Turning the victims into the villains

This New York Times article explains that Ohio congressional representative Jim Jordan insists he didn’t know that wrestlers on a college team he coached were being abused; and backers say he is the victim of conspirators who are trying to bring down the U.S. president.

The university’s investigation ,being conducted by the firm Perkins Coie LLP, should be relied upon to determine the truth here, not the court of public opinion. This is a classic case of attempting to turn the accusers into villains. It also appears to be a case where the allegations were open secrets. If Jordan was not aware, given his close proximity to the situation, he was inept. If he was as close to the players as both he and the players acknowledge, it begs a fundamental question on why the players did not go to him for intervention and support. Could it be, as is the case in most of these situations, they were afraid? Given Jordan’s abrasive and overly aggressive style, my bet is that the fear factor was at play. 

In this case, the culture of fear that is likely the fundamental cause for Jordan’s allegations began in the 1980’s but has been and continues to be the modus operandi of many organizations in North America to this day. In my book, ‘From Bully to Bull’s-Eye: Move Your Organization Out of the Line of Fire’, I share my views on the dictatorial culture that creates this fear, how it affects the victims negatively, and what to do about it whether the victim or a witness. This is another example of how bystanders can and must come forward to expose injustice and bring about positive change.

Deep and simple is far more essential than shallow and complex

In the work I do promoting emotional intelligence, convincing executives that emotions matter is a tough sell. In part, many don’t get it because they have been conditioned to seek more complex solutions to address the challenges and opportunities they face. 

This New York Times opinion by David Brooks explains Mr. Rogers’ ‘magical’ way of discussing serious issues focusing on the simplicity that can reveal very deep emotional insights.

Consider the extremes, as detailed in this Wall Street Journal article, that Starbucks is going through in addressing the access to bathroom issue. I recommend that all of their executives and managers watch the documentary “Won’t You Be My Neighbor?”. This would prove to be more impactful than the complex approach they have embarked on. 

Why emotions matter

This perspective in the Washington Post by Bob McKillip, head coach Davidson College basketball team, brings home the claim those of us who advocate for emotional intelligence make, which is ‘emotions matter’.

Davidson College’s mission - “Our world needs leaders who aim to lead and serve guided by human instincts and creative and disciplined minds. We need advocates for and defenders of human dignity”

Having the men’s basketball team visit Auschwitz is testing the emotions of the players who they are grooming to become leaders. 

McKillip describes what motivated the visit - “The volatility of our world right now requires a response informed by both a respect for human kind and an understanding of what happens in its absence.”

Another dynamic these young players experienced was the emotions they individually felt about the visit, and the subsequent realization of the need to depend on each other emotionally – Yes, emotions matter. 

Institutional corruption

Flint Michigan’s poisoned water crisis revealed “the poisoned city”. This New York Times book review focuses on two complimentary books, each of which describes and discusses a situation that has resulted in deadly consequences, giving a perspective on the dynamics of institutional corruption and the importance of bystanders to expose it. 

Anna Clark’s “The Poisoned City”, reveals irrefutable proof that the water supply was poisonous no one did anything about it despite well-publicized evidence that should stir even the coldest of elected politicians to act swiftly. Mona Hanna-Attisha’s “What the Eyes Don’t See” views the water crisis in Flint, Mich., from a different angle, showing that the blatantly corrupt and bigoted system has once again literally gotten away with murder. 

Interestingly enough, the Times published a wonderful opinion piece written by Thomas L. Friedman who shows how a well-organized community can pull itself up by its own bootstraps without the help of elected officials. This turn- around from a once dying community can be credited to citizens who, in a responsible and civil way, took matters into their own hands and are now thriving. This can and should be duplicated elsewhere. Why not Flint, Michigan?

A Boomer’s Guide for Millennials: The ABC’s of Leadership: R is for Relatable.

This article is part of a series currently being published on MoneyInc. Previous submissions can be viewed on the MoneyInc site by clicking here.

Based on the research I have done, people who have high emotional intelligence are better able to relate to others, and have others relate to them and as a result have better relationships with others.

The biggest failure of leadership in all sectors is their inability to relate to others, specifically their inability to put themselves in the shoes of those they are responsible for, understanding how they feel and why they feel the way they do.

“For those of you who are black and are tempted to be filled with hatred and distrust at the injustice of such an act against all white people, I can only say I feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling. I had a member of my family killed, but he was killed by a white man. But we have to make an effort in the United States to understand, to go beyond these rather difficult times.”

Fifty years ago in Indianapolis, just following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Robert F. Kennedy, with these few words, was able to have people relate to the teaching of King by relating to them their shared feelings; and in so doing, avoided in Indianapolis the violent riots that erupted across the Nation. 

As importantly, Kennedy articulated a standard for leaders to “make an effort...to understand and go beyond...”

The term, “it’s lonely at the top” is certainly true for those who are unable to relate to others. The meaning of the word relate has, over time, shifted from recounting something to identifying, connecting and empathizing with others. I assert, based on my own experience, that leaders who relate are not lonely because if you relate to others, they will relate to you, which becomes the foundation for relationships.

I have found with many, as people progress up the political, corporate and social ladders, that they forget “from whence they came”. Usually this results in the inability to relate to others. This inability to relate severely limits the ability to have people follow them.

This is playing out in many countries where politicians have totally misread the mood of the people. My view is that they misread the mood because, particularly in the United States, most of them have become nothing but politicians who are so removed from reality that they are not able to relate to the populous. Few have the ability to identify, connect with and have empathy for those they represent. To his credit, the current President recognizes and should receive full marks for understanding and connecting with his core base of followers. Where he earns zero marks is for his total lack of empathy for those who have real, and legitimate grievances. He, as other autocrats have done and continue to do, is to take advantage of the downtrodden, who are so desperately looking for a savior, and prey on and take advantage of their grievances and fears.

Democracies can be savedif those who are chosen to represent others start relating by understanding how people feel, and more importantly, to understand why people feel the way they do. While garnering this information, leaders must connect and have empathy for what other people are going through. From this, they can build a platform which responds to the real issues versus merely offering false hope and platitudes.

In a CNBC interview, Howard Shultz captured being relatable when he stated, “It’s been a long time since anyone in government really walked in the shoes of the American public.”

However, it’s not only politicians who are misreading the mood of the people; this misperception is evident in all segments of our society. An indicator of this is a recent Gallop poll showing professions in which fewer than 50% of people are trusted: judges (43%), clergy (42%), bankers (25%), newspaper reporters (25%), local office holders (24%) TV reporters (23%), lawyers (18%), business executives (16%), lobbyists (8%). I assert one of the reasons for these damning perceptions is that these professionals are not relating to their constituents. Furthermore, the constituents are not relating to the professionals. It is no small wonder why there is the level of discontent that there is. The Gallop numbers, taken at their face value, suggest that 57% of the population does not respect or have confidence in the establishment.

It is interesting from the same study to compare the least trusted to the most trusted professions, where more than 50% are trusted:  nurses (82%), military officers (71%), grade school teachers (66%), medical doctors (65%), pharmacists (62%), police officers (56%). One thing that immediately jumps out is that the most respected are generally not perceived to be part of the establishment. Another and more significant observation is that the most trusted professions by and large deal with individuals, whereas the least trusted by and large deal with the system. This means that the most trusted professionals earn their trust through individual relationships.

So, how does one become relatable? 

First and foremost, regardless of how different you are, view others as fellow human beings. This is what we all have in common, we are all human beings. Inherent in this are other things we have in common - being a son or daughter, a spouse, or a parent, as well as similar experiences - good and bad, reflecting on RFK’s words, “I had a member of my family killed...” 

The next step is relating how you feel about situations you face. Again, as an example, RFK’s words, “I can only say I feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling.” Be transparent by saying, “I can relate to that”, adding why or explaining how you relate. I remember so well my mother reaching out and comforting other mothers who, like her, had lost an infant, relating her loss and saying, “I know what you are going through”. 

In my work in organizational dynamics, I have found there are a lot of myths around inter-generational relationships, particularly the inability to relate to each other. What most boomers have forgotten is that they too were once young, with similar ideals, aspirations, frustrations and fears. In research we have done with the Yale Centre for Emotional Intelligence, we have found that there is little difference on how people, regardless of age, feel and why people feel the way they do about the work they do, the relationships they have at work, and the organizations they work for.

Just being able to relate does not make one relatable however. What makes one relatable is dialogue - something that has become almost nonexistent for most, particularly in the work environment between the boss and the subordinate, where the only interactions are by dictate, during the annual performance review, or when things go south. 

I encourage leadership everywhere to start the dialogue, and as RFK implored, “make an effort...  to understand and go beyond.”

(Andrew Faas is the author of ‘From Bully to Bull’s Eye - Move Your Organization Out of the Line of Fire’and a Public Voices Fellow at Yale University)

PROTECTING THE ORGANIZATION vs PROTECTING THE VICTIM

According to this New York Times article, the United Nations’ secretary general has vowed greater accountability for sexual misconduct. But many employees say that won’t end decades of sexism and abuse within the organization.

The way the U.N. handles sex assault cases is pretty much the way most organizations handle them and other harassment and abuse claims. Peter Gallo an investigator at the Office of Internal Oversight Services at the U.N. perfectly defines what is at the core of this when he described, “The whole thing is designed to protect the organization” adding “The U.N. is more interested in its reputation than in protecting victims.” 

Does tribalism in America have to end badly?

Complaints about our deepening cultural and political divides tend to assume all disagreements can be bridged. History suggests otherwise. In this New York Times article, different outcomes can emerge when different ‘tribes’ find themselves in disagreement.

Although history suggests that disagreements cannot be bridged though dialogue, that should not assume that it is impossible to resolve our deepening cultural and political divides. We have lost the art of civil discourse because in the places we live, learn, work and play, it is unacceptable to apply what I refer to as the 5D’s of civil discourse (Discuss - Disagree - Debate - Defend - Defy). Even where it may be acceptable people generally are not comfortable in having critical discussions. 

In the work the Faas Foundation is doing with the Yale Centre for Emotional Intelligence, in an initiative called ‘Emotion Revolution in the Workplace’, we are discovering that by developing the emotional intelligent skills of employees, better relationships can be fostered through the application of the 5 D’s of civil discourse.

Doug Ford’s priority in health care should be reducing bureaucracy

Following up on yesterday’s blog ‘Solving the Productivity Crisis’, this article from the Globe and Mail is an example of the questionable value of bureaucracy. The Mental Health America/Faas Foundation study of North American workers indicates that most employees feel their organizations are overly focused on trivial and bureaucratic activities. This point is proven by the significant increase in the management to worker ratios. 

When asked to help an organization proceed through a cultural transformation, one of the first things I do is to get an understanding of what they do, why they do what they do, and why do they do it the way they do it. In most organizations, leadership is hard-pressed to answer those fundamental questions. Too often, there is a flurry of activity yielding little or no results. Is all of this activity really necessary? If it is, then I would investigate if the desired results could be achieved in a different and more effective way.

In an article I wrote for MoneyInc, I discuss The Covenant Model, a way of introducing emotional intelligence into the workplace. Often, where bureaucracy has become overwhelming, there is no real sense of purpose or any sense of efficacy present. The role of managers should be to look at the five 5 R’s. Are the right people doing the right things at the right time for the right reasons in the right way? 

Solving the productivity crisis

This New York Times article explains why the tight labour market is forcing employers to rethink how they operate. Economic progress continues to be hampered by low productivity. An overlooked opportunity to improve productivity is reducing non-value-added, trivial and bureaucratic activities. A Mental Health America/Faas Foundation study called ‘Mind the Workplace’ where over 20,000 North American workers across all sectors found that 74 percent feel that their work environment is overly focused on trivial and overly bureaucratic company policies. By addressing this, it will not only help solve the labour shortage issue, it will be a huge lift in productivity which will drive economic progress.

Addressing the isolation crisis with compassion

This beautiful story from the New York Times reinforces the power of communication. People who are blind and deaf as Helen Keller noted “live in isolation” which is a lonely place to be. Today, as outlined in this Harvard Business Review article, we have a loneliness crisis, largely because of the inability of most to engage in civil and meaningful discourse. A Mental Health America/Faas Foundation study, ‘Mind the Workplace’ found that 66 percent of North American workers cannot count on their co-workers for support when things get hard, which means they are isolated. Let’s learn from this story how important it is to reach out to those who live in isolation.

This article describes how pervasive loneliness has become in our society, leaving few unscathed at some point during their lifetime. It also makes some good suggestions and shows examples of how to counter loneliness. We all need to get out into our communities when we feel isolated. As well, we need to keep a watchful eye on our most vulnerable community members, especially the elderly. After all, loneliness can be deadly.