Author Archives: Dorothy Dalton

Is your job high risk for burnout?

Are you at risk for burnout?

Bain and Company carried out a study in 2010 “Flexible Work Models: How to bring sustainability in a 24/7 world”) which researched 3,300 professional men and women on the adoption and effectiveness of flexible work models. It found that a lack of availability of these type of programmes, as well as their poor utilization, can dramatically increase the likelihood of employees leaving their current company. It also makes the employee at risk for burnout. More effective implementation the survey found can improve retention of men by up to 25% and for women by up to 40%.

As we sink into a 24/7/365 availability culture, the notion of the “overwhelmed employee” has slipped into corporate vocabulary. Although women tend to leave stressful work situations more readily than men, with 40% reported to be hanging on by a thread, it is a gender neutral phrase, as we all struggle to balance the conflicting demands of complex modern life. This is overlain with high expectations for most of us (men and women alike), not perhaps of “having it all” but probably wishing to have a big chunk of it. In a recent online coaching session for women on creating career strategy the aspirations of all participants were significant. A satisfying well rewarded career, a home (maybe two) a fulfilling relationship, kids, cars (maybe two), money in the bank, hobbies, vacations, friends, pets, good health and more.

Interestingly, not one person present thought those aspirations were “ambitious.”

10 Steps to make you at risk for burn out

So what would cause an executive or any other employee who to the outside world appear to have a great career, mark them as high risk candidates for burnout and in need of a break?. According to the Bain report, a combination of just five of any of the criteria mentioned below, identify the hallmarks of a challenging work situation, which could lead to a need for a break:

Unpredictable work flow;
Fast-paced work under tight deadlines;
Inordinate scope of responsibility that amounts to more than one job;
Work-related events outside regular work hours;
Expected to be available to clients or customers 24/7;
Responsibility for profit and loss;
Responsibility for mentoring and recruiting;
Large amount of travel;
Large number of direct reports;
Physical presence at workplace at least 10 hours a day

How many boxes do you tick? Take the survey!

With a recent New York Times article calling corporate existence a White Collar Salt Mine, employees working in excess of 50 hours per week, can also contribute to the same feeling of burnout. This is of course without factoring in any of the usual domestic pressures or any other specific difficulties, which routinely crop up in most people’s lives and contribute to overall life stress or lack of well-being. With anecdotal evidence only to call upon I would dare to suggest that a very high percentage of the workforce will tick at least 5 boxes.

“Despite the fact that flex models are one of the hottest recruiting and retention tools, they aren’t sufficiently used at many organizations,” said Julie Coffman, a Bain partner and study author. “Companies can no longer get away with just offering cookie cutter options; they must tailor them to their employees and also provide adequate levels of support and resources to ensure better cultural acceptance.”

As all Gen Y research has indicated, Millennials want to work to live and not live for work and will demand greater flexibility than their parents from their organisations in the future.

Flexi-time options previously associated with supporting women to take care of their children, demonised as the fast track to career suicide, will of necessity move further into mainstream cross gender HR policy. As GenY becomes the dominant demographic, organisations will have to consider the provision of a full portfolio of flexible working programmes including parental leave, flexible hours, remote working as well as extended leave of absence.

It will also be interesting to observe if the corresponding reassessment of values and expectations is sustained.

Are you at risk for burnout and need career support? Contact me now

How to deal with the label Whistleblower

Leave a reply

Many people assume that “whistle blowing” is associated with high level governmental and corporate corruption. Images appear in our Hollywood fuelled imaginations of dubious, clandestine meetings held in underground car parks in the dead of night, with individuals wearing Dick Tracy style trench coats and fedoras.>How does someone cope when the organisation they work for and its leadership seems to have lost its moral compass? Many struggle when they have a livelihood to protect not knowing how far to pursue the situation within the hierarchy of their own company, when to leave and when to report these incidents to the authorities. How then do they deal with the questioning in interviews and the labels of “troublemaker” or “crusader?”

Questioning on reasons for leaving a previous job is normal. Wanting to work in an organisation which is aligned with our core values is also normal and a perfectly acceptable response to any questioning. It is at the core of any personal branding work. To respond in exactly this way, pre-supposes that any previous company was not meeting those values well, or even at all. There is no need to be overtly negative. This another case when less is probably more.

Need help dealing with tricky interview questions? Check out the individual coaching programmes.

Case studies

Simon was a hi-po marketing and innovation specialist working in the petro-chemical industry. He reported his company to the authorities when he came across evidence of bribery and corruption. He was “counselled out” and fears he has been blacklisted within the sector, as 8 months later he is still on the job market.

Martina, a junior tax accountant with a law background, highlighted some accounting discrepancies to her senior management and found herself suddenly moved to another division and location, with access to the files withdrawn. Unsure what she had uncovered, and having seen what she perceived to be “other grey areas” she decided to leave. She feels she is quizzed in detail in interviews about her reasons for leaving and wonders if she is being judged as a “trouble-maker.”

Cultural fit

If any organisation perceives a person with a high level of integrity to be a potential “troublemaker” then the cultural match is not right. Walk away and continue the job search. There is value to being a whistleblower and that is being seen as a person of integrity.

If there is a pattern of similar issues then there is a likelihood of being labelled as a “crusader”, which is quite different. But even that would also suggest that the cultural fit is not right. If you have a mission for exposing corporate wrong doing then there should be other more appropriate avenues to explore and its important to carry out the basic reflection about core values. A pacifist may struggle to work for a company supplying the military for example. A non drinker may not want to work for a company producing alcohol.

Making sure that a company or boss has values that are aligned with your own is important in any interview process and difficult to assess.

What would you do if your values were tested?

Need help with dealing with complex work situations – get in touch now.

Over communication: 7 reasons to learn “Mench”

8 Replies

One of the key messages across the board at the JUMP forum in Paris was gender communication differences and the impact this has on workplace mis-communication. Not one, but multiple speakers raised this issue, with a particular emphasis on over communication.

Hmmm.. I thought I need to listen this. Although for a woman I am reasonably direct and brief, I still have the capacity to deliver a monologue on something I feel passionate about. Some reseach shows that some women can twice as many words as men. We tend to speak in paragraphs, not sentences.

Many of us like to tell the whole story, every last word, down to the finest detail.

But is over communication strictly a gender issue? I don’t think so. I know any number of men who could talk for their countries. Women often make comments about the monosyllabic “report” style communication patterns of the men in their lives, thinking that the rapport we create via our own delivery is much better. But Lynette Allen, Co-Founder Her Invitation suggests that over sharing (over communication) can indeed be a female characteristic which we use to our detriment seeing it as an “unconsciously displayed behaviour which actively holds women back. They have to learn to be more succinct in the workplace and not tell the whole story and even more.” A recent article in the Harvard Business Review suggested what happened to a senior woman in a meeting ” was like a snowball going down a hill and picking up stuff in its path” and was a real barrier to being taken seriously.

This message made such an impact on me that recently in recounting a tale I asked in two separate instances if the listeners wanted the “mini- series” version or the “book cover blurb.” One was in a social context with old friends, who clearly wanted the total scoop. The other, was a more professional situation where an overview was requested. I’m going to make asking my new habit.

What is your style? “mini- series” or “book cover blurb.”

Click To Tweet

So why does over communication cause mis-communication, isn’t it important that everyone has all the details?

Your thinking appears cloudy and muddled if you are unable to be succinct and your message becomes blurred in verbiage. If you forget the point of why you’re telling something, you have gone seriously adrift. People stop listening and you fail to get your message across. You have become a snowball and snowballs melt. Ding!
It seems that you don’t respect other people’s time if you over communicate in any situation, you run the risk of your listener shutting down and retreating, either physically or psychologically. At the far end of the spectrum they will avoid you totally. In all cases your message is not going through. Ding!
It seems that you don’t respect your own time if every time a simple social question of “How are you?” produces a twenty-minute discourse on your health or what is going on for you, you give the impression of being a poor time manager. Ding!
It suggests that you are not in touch with your audience as you don’t recognise social cues. So just as if you were going to France you would try to speak a bit of French, If you are delivering to a male audience then try to speak in a language they will understand. Mench? Ding
It indicates a lack of empathy especially when you fail to pick up disconnected body language signs (loss of eye contact, fidgeting) If you are talking, you are not listening. Ding! Ding!
If you need to talk to wear someone down with your voice, then they are agreeing under duress. That was not successful communication. It could even be considered a form of passive aggression if you don’t allow your listener the opportunity to participate. Ding!
It suggests that you think what you have to say is more important than what others have to say and conveys arrogance Ding! Ding!
It confirms that you like the sound of your own voice, email etc. See point 7. Ditto Ding!

So does this mean that women and other chatterboxes in general have to learn “Mench,” the abridged…

Click To Tweet

Lynette felt that while organisational culture is male dominated this is a necessary work- around to get our voices heard. Isn’t this another one of those fix women things? No apparently not, it can be completely gender neutral. Factor in a general reduction in people’s attention span, then anything prolonged is going to be ineffective for both men and women alike. We have already seen the one minute elevator pitch cut back into the 30 second commercial.

So perhaps the converse can also apply Maybe we should start saying “OK that was the book cover blurb – now give me the mini-series”

What do you think?

Is there a place for parents in the workplace?

2 Replies

Indra Nooyi is one of the world’s most successful CEOs heading up PepsiCo and comes in at number 10 on the Forbes Power Women list. She has recently astounded me (and some others) by sharing her involvement with the parents of some of her employees, admitting to writing to them about the success of their children. At the same time she has also indicated that when she was trying to make an offer to a hard-to-attract candidate, she called the individual’s mother to persuade her to secure his/her buy-in. Apparently she succeeded. I’m not sure how I feel about the place of parents in the workplace.

Now, I am a parent, and I would be less than honest if I told you that I didn’t feel that special glow of pride when I get positive feedback on my kids even as adults. I do. It’s like going to a parent-teacher conference. Good reports are always welcome. Indra Nooyi is a very successful business woman and at a time when employee engagement in corporate life is reported to be at an all time low, I feel I should listen to her sage advice.

Yet there is something that holds me back

I can’t help but feel that the parent offspring relationship is not for the workplace, unless it is done at the behest of said offspring. No CEO, no matter how empathetic can ever understand a parent child relationship. It also begs a couple of other questions. At what age or level do you stop or start? What do you do with under performers or employees who don’t make the “writing -to- parents” cut? It’s a bit like not being asked to the class party. Should the whole class be invited? What about the employees who lost their parents or are estranged from them?

Surely the best way to let employee parents know how well their child is valued, is to tell the employee him or herself and allow them to share that news if they feel they want to. Any employee would be more than delighted to tell their mother ” Hey Mum guess who wrote to me today to tell me how great I am?”

When does persuasion become subtle coercion?

As for calling the mother of a candidate as part of the executive search attraction process, I am not sure if that is almost intrusive. When does persuasion become coercion? Once again the subtleties and dynamics of any family relationship can never be fully known or understood by an outsider. Some, even quite senior executives, as any psychologist will tell you, carry deep-seated psychological wounds from negative childhood experiences and relationships, from which they have never fully recovered. I have known a number of successful, grounded executives be reduced to passive, gibbering wrecks in the presence of an authoritarian father or critical mother.

Just as the helicopter parent should best stay at home, so perhaps it’s best to let Junior, at whatever level decide for him or herself,if Mum and Dad are brought into the loop.

What do you think?

Do headhunters exclude women?

Leave a reply

The Glasshammer in a recent post has written about how executive search companies and headhunters serve to exclude women. I read it with interest and the report it was based on “And then there are none: on the exclusion of women in processes of executive search,” which appeared in Gender in Management: An International Journal in 2013. Do head hunters exclude women specifically, I would say no, but they are not without culpability.

The client decides

As an executive search consultant myself it seemed to give me a significant amount of influence, which I’m not sure I really have. I wish I did. Head hunters are successful the world over, when they identify, attract and place first-rate candidates with their clients, who add sustained value to their organisations. In the sector we talk about finding purple squirrels and five legged sheep. If that’s what clients wanted, trust me, we would try to identify them.

If corporations wanted to hire women do you really think any consultant in the interests of their businesses would walk away from that opportunity? I don’t think so.

Many of the sources for the report pre-date 2009 and the sector has been revolutionised since then. A large number of the “old boy” head hunters have retired and corporates are increasingly sourcing candidates themselves via alternative networks especially online platforms.

Unconscious bias rules

Is there gender bias in the search and recruitment sector? For sure, just as we find every other sort of bias. Adverts are male coded, interviews unstructured and illegal gender based questions are shamelessly asked at every stage of the process. Recent E.U. research suggests that different emphasis is placed on the same criteria between and men in the interview process. A woman’s appearance is the third most significant element where a man’s appearance it is in eighth place. This issue is compounded in sectors where there are fewer women to be found.

Both corporate and our general culture is riddled with conscious and unconscious bias. Head hunters are consistently asked to make what I call “copy paste” placements – providing an identikit of what the client has asked for, usually the profile they had previously.

The profile will quite often correspond with the prevailing culture which more often than not will be male dominated. The document itself will be heavily male coded. Quite often the previous incumbent will also have been male.

Head hunters should at least have an awareness of their unconscious bias, be seen to be politically correct at all times especially in leadership roles. They should certainly not pose outlawed questions.

Time to hire

Occasionally there will be a rare manager who would be willing to consider or even insist on non-template options. But they are the exception. Usually one of the main talent acquisition KPIs is “time to hire” which means head hunters are measured on speed. Speed = cheap = low hanging fruit. But if head hunters were asked specifically to produce gender balanced short lists it would be a sign that the culture had changed.

Until that happens head hunters can get away with being lazy and uncreative and dipping into their network. There are no incentives for doing otherwise, because that is what the client wants.

What women can do to position themselves on the radar of any hiring manager and head hunters is to:

Create relationships with head hunters: many start this process too late waiting until there is a crisis when they become reactive, not strategically pro-active. Become an industry source or sector expert so any achievements are known to head hunters.
Establish a strong online professional presence: especially a complete LinkedIn profile. Although this has shifted over the years, men still predominate on this platform with women preferring to socialise on Twitter and Facebook. 90% of head hunters search LinkedIn for candidates so women need to make themselves more visible on this site.
Network: the invisible job market is a strong source for candidates for open vacancies, particularly at a senior level via network referrals. Research suggests the referral system produces male names. Women are reluctant strategic networkers but need to find ways around that to make sure they are well positioned inside their target sector.
Create a career strategy: this has been identified as one of the main barriers to career progression for women. Taking steps to plan ahead is important not to get caught off-balance at any point in their careers. Although it is impossible to anticipate every contingency. Many women don’t even have a general guideline to how they will achieve their notion of success (whatever that maybe.)

What have been your experiences in dealing with head hunters?

Need help identifying top women candidates and creating gender balanced short lists? Check out the executive search and research solutions Get in touch NOW

First Job Dictionary

4 Replies

During my many years experience as well as time spent as an MBA coach, I have encountered multiple cases of post- graduation disillusionment, with ex-students going through what I call F.J.S. or First Job Syndrome. Indeed I had it myself back in the day. Emerging from the intellectual hot houses of university or business school with so many like-minded people, as the promise of corporate excellence recedes, our first flush of euphoria is replaced by a nasty dose of career realism.

Where are those corridors of power?

Junior account executives are not closing those high-profile, six or seven-figure deals, but up updating the prospect data base via hour after hour of grinding internet research or cold calling. Trainee lawyers are not wheeling and dealing in the corridors of power, but pulling all nighters proofing deadly boring legal documents and checking precedents. My H.R. career started somewhat ingloriously with many hours spent in the photo copy room.

Why is there such a wide disconnect between the realities of working life and the expectations of the newly graduated?

The reality is that in many cases there are sure “tells” in the adverts for the position which we have all failed to see.

What we need is a First Job Dictionary to guide us through the pitfalls of our first months in our new jobs to avoid the debilitating and demoralising condition of F.J.S.

Here are 10 translations that I have identified over the years:

Hands on mind-set: you will have to do absolutely everything your self which will almost certainly involve hands, most probably yours. Anyone else’s is a bonus. (Get their number)
Flexible hours: you have complete freedom to arrive as early and stay as late as you want.
Challenging environment: our profit margins are down, our cash flow is non-existent and the boss is a sandwich short of a picnic. What can we say?
Attractive salary package and vibrant team spirit: we pay up to 20% less than the market rate but we do go to the pub at Christmas.
Regional training schemes: you are likely to be sent (on a train) to a remote outpost where its redeeming feature is that it is no longer a war zone.
Your strong interpersonal and communication skills will be an asset: many of the team are highly dysfunctional and some can’t spell. Be happy if no one talks to you and be worried if they do.
Strategic risk analysis: we have an office Dream Football team so with the World Cup coming up we badly need someone who knows things about soccer strategy and gaming. Strategic risk analysis is part of the Health and Safety function, clearly because it’s so dangerous and risky.
Exciting plans in the pipeline: we have absolutely no clue what will happen next week let alone next year (see points 1, 2, 3 6 and 9) which is why it’s so fun.
Multi- faceted experience: you will fill our four open vacancies. Don’t worry if you don’t have an Engineering degree. English and History work fine – what we really need is someone who can figure out how old everything is. So you do need to be able to read. Ideal really.
Open plan office: We are a 20 minute walk from the nearest train station. Plan a long walk in the open air.

So what other translations would you add to the First Job Dictionary for the Class of 2015?

Why the recruitment sector needs barriers to entry

Leave a reply

I am constantly being told about how recruitment and executive search organisations dismally fail to achieve any level of efficiency. They are frequently blamed as the reason many job seekers fail to get positions. I’m not talking about outright “gangmaster” type of crooked practises, but more about low levels of competence and professional ineptness which has been signalled as the death knell of the weakest in the industry.

More often than not I scramble to the defence of fellow professionals. But in other sectors there are clear barriers to entry, and I think these should apply to recruitment.

The development of LinkedIn and sophisticated Google search skills has given everyone open access to an unlimited online global data base. The value that recruitment agencies and search specialists add, is being able to identify and then attract the best talent from this morass of unqualified information. They then have to expertly assess those candidates and complete an effective triage of the top-tier to present to their clients.

If they fail to do this successfully over time, they will indeed eventually die.

However, I would go one step further say those bodies should not even be there in the first place.

Click To Tweet

A recent experience

This week I heard of the abysmal experience of a senior candidate who was involved a search process for a high level interim talent management assignment. The contact ticked all of the boxes, and then some so was interested to hear more about it at least. To be clear, the organisation approached her – not the other way round.

It wasn’t so much there were a few things not right with the process, more that everything (by that I mean everything) was completely and horrifically wrong. At every stage of interaction whether with the researcher, the admin and finally the consultant, communication was incomplete, inefficient or non-existent. Commitments to call or get back to her, were not respected. She took three hours out of her day to meet a consultant who had no idea why he was seeing her and for a position that had seemingly been filled in the meantime. A call to up- date her within 24 hours was not made and when she called him a week later he had no recollection of their meeting. The second promised call has still not been made. There are more dismal stories relating to the admin in between, but you must be getting the message about shocking service levels and the company’s understanding of their business.

This encounter is apparently, according to my other contacts, just a drop in the veritable ocean of diabolical experiences, that candidates are obliged to endure on a daily basis at the hands of recruitment agencies.

So agency incompetence indeed can be a reason for candidates not being processed correctly.

What do I recommend?

There should be barriers to entry with proven qualifications in the field. There has to be some regulation to prevent people who are not qualified, being able to set themselves up in business and calling themselves executive search consultants or recruiters. A LinkedIn profile and a lap top should no longer be sufficient. There should be some sort of qualification achieved after a period of study followed by examination. This is common in many professions such as accounting. Just because someone has worked in corporate H.R. for example, does not mean they can assume the role without any training. You would be surprised how many people conduct interviews and make selection decisions with no training at all. They may have industry and functional insights, but the specifics of conducting multiple searches simultaneously will be new to many.
When they are operational they should be legally mandated to provide minimum training levels for any staff. Candidate sourcing, development and attraction require specific skills. Interviewing and assessment require additional areas of more sophisticated competence. They are not divine gifts but can be learned, so therefore need to be taught by someone who knows what they are doing. Having remote employees working in isolation without supervision is also a recipe for disaster.
There should be a regulatory body to monitor complaints and performance. Persistent complaints should result in detailed investigation. Penalties should be imposed and if necessary they should not be allowed to operate and their license suspended or revoked.

Word of mouth and natural justice metered out organically by the business cycle is no longer enough to curtail this type of rogue operator to maintain high professional standards. They are still capable of doing a significant amount of damage to the profession during the time they are loose on the market.

Barriers to entry are the only way to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Do you have a device addiction?

1 Reply

I have both a lap top and an iPad and I notice that with each acquisition the device gets smaller, lighter and more portable. I then find myself checking my email and social media platforms more frequently than I did before. Do I have a device addiction? I’m not sure, but perhaps like any other addiction, if I am even pondering the question, then I definitely think I’m in the “at risk” category.

Checking in

One of the signs apparently that we are addicted to social media is if we check in the morning before doing anything else first. I confess – not quite first …but close! I charge my iPad in my kitchen and while I’m waiting for my coffee – I have quick check. I also confess to getting twitchy if I can’t access wifi. When booking hotels it’s one of my primary requirements, coming a close second only to a bed.

I have just bought a new phone. I am embarrassed to say that my old model cost £5 many years ago. To put this in context, in the mobile phone hierarchy it would have the same ranking as a social outcast. If it was a geological period it would probably get a Paleocene dating. I would never show it in public and certainly never put it on a table in a meeting. Many find this astounding for someone like me, but if I am not available by email or landline, then generally it’s because I am not available at all. In fact somewhat surprisingly I hardly use my mobile. I opened a text message wishing me a Happy New Year in March. Despite warnings about toxic signals next to my head, I use a mobile phone mainly for the alarm, plus the occasional emergency. I rarely know where it is and am regularly phoning myself to track it down.

So my new purchase needed to be upgraded, de rigueur, functionally effective and to meet my needs. When I canvassed my tech savvy friends and family about possible replacement choices I confounded them all by saying that I did not want to access my email on my phone.

Why? In case it sets me on the slippery device addiction slope.

I simply have no idea how I would be if I had a device that I could hold in one hand. I have become aware of seeing people checking their phones in all manner of situations which wouldn’t have existed years ago, Last night alone at the gym a woman was desperately trying to text or mail while doing a reasonably serious jog on a treadmill. The treadmill won. A couple in a restaurant instead of chatting, responded to alerts from their Smart phones more attentively than each other. The famous graffiti artist Banksys in his latest offering “Mobile Lovers” confirms this compulsive trend. How many of us have been forced to listen to banal intrusive conversations on trains, restaurants and supermarkets? Or watched people seemingly muttering to themselves in the streets with what appear to be surgically embedded implants attached to their heads.

Slide to open

This next comment has no basis in fact at all, but I think someone should do research on touch screens. I definitely think they contribute to the compulsiveness of checking messages. They are the equivalent of a threshold drug, stealthily drawing you in to a pattern of behaviour. There is certainly something in “slide to open” which is more inviting, tactile and almost sensual than pushing down on a hard plastic button. Research from Deloitte tells us that people check their mobile devices 150 times a day. Based on each “check” taking 30 seconds, I calculated that this simple compulsive action takes 75 minutes out of our days. Calculating what that amounts to on an annual basis is a horrifying 19 days. I use this number when people whinge about not having time to network or not having time for anything at all.

Compulsion

As an international debate gathers momentum about technology and mental health and whether excessive after hours contact by organisations should be limited by law, we also need to take stock of our own compulsions. Further research shows that employees in Canada and the U.S. cost companies $1.1 billion a week in time “spent browsing the Web, corresponding on social networks and personal email and keeping up with sports form a big part of that lost effort” according to BOLT.

So taking into account my declining control over my devices as they become smaller and more portable, I finally compromised on a model. It looks cool enough to take out of my bag without blushing and I can access email features in the case of an emergency. It has both a key board and a touch screen. You can already guess which I am gravitating towards. Whether this will be sufficient to curtail my “check ins” only time will tell.

Next step device anonymous?

How many times a day do you “slide to open?”

10 things networking and leg waxing have in common

1 Reply

You might be surprised, but the reaction that many people have to networking can be likened to the way they feel about having their legs waxed.

10 things networking and leg waxing have in common

The processes are identical in many ways that you probably haven’t even thought of:

The thought of it makes you cringe: both networking and leg waxing produce that response. Not many people feel totally comfortable doing either. The person for whom the phrase “walking dinner” is music to their ears is a rare body.
You procrastinate: well who wouldn’t? Choosing the right moment when you have such a busy calendar is always difficult when there are so many other demands made of your time. It’s not easy to prioritise.
You need a drink: well who doesn’t? It helps the pain.
It really does hurt: indeed both can be painful and nerve-racking.
You have to feel the fear and do it anyway: You really do. Why? The worst is over quickly. The pain only lasts a few seconds.
But the results are great and worth it: after both exercises and following through is certainly better than the alternative. You might be satisfied with a smooth satin finished leg or coming home with a number of helpful contacts or any other useful information. Or possibly you have been able to help someone you met at an event or function. Many people neglect their networks until they have a problem when it is too late and they pursue emergency solutions.
You wonder why you make such a fuss: in fact you feel pretty foolish at the barriers you put up. It wasn’t that bad at all.
You know you have to build it in to your grooming regime: you know deep down you have to make a strategic commitment to doing this regularly and incorporating the process into your beauty routine. It makes sense. The same with networking.
You have to do it again in six weeks: of course you do, because the lack of regular maintenance produces undesired visible effects and you run the risk of people not wanting to be around you, preferring the company of someone who is more attentive.
You make an extra effort for summer, vacations, anniversaries, special occasions: clearly there are special circumstances which require a special effort where you might be more exposed and therefore vulnerable.

What else can you add?

If you need help building a strategic network – get in touch NOW!

Leadership language – why political correctness matters

21 Replies

I am a huge tennis fan as many of you know, but was disappointed to turn on my television yesterday to see John Inverdale commentating on the Davis Cup match Italy versus Great Britain. Inverdale ignited a furore last year after the Wimbledon final when he suggested to an audience of millions, that because the new champion Marion Bartoli “was never going to be a looker,” tennis would have been one of her few options as a way forward. She was the one holding the trophy of course and despite some rapid back tracking, he was left with some serious egg on his face and reportedly facing the B.B.C. axe. However, it would appear he is still doing his job despite all the brouhaha. What message does this send out?

The power of leadership language

Unconscious bias, whether related to gender, race, appearance or age, is considered to be one of the most significant “known unknowns” in our cultures today, simply because it is so difficult to measure. One area where is it very self-evident in language usage. Our leaders whether male or female play a pivotal role in the gender balance and diversity policies of our organisations and wider cultures. It’s therefore important that public figures in whatever domain, lead by example. Their behaviour and language choice will be a key component in influencing public thinking and viewpoints to overcome subconscious bias which can exist in all of us.

“Example is not the main thing in influencing others. It is the only thing.” Albert Schweitzer

Ilene Lang CEO of catalyst talks about benevolent sexism saying “these benevolent stereotypes hurt women because they maintain inequality. Whether she’s the “little lady” or the “woman behind the man” or the soothing creature who exists simply to make men nicer, woman’s “natural” goodness becomes a rationale for why she should be protected from activities and occupations that require stereotypically “macho” qualities.”

In the workplace, all sexism and any sort of stereotyping whether, unintentional, overt, hostile or benevolent, acts as a barrier to prevent women and others fully contributing. The perpetuation of outdated views about women’s role and place in our current society is a strong factor.

Recruitment processes

In talent management where executive search and coaching contribute to the same degree the example of leaders is vital. After all it’s hard for women be” what they can’t see, read and hear.” Having open, bias free recruitment processes is a significant driver to achieving the appointment of the best candidates, whether male or female. It is surely the only way forward and therefore important that all leaders in the search and recruitment field play a role to achieve this.

I am constantly hearing about illegal questioning of women about their family circumstances a direct reflection of unconscious bias. All women want children and are therefore flight and engagement risks, right? I heard only yesterday how Salma an advertising executive was quizzed about how she would cope with a job and her five month baby. She suggested to the interviewer that the line of questioning was as appropriate as her asking him about his sex life. She was offered the job and turned it down. Not everyone is unconcerned about jeopardising their job search options. Another contact, a woman with no children in her early 50s, (in the full throes of the menopause to boot) was also asked about her family situation. The interviewer had no idea of her personal background and any extenuating circumstances. She should have registered a complaint, but she didn’t.

The recruitment process is the first experience a candidate has of an employer brand and is vital that everyone involved is correctly trained in today’s legal requirements and expectations which involves being politically correct, defined by Merriman Webster as:

conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated

Political correctness

In a recent exchange on Twitter, Greg Savage took me to task for my own ” political correctness” when I queried a post title “Suck it up princess. This as good as it gets”. I asked him quite mildly to be fair “Why not prince?” He responded thus:

Political correctness actually plays an important role. Yes, it can be tiresome to have to focus on changing our speech patterns which will go on to impact our subsequent thought and action patterns. It means we indeed have to think and let go of our old ways. This role and adherence to “political correctness” has finally succeeded in outlawing words like “nigger”, “Paki” and ” faggot” and a host of other pejorative terms that used to be in the daily common vernacular of most cultures. These words are now considered to be socially unacceptable and rarely heard in professional circles, or at least the ones I move in.

Language shapes how we feel and react. It’s a key pillar in the culture of change. The number of new words making the Oxford English dictionary every year is phenomenal. As we embrace the new, so we also easily let go of the old. It might take a while but people are pretty adaptable in this regard I find.

However the process also needs strong leadership. And leaders, especially those representing their organisation externally, whether in the hiring process any other way, or anyone at all in the public eye do have to ” watch their language.” All of this contributes to unconscious bias.

What do you think – does leadership language matter?

April 12th Addendum

In the interests of transparency following comments from Greg Savage (see below), please see the full Twitter thread.