What “Really” Looks Good in an Employee?

Claire Suddath posted a quiz concerning the disadvantages of women in the workplace in the July 28-August 3, 2014 issue of Bloomberg Businesweek (p. 62). She shared these interesting tidbits:

  • Although 54% of the U.S. workforce reports to a male boss, a 2012 MIT study suggests that women cannot count on female bosses to help them advance their careers.
  • Male managers who are married to working women are more apt to recommend female employees for promotion than are men married to stay-at-home women.
  • Blondes earn 7% more than brunettes.
  • Women in organizations led by CEOs whose first children are female earn 1.1% more on average. Wages drop for all those reporting to CEOs with firstborn sons.
  • Women wearing makeup are considered more competent and professional; however, women who perceive other women as dressing “too fancy” are “put off” by their attire.
  • A woman’s weight influences her earning potential. “Even very thin women are punished when they gain a little” (p. 64). There is a correlation also between an increase in a woman’s BMI and a drop in income for both the woman and her spouse.
  • Good posture affects the level of power others perceive women to have.

Perhaps all women should dye their hair blonde, lose weight, practice balancing books on their heads for improved posture, wear makeup and khakis, and accept a position only if the boss is a male manager with a firstborn daughter, and married to a working woman. Yes, I am being facetious. What a superficial list!

The world isn’t fair. Although perception is reality, its effects are powerful. These findings reflect collective practices that are unethical and illegal. One cannot confront this behavior directly because managers have learned how to discriminate covertly in the last 50 years since the Civil Rights Movement began. A manager would never tell an employee “You are overweight so you are not getting a raise.” Rather, the manager would find other reasons that most probably could not be connected to discrimination.

Transformational leaders coach, encourage, and support employees. These are gender-blind behaviors. Through my research findings (shared in detail in my book Transformational Leadership and High-Intensity Interval Training) I suggest that transformational leaders hire employees who embrace their vision, which aligns also with the mission of the organization. Once on the team, these leaders manage to their employees’ strengths. They provide growth opportunities that are based on their skills and interests. They want their employees to shine because they realize when their employees excel, they “look” good and the organization benefits. Perhaps there is a need to redefine our notion of “good looks.” Employees who are motivated, energetic, enthusiastic, work hard and deliver results could be the new definition of attractive. A win-win for all.

Copyright © 2014 Carol R. Himelhoch. All rights reserved

“Conflict is the Beginning of Consciousness” –M. Esther Harding (1888-1971)

Recent media reports concerning the clash between Joan Rivers and her mentor, Johnny Carson, remind me of how uncomfortable I feel when conflict escalates and relationships dissolve. Apparently Rivers and Carson were close, yet never spoke again after Rivers hosted a show scheduled to run at the same time as Carson’s on a competing network. Although I have studied conflict resolution and know better, I prefer to move through life conflict-free.

Conflict is manifest in four domains: intrapersonal, interpersonal, intragroup, and intergroup. Causes may be economic, such as when resources are limited. Ideological or value differences are another source of disputes. The desire to exert influence and wield one’s power is a third cause. Five styles for managing conflict include accommodating, avoiding, collaborating, competing, and compromising (Types of Conflict.org). The style selected depends on the situation and one’s personal style. In the Rivers-Carson relationship, it seems none of the above was used successfully because their relationship ended.

The absence of conflict is a true concern. Leaders who surround themselves with “yes men/women” stifle creativity and innovation and limit their potential for making sound decisions. Employees watch leaders closely to uncover cues that signal their preferences. Organizations with tall hierarchies risk information loss as important developments are stuck as they try to move up the chain. Filtering information to protect the leader and the messenger is a natural inclination; however, withholding facts delays consequences and may prevent timely responses to trouble. Creating an environment in which it is safe to broach difficult topics is essential.

Groupthink, identified by Irving Janis in 1972, is a dynamic that results in flawed decisions because team members are insulated from critical information. Symptoms of groupthink include:

  1. Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
  2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
  3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
  4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
  5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.
  6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
  7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
  8. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions (PsySR).

Leaders can thwart groupthink by abstaining from sharing their predispositions at the beginning of a meeting, assignment, or project. Norm-setting is critical also. Each member of the team should be encouraged to offer dissenting views and to evaluate ideas of everyone on the team critically. Asking team members to share deliberations with others they trust, then reporting back the reactions of their trusted-others promotes creative idea generation. Inviting outside experts to meetings to challenge thoughts, requesting members to play “devil’s advocate” to challenge the team’s assumptions, and examining closely the actions of competitors to anticipate possible scenarios are other strategies that prevent groupthink (PsySR).

If managed poorly, the consequences of conflict are negative and include reduced productivity, low morale, unprofessional conduct, and more frequent and persistent clashes. Constructive conflict leads to a heightened awareness of important business challenges, an improved focus on organizational priorities, a broader recruitment of employee talents, and an appreciation of the benefits derived from people’s differences (Managementhelp.org).

The adage “There are three sides to every story. Yours, theirs, and the truth” applies to conflict. Although we cannot control others, we do have the choice to examine ourselves with a critical eye and to listen to the concerns of others with an open mind. If conflict resolution were easy, we wouldn’t have wars, divorces, lawsuits, mediation, arbitration, or dissolved partnerships and friendships. Making a concerted effort to engage productively in constructive conflict seems a worthy goal. I can’t help but ponder what the world of comedy would have been like had Rivers and Carson worked through their differences.

Copyright © 2014 Carol R. Himelhoch. All rights reserved