The Wave

The Holiday Office Party – Recession Version!

I have a close friend in the hospitality business here in San Diego who says the bookings for company Christmas and/or Holiday parties are way down this year. In fact, I’ve heard that some hotel properties and swanky venues - which just a few years ago had their ballrooms and party rooms booked up a year or more in advance – have no bookings at all…zilch, nada, zero.

Does this mean that companies are not hosting parties this season?  No: that would be too Scroogelike, especially now that we’re seeing so-called “green shoots.” Company parties can be good morale boosters.   So, it’s more likely companies are planning to stage scaled-down, low-key events on their own premises, or in some senior manager’s home.

So, what could possibly happen at these small-scale-recession-era-office-parties that we all need to be concerned about?  Just about the same things that happen at the massive good-economy blowouts of yesteryear.

If there’s alcohol, someone will drink too much.  In this regard, I stand by the same three recommendations I’ve made annually since I started issuing these warnings 10 years ago:

1. Issue drink coupons (2 per person), collect all the booze in place and have someone dole it out.
2. Prior to the event designate and train a few “observers” who will not drink at the party and who have the ability to remove over-imbibers quickly and quietly.3.
3. Have a car service or taxis standing by for anyone who drinks too much and should not drive home.

- If there’s alcohol, someone will engage in inappropriate jokes or conversation.  This is trickier, more in the “gray” area, because one person’s hysterical joke is another’s offensive joke.  My recommendation: consider the party and its location as if it’s a normal workday meeting in a workplace conference room. If you think the joke you’re about to tell, or the political/religious comment you’re about to make might offend one of your listeners – or someone who happens to overhear it – for goodness sake, don’t tell it.

- Even if there’s no alcohol, people get emotionally sloppy at holiday parties.  Parties are an excuse for people to “let it all hang out,” when it comes to their feelings about others.  For many, the informality and conviviality of the event becomes an excuse to disclose a crush or a dislike: major and lingering embarrassment potential here folks!  Once again, those trusty and trained “observers” can play a useful role here – spotting discomfort (laughing a little too loud, or sudden silence) – and stepping in to change the conversation or group makeup before it all gets too awkward.

I like to party (and dance awkwardly) as much as the next person, so my apologies if this post is a serious downer.  But, better safe than sorry: with a few careful precautions our recession-era holiday parties can be the joyful, upbeat events they're meant to be. And if hosting a company party doesn’t seem right in these times of 10%+ unemployment, consider encouraging employees to donate their time and money to local or company-supported charities.

Merry Christmas, happy and safe holidays everyone!

Deport Them All?

Three years ago I was asked to write a research article titled “Can Diversity Tension Lead to Workplace Violence?” for a trade publication.  The request came shortly after the London bombings of 2005 in which British nationals who had become radical Islamists, exploded bombs in the underground and on buses.  My primary argument at the time: there are Muslims in many American workplaces, and whenever there is an attack on civilians that can be linked to terrorists who espouse extremist Islamic views, there will be an increased potential for violence against Muslims in our communities.  “Well, duh!” you may say, “That’s obvious.”

And indeed, here we are, one week after the Ft. Hood massacre and many cable news pundits, politicians and online “bloviators” are already branding Major Hasan a jihadist and terrorist, adding that Muslims ought to be banned from serving in the US military, and even rounded up and deported.  They point to the unproven allegation that he shouted “Allah Akbar!” as he began firing as proof of his radical religious views.  And yet, Hasan is an American citizen, born and raised here – yes, he was raised in the Islamic faith – but he is an American nonetheless and has every right to serve in the military and live in the country of his birth.

The fact is that until we hear what Hasan has to say about why he did what he did, no one will really know what his motives were.  Of course, many people of all political persuasions (including me) are fully prepared to accept that he really does espouse radical Islamist views – his Army colleagues apparently expressed concerns to each other about him for a number of years.  Maybe he really did decide to engage in jihad.But, from this we conclude that we need to round up and deport Muslims in America? That’s like saying we should have deported all Libertarians because Timothy McVeigh (the Oklahoma City bomber in case you’ve forgotten) espoused radical libertarian views and blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building killing 168 people in order to destroy the US government.  And that’s like saying we should deport everyone who calls themselves “Pro-Life” because a radical extremist in their midst decided to murder a doctor who legally performs abortions.

Oh, and what do we do about one quarter of all American Muslims who are African Americans?  Should they be deported too, or are they “OK to stay” because they’re “real” Americans?

The reality here is that this horrific act of violence is being used by “fearmongerers” and “fringers” with a cable news platform to advocate wholesale persecution of entire groups of people – including liberals - in the name of national security.  They forget that this is what authoritarian and fascist governments do, like the Nazi’s, the Khmer Rouge and the Islamic Republic of Iran.  We’re a far, far better nation than that, in fact we’re the greatest nation in the world because of our diversity, not in spite of it.

The Problem with CNN's Latino/Black/er...Others-In-America Series

CNN has just finished airing “Latino in America” the second of two major documentary/news reports on life as a “minority” in the US.  While I can easily acknowledge the intrinsic value of educating people about these large groupings, both series have had some unintended negative consequences.

The first is the myth of homogeneity – in other words, that when we speak about “Latinos” for example, the public jumps to the general assumption (which was briefly pointed out in the documentary) that all Latinos are of direct Spanish (meaning from the country of Spain) descent. 

Now, it is true that a large majority of Hispanics (separate from Latinos) have some Spanish ancestry, the reality is most Latinos are not of direct non–Latin American Spanish descent. In fact, many are not primarily of Spanish descent; and some are not of Spanish descent at all. If you think about it for just a second, you’ll realize that there are Latinos in America who have European ancestries (e.g. Italian, German, Polish), as well as Middle Eastern (Lebanese, Egyptian, etc.) not to mention Black, Native American, and Asian ancestries.

This brings us to the second myth – that the vast majority of Latino/Hispanic/Mexican-Americans are either first generation, or second or third generation descendants of illegal immigrants.  CNN’s own Lou Dobbs fuels this misconception with his fiery, inflammatory anti-immigration rhetoric (and he’s married to a Latina and has hired illegals to work his horse farm!).

Facts: In 2007 the US Census Bureau estimated (conservatively) that the number of residents who are immigrants (legal and illegal) was 37.9 million.  Of those, the Census estimates one third or 12.6 million are illegal immigrants (from all nations, not just Mexico or Central or South America).  But, it acknowledges the numbers of illegals may be much higher because they tend not to report themselves to census takers. Fair enough: but it’s this “not really knowing” that leads to news commentators like Dobbs claiming that we’re awash in “illegals” gobbling up all of our precious resources and jobs.

But turn that last figure around for a moment – it means that two thirds, or 25 million immigrants are “legal” – in other words lawfully here in the US!  And that’s not counting all of those who are second and third generation descendants of other “legal” immigrants. Now, of course, we could have a debate about whether or not American immigration laws are too liberal, but that’s a different topic, entirely.

My point is, when we start throwing labels around like “Latinos” and “Blacks” it’s human nature for our minds to immediately jump to the easy generalizations – often untrue – about these particular groups.  This is because most of us cannot instantly embrace the vast complexity of these hugely diverse communities: doing that requires having a lot of data easily on hand, and we’re just not wired for that.  And besides, CNN is trying to drive eyeballs to their programming – they have to make their show titles short and to the point, basically taking commercial advantage of our very human and unfortunate tendency to generalize about other groups of people.

At the end of the day, or programming, it seems to me a little "cultural competence" is called for. Essentially, if we’re to have a civil and productive public discourse on “differences” in this country then we first need to acknowledge that Latinos and Blacks and Whites and Asians and on and on… are simply catchall names for incredibly diverse and complex groupings of people; and secondly that we are – like it or not – a nation of immigrants, most of whom came here legally.

Besides, if anyone has a real right to complain about all of the immigrants taking up their precious resources and jobs, it's Native Americans.

2 Obama "Happenings," One Matters

Two major Obama happenings this week: 1. President Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize and 2. He speaks at the Human Rights Campaign annual dinner. One of these is much more important than the other, but it's not the one you might think.

Like many, I was puzzled by the announcement that Obama had won the prize.  But then I listened to what the Nobel Committee had to say about the award, and I realized that not only were they trying to acknowledge the political shift in the wind that his election had generated, but they were also trying to send some messages to him and the world at large: stay the course you've charted Mr. President on international dialogue for peace and nuclear non-proliferation.  Were they also giving the global finger to "W" - you betcha.

But,in the final analysis, Obama winning the prize isn't going to change much of anything.  Obama charted his path a long time ago; he doesn't need the Peace Prize to goad him in any new direction. And, for the second time in 2 weeks, I find myself agreeing with conservative columnist David Brooks of the NY Times who opined that the awarding of the Peace Prize to the President was just so much political posturing and that people who are inclined to value it will take heart and people who don't like moderates, liberals or international foundations who give the finger to conservatives and right-wingers are going to ridicule it and them.  So, the Obama win ain't much of nothin' - it doesn't matter. Which is too bad, because I think the Committee devalued it just a bit.

Now, Obama reiterating that he's going to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the US military - now that's something important.  I mean that.  The greatest nations in the world have gays and lesbians openly serving and doing so proudly and with distinction in their military.  A diverse array of senior officers in the Pentagon have all repeatedly said that purging gays and lesbians from the military under "don't ask, don't tell" is demoralizing and undermines unit cohesiveness. And at a time when we're fighting two wars: we need every able and willing person to sign up to serve regardless of sexual orientation.

Obama said to the assembled activists at the dinner: "I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration."

No one will ever convince the right nor the wing-nuts to feel good about Obama, but judging from the thunderous cheers from the guests at the dinner, just about everyone else is happy with his re-stated commitment. Now, that matters.

Mom vs. Meltdown

If you were on this planet during the last two days, you probably heard that Serena Williams, undoubtedly one of the best tennis players ever, had a meltdown on Saturday night while competing in the US Open.  Her profanity-laced explosion occurred after a line judge called Williams on a foot fault during a critical moment in her semi-final match against come-back mom, 2005 US Open champion, Kim Clijsters.

What got lost in the deluge of F-bombs Serena poured on the judge, and her resulting forfeit of the match, and the $10K fine and the storm of media/blogger attention, was that Clijsters had only just returned to professional tennis this past May after having a baby two years ago.

Their match was a study in contrasts throughout – Serena was often angry, foul-mouthed, and volcanic (not just after the controversial call) whereas Kim was calm, cool and playing what she twitted was “the best match of my career.”  If you follow tennis, you know that Serena’s temper is well-known; in fact commentators like John McEnroe (a tantrum master himself) have often remarked that Serena has been able to channel her anger into a come-from-behind win.  Clijsters on the other hand, wasn’t particularly known for outbursts, although before she left tennis to have her daughter, she was occasionally heard to complain that she didn’t really enjoy the grind and stress of the professional tour; that she “wasn’t enjoying it.”

Generally, I’m inclined to believe that in high pressure situations at work (and trust me, professional tennis is work!) most of us have the capacity to “lose it” like Serena did.  The stories about CEO’s, managers and even employees going completely gonzo are legion – most workplaces have a collective memory of one or more of these cringe-making events.  And yet I think we’ve all met at least one manager or supervisor who could keep their heads while everyone else around them was losing theirs.  These calm, focused people are almost universally held in the highest esteem, and if they leave the company, everyone sees it as a great loss, often chanting the mantra “this place will never be the same without them.”

How does this happen?  How are some people able to draw deep from the well of emotional intelligence during a crisis while others revert to infancy?

There’s a part of me that thinks a few lucky people are simply wired from birth to calmly and effectively respond to major crises; while another part of me desperately hopes that this incredibly valuable skill can be learned.  I’m sad to say, I definitely didn’t get that skill at birth.  However, I’m often called upon by clients to help with situations where people have lost control and been abusive and I’ve been able to mediate a successful, effective resolution. I guess I’ve learned how to keep my cool when I don’t have any “skin in the game,” or as my Navy buddies say, “a dog in the fight.”

Unfortunately, most of us are forced by sheer dint of employment to play in this life-long game called work.  Occasionally, we find ourselves in a high-stress situation, like Serena did, where totally losing it completely seems like something we just are driven to do.  In her case, she forfeited the match while Clijsters kept her cool.  Kim went on to win the Championship and after the award ceremony, her 2-year old daughter came down onto the court to play with the bright silver cup mommy had just won while all the world smiled. An incredible moment of sheer joy for all.

So, it makes me wonder: has anything measurably good ever resulted from a manager or employee completely losing control at work?  I kinda doubt it.

Are We Past This Race Thing Yet?

As I relax this Presidents’ Day weekend, I recall that a good friend of mine – a highly educated, politically savvy, conservative, straight white guy around my age – looked me in the eye last September and declared with total confidence that “America isn’t ready for a black President.” Obviously, he was wrong.  But I’m sure there were plenty of Americans – on both sides of the aisle - who were saying the same thing back then.

And when I saw him again a few days ago, I reminded him of his declaration and he cheerfully admitted he’d read the tea leaves incorrectly.  “The best candidate won,” he said with equal confidence.  And then he added, “Perhaps our country is finally past this 'race thing'.”  I think he’s wrong again.

One look at the statistics will tell you why.  Even though they comprise only 12% of the US population, according to the latest US Department of Justice statistics, blacks are almost three times more likely than Hispanics and five times more likely than whites to be in jail. Black unemployment is twice that of whites.

And according to the US Census Bureau, in 2007 black households had the lowest median income - $33,916 - while non-Hispanic white households had a median income of $54,920. Interestingly, Asian households had the highest median income ($66,103). All of these numbers are trending to worse under this economy.

It seems to me that although we are more than willing to accept a black man as President, and blacks have made significant gains in every part of our society, we are still very much a country divided along lines separating blacks and whites.  Why is this?

Well, part of it has to do with simply being human; it's a tribal thing.  Despite our technological advancement in social networking, and despite television shows and commercials depicting people of all races interacting without racial tension, humans still do tend to congregate along racial lines.  Whites hang out with whites and blacks hang out with blacks, even in very diverse environments like universities.

In his book, “Dreams from My Father,” Barack Obama attributed this very human tendency to a kind of mental exhaustion – a need to relax and “stop worrying” about what whites were thinking about them - by black students at Occidental College where he spent a year and a half as an undergraduate.  My sense is that that need to take a break from worrying what other races are thinking about each other is never going to go away.

As a white guy, I admit that sometimes when I am hanging out with people of color, I have to check myself; I think a little more carefully before I speak lest I say something that might be interpreted by them as offensive.  This takes effort, no question about it. Now, I like to think blacks do this self-regulation too, making sure they don’t spout something offensive about whites in front of me.  But somehow, perhaps because I am aware of America’s history of slavery, segregation and racial injustice wrought by whites upon blacks, it feels like the burden is much more on whites to clean up our proverbial act than it is on blacks.

I wonder what our greatest Presidents – Washington, Lincoln, Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, would make of the current state of racial play in America.  Perhaps they would be shocked. Or perhaps they would say, “What took you so long to elect a black man President?” But I don’t think they’d be surprised by the continuing racial income, judicial and societal disparities that are still very much with us.

So, are we past this “race thing” yet?  Not by a long shot. But the good news is that by electing a black man President, we’ve made a very substantial leap forward.  And that’s something very positive to think about this President’s Day weekend during one of the most serious downturns in our economy ever.  We could sure use it.  So, happy Presidents’ Day!

Fair is Fair

When President Obama signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law last week, which essentially restores a woman’s right to challenge unequal pay, a whole lot of people muttered “It’s about time.”

Demographers had been tracking the disparity since the 1960’s. Early surveys showed that women earned 71 cents for every dollar earned by a man in the same job. Then it went up to somewhere around 80 cents under Clinton and then back down under “W”.  Ledbetter, who worked for Goodyear Tire and Rubber, sued her employer for back pay and had her case go all the way to the Supreme Court.

Dominated by a Republican "rules-are-rules" majority, they ruled against her on a technicality –because she’d filed her claim too late, not because they disagreed with a lower court’s finding that she was indeed wrongfully discriminated against by Goodyear.  Jeesh! This is like your newspaper editor saying he won’t run your exclusive story finally naming who killed Jimmy Hoffa because you didn’t submit your copy on time.

In any event, my sense is that this is somewhat of a Pyrrhic victory. I don’t imagine in today’s crappy economy that the nation’s employers are going to dive into wholesale compensation and benefits analysis to root out inequality just because of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.  I think we’re going to have pay disparity for a long, long time to come.

But, I do think that the Act will have a subtle educational impact on our society in general. Ordinary people who finally heard about it on the news last week probably grunted, “Jeeze, I didn’t know that women got paid less than men for the same work.  Hell, that’s not fair.”  And they’d be right.  But for too long it was only the National Organization for Women who was banging the drum on this.  And because of its perceived left-wing tilt, many of these same ordinary folks probably discounted the notion, chalking it up to “femi-nazi” rabble-rousing or some communist plot.

But it’s not; it’s just fair.  And as everyone knows, fair is fair, meaning paying women the same for the same job looks good and is good. I’m pretty sure everyone in the vast middle of American politics will get on board with that.

Racial Politics

The whole race argument around Governor Blagojevitch’s  appointment of Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris to the US Senate is tiresome and unfounded.  Even Burris himself was quoted by Senator Harry Reid as saying “Hey, this is nothing racial. Do you understand that?”

So, why is there this mist of racial politics hanging around this thing?

Well first of all, part of this has to do with the media, which are always looking at news through the lens of racial conflict which tends to draw eyeballs whenever mentioned.  I’ve bitched and moaned about this media bias ever since I was a freelancer for the BBC and British newspapers in the late 1980’s.  But rational arguments on behalf of balanced coverage be damned – “if it bleeds, it leads” as newspaper editors like to say.  And nothing bleeds like racial conflict.

It’s also really easy for cable news talking heads to ask the question “is there a racial component to this problem?” and punt it around with grave seriousness for a few news cycles without any definitive yes or no conclusion.

But, the question of the Senate having a racial bias against Burris also has a hell of a lot to do with who brought it up in the first place; none other than Illinois Congressman Bobby Rush, who used the racial hot-button codeword “lynching” in Burris’ press conference.

(email continues here...) Now, I have nothing against Rush at all and apparently he’s been serving his constituents in Chicago’s South Side – which has a higher percentage of African Americans than any other congressional district in the nation – very well. Hell, they’ve been returning him to Congress every two years since 1993.

But, we should also take note that Rush was co-founder of the Illinois Chapter of the Black Panther Party and very active in the civil rights movement.  And, right before the Burris appointment, he also made it abundantly clear that an African American – not just any old qualified candidate, but specifically an African American - should fill Obama’s vacant Senate seat.

Basically, what I’m saying is that Rush, like each of us, looks at life through a number of different lenses – one of which is most certainly about how African Americans have gotten the proverbial shaft every which way to Sunday since the founding of this great country.  And the fact the nation’s most exclusive club, the US Senate, could really benefit from more diversity, adds some fuel to this fire. Fair enough.

But, on his own merits, and according to everyone who knows anything about these things, Roland Burris is eminently qualified to replace Barack Obama in the Senate.  If Gov. Blagojevitch wasn’t such a fool (see my previous post: Stickier and Stickier Fools) then we wouldn’t be discussing Burris’ appointment at all.  It would have been a done deal last year and we’d be on to other nonsense.

So, if we’re going to ask “Who’s behind the racial debate around the Burris appointment?” it’s just really important for us all to bear in mind that old saying… “Consider the source.”  In this case, it’s the media and Congressman Bobby Rush.

Sticky & Stickier Fools

As the author of Bad Behavior, People Problems & Sticky Situations, I’ve been watching the whole mess around Governor Blagojevich knowing that sooner or later I’d feel compelled to weigh in.  It’s later.

First off, the Governor should resign, not necessarily because his behavior teeters on the edge of blatant corruption, but more because he’s been and continues to be a fool.

Everyone – yes everyone! - knows that “pay to play” is extraordinarily common in politics (hell, in Washington DC it’s a parlor game as old as gin rummy).  But almost everyone, excluding perhaps the Governor and his wife, is aware that it’s simply bad form to openly discuss the practice with casual acquaintances and other “emissaries” who are desperate to curry favor.

Our great nation has a documented history of high figures stooping very low for personal financial gain.  But lately it seems that everyone is getting into the act by hitting new nadirs in the most egregious manner: executives at AIG, politicians, even Presidents of prestigious universities.

Since it’s entirely possible that every candidate I ever supported engaged in some kind of pay-to-play practice, there’s no point in me condemning it.  It is what it is.  But I do condemn people for being total fools about it.

Blagojevich was foolish when he blatantly tried to auction off Obama’s vacant Senate seat, and he continues to be a fool by not apologizing and stepping out of the way of the political and legal juggernaut thundering down on him. Former New York Governor Elliot Spitzer – caught with his hand in the prostitution cookie jar - was being foolish too. But he wasn’t brought down so much by pay-to-play but by what I’ll call pay-and-play (and pretend that he’s a moral leader above reproach). And in another variation of the game, it’s pretty clear that Governor Palin was involved in a kind of ideological play-or-pay scheme, in which those who didn’t play nice with the Governor (and her husband) paid the price with their jobs.

So when it comes to playing around… birds do it, bees do it, even educated sleazebags do it.  Let’s admit it, manage it, and even try to tamp down on it.  But for everyone’s sake, let’s at least try not to be fools about it.

Cutting Back the Wrong Things at the Wrong Time

It's very typical during economic hard times for companies to cut back on what senior management considers "fluff" or "nice-to-have's" like training or R&D efforts.  "We've got to cut down to the bone and survive," they say, "We can always do training in better times." But according to the management guru, Tom Peters, this is exactly the wrong way to go:

"Instant, mindless cutting of R&D or training or sales-force travel in the face of a downturn is often counterproductive - or, rather, downright stupid. Tough times are in fact golden opportunities to get the drop, and the long term drop at that, on those who respond to bad news by panicky across-the-board slash and burn tactics and moves that de-motivate and alienate the workforce at exactly the wrong moment."

Among all management gurus, Tom Peters is most associated with managing during bad economic times. His "In Search of Excellence" was published amid the sharp recession of 1982, and "Thriving on Chaos" debuted on Black Monday in 1987. On TomPeters.com, he recently wrote about running a business in a time of "significant and sustained economic disarray."

Peters is essentially arguing that slash-and-burn cutting is incredibly counter-productive: it demoralizes employees, devalues the work of so many important people and negatively impacts productivity.  Instead, continuing to fund training - especially training on how to manage people and processes through a tough economy - will provide employees with new insights and ideas, invigorating them and the company.

I've always said "when times are tough, people get tough on each other."  So instead of cutting back, give them the training and tools they need to cut each other some slack, work together and bring success to the company.