonging, mattering or a combination.  So what this means is that the key to making your employees feel like they want to be there and be engaged at doing the things you want them to do, is not being the same to all of them.  I could just see some Equal Employment Opportunity proponents thinking “not a good idea.”  Well, we are not talking unfair treatment here.  We are talking “individualized” and “customized” treatment.  It gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “you can’t be everything to everyone” doesn’t it? Yes, you have your own unique individual style, whether it be the perfectionist, the get it done or the curb your enthusiasm type.  But so is your employee.  If your expectations are flawed and you view them and expect the same from them as you would from yourself, you might as well save yourself that retreat money and give them a nice severance package today.  The emotionally intelligent employer, gets the inside scoop on their workforce and provides the right remedy for the right ill.   Does that take time? You bet it does.  But so does hiring, training, and planning.  Want a Top Performer that will win the crowd like Cher did on Dancing with the Stars this week? Deal.

Armstrong breathing fire

“Able, you’re fired. Out!”

Take a minute to ponder the harsh choice of words.
Now take a second to guess the setting in which those words were said.

On Friday August 16^th, AOL Chief Executive Tim Armstrong led a rather disheartening company meeting, to which roughly 1,000 employees had dialed in. This meeting was for Patch members and was held shortly

Tim Armstrong

after Armstrong disclosed, the organization would shrink Patch websites from 900 to 600. While everyone knew bad news was around the corner for many employees, no one was aware that they would be witness to one of the most poorly handled firing incidents in history.

Mid-sentence, Armstrong abruptly discontinued addressing the attendees to turn his attention to the Creative Director of AOL’s Patch unit, Abel Lenz. He proceeded to say “"Abel, put that camera down, now. Abel, you're fired. Out," as can be heard on Forbes. Meanwhile the air stood still and silence followed as 1,000 already disheartened employees listened in. About five seconds later, Armstrong continued with his meeting as Able exited.

What all went wrong?

1. Susan Adams of Forbes makes a good point. She distinguishes, that even before the incident, Armstrong’s voice was cold. Susan mentioned that although he accepted responsibility for the status of Patch’s struggles, he also opened the meeting with statements which threatened staff to leave Patch if they didn’t believe him or thought the discussion was a joke. Everyone knew the meeting wasn’t a joke, especially because it followed the previous announcement about reducing Patch’s web presence by 300 websites. His approach was condescending and hurtful from the start.

2. At the beginning of the meeting, Armstrong announced “I don’t care what the press says, I don’t care if people leak information.” However, he then fired an employee for recording the meeting. Where is the logic in this scenario?

3. Possibly the most blatant and scrutinized action in those dreaded two minutes was his harsh firing of Abel. His choice of words were cold, his tone inappropriate and worst of all he did it publically. Not only did he belittle Able by firing him publically, but he did it I front of 1,000 of their co-workers, without a blink.

4. After coming under media fire, Armstrong later attempted to justify the incident, announcing that Abel had been warned previously not to record those meetings. Not only was that a poor reason to fire someone on the spot, because he could have easily just asked the employee to stop filming (or possibly even signaled for him to put the camera down), but that reasoning contradicts his previous statement at the meeting:“I don’t care what the press says, I don’t care if people leak information.” From the outside, it is easy to see where Abel would have assumed the previous warnings not to film meetings were negated by that opening statement. However, Armstrong was lacking the emotional intelligence to detect where Able may have become confused. He then acted emotionally and disrespectfully.

5. To date, Abel has not been asked to return to AOL. 

What went right?

1. It should be noted that Armstrong has personally apologized to Abel.

2. He also issued an apology to the AOL community.

What are the repercussions?

1. Tim Armstrong has come under fire across the board from the New York Times to Forbes. He has fatally damaged his own reputation.

2. Having ignited a chain of disapproval and backlash, Armstrong, who clearly was already struggling emotionally will likely have trouble determining how to dig out of this hole if he does not seek counseling.

3. Abel has lost his job in an unreasonable way and will likely also struggle to emotionally recover.

4. Armstrong’s actions are drawing an angry and dissatisfied response from consumers toward AOL as an organization.

5. Employee morale has been possibly irreparably damaged. 

Fortunately, this situation has sparked an executive development discussion.  Susan Adams of Forbes says in AOL’s Chief Demonstrates the Worst Way to Fire Someone, “If he feels ‘emotional,’ as he said in his statement yesterday, then he should work through those emotions with a friend, counselor or coach before dumping on his workforce.“  This situation presents itself as a key argument for the importance of executive development and leadership training. She is exactly right; executives, Armstrong included, are under extreme pressure. They want to succeed and take their job to heart. As Armstrong said himself “It was an emotional response at the start of a difficult discussion dealing with many people’s careers and livelihoods. I am the CEO and leader of the organization, and I take that responsibility seriously."

The power to make or break employee morale, improve or destroy the bottom line and change the future rests in the hands of executives everywhere. What most of those leaders and their employers don’t realize is that responsibility can be tackled much more successfully, with a little help along the way. 

Words are only a fraction of communication

Communication at Work

Communication is on my mind today. I've got a little quote to share. It is a good reminder on a day to day basis...

Here are also some related communication sources of interest:

Healthy Practices for Organizations
Communication: Negotiating
Martin Luther King tips on Public Speaking
Can you hear me now: The Five Languages of Engagement


Happy Friday everyone!

Is personal branding really as hard as diamonds?

Ever increasing emphasis is placed on an individual’s personal brand. “Diamond in the rough” people of the professional world are those who excel in networking and personal brand communication.

From strong LinkedIn profiles to expert elevator pitches, these individuals stand out.  While learning effective networking tools and knowing how to work a room is crucial, too many people undervalue the first step in success. In order to communicate effectively, one must understand their own personal brand. But first, they must understand themselves.

Understanding one’s self isn't simple. In fact, Benjamin Franklin said “there are three things extremely hard: steel, a diamond and to know one’s self.” He had an excellent point. However, creating your personal branding statement doesn't have to be “as hard as steel.”

Personal Branding Statement Pointers:

·         Spend some time with yourself to reflect on personal and professional accomplishments. Utilize your emotional intelligence skills to evaluate who you are and where you stand in life.

·         Write your statement down on paper. This step involves heavy refining, editing and care. Remember to include the following:
1. Your introduction: “Hi, my name is ______.”
2. Communicate your current job title or area of expertise.
3. Let your light shine. The most captivating individuals are those with a cause. Spend a bit of time to explain what interests you about what you do. What would excite others about what you do?
4. Everything you do provides value. Who are you serving?

·         Read your statement out loud and get acquainted with keywords that will help you remember and deliver smoothly.

·         Be prepared to repeat the process above regularly. You change as time goes on. Your title, your top concerns and your audience will not always be the same.

·         Speak with confidence. If you've taken the time to understand yourself, all that is left is delivery. Communication is complex as it relies heavily on non-verbal factors such as body language. Knowing where you come from and getting the words right are the first steps. Becoming a strong communicator is another discussion.

If you’ve read this, you are on a great track for personal brand statement success. Just remember to look inside, keep re-evaluating and stay confident.