The most important thing about us is the way we treat each other while we do the work. Organizational culture is simply the way people consistently treat each other. (This following post is… Continue reading →
If the recent U.S. labor forecasts hold up for 2020, we’re likely to see a tenth straight year of growth for early talent hiring. A recent study of 2,800 employers by Robert Half found that 83% of senior managers will hire recent college grads.
…
The narrative surrounding Hillary Clinton—during the lead-up to the 2016 election and in the soul-searching that followed—hinged on her likability, or lack thereof. Was she too shrill? Too ambitious? Surely she would have been more appealing if she smiled more often. Or perhaps it was the dowdy pantsuits and reported $600 haircut that did her in.
But in the years since, not much has changed about how we perceive female candidates.
In polls conducted by the New York Times and Siena College in November, the concerns raised over Elizabeth Warren’s candidacy in the 2020 election were all too familiar. Of the Joe Biden supporters surveyed, 41% echoed the sentiment that most women who run for president “just aren’t that likable.”
Even in an election cycle with an unprecedented number of female candidates, the nebulous quality of “likability”—among other attributes—hangs over the women making a presidential bid. Reports surfaced this week that Bernie Sanders had told Warren in 2018 that a woman couldn’t win the presidency, an allegation he denies. (In a statement, Warren claimed they had discussed what would happen if the Democratic nominee was a woman. “I thought a woman could win; he disagreed,” she said.)
Over the last six months, we’ve seen moments on and off the debate stage that reflect the experiences many women face in the workplace and beyond. Here, we take a look at some of the moments from the presidential campaign that hit close to home for many:
The men interrupt, the women wait their turn
In 2016, Donald Trump famously interrupted Clinton frequently when the two candidates faced off during debates. The dynamic echoed what many women experience in the workplace. A 2012 study found that male senators with greater influence held court more often than their junior peers, but the same wasn’t true for women. And when women speak up at work, they are often interrupted or ignored. (This even holds true in the Supreme Court, according to Harvard Business Review.)
Back in June, a similar pattern emerged when 10 Democratic candidates took the stage for the first time. At first, the men seemed to have done the calculus: The presence of three female candidates on the debate stage was unusual, and cutting them off or shouting past them wouldn’t make for good optics.
But soon enough, the male candidates couldn’t help but talk over each other. “It was likely a familiar scene for many women watching at home: the men in the room yelling over one another with abandon, and the women, for the most part, patiently waiting for their turn to speak,” Adrienne Greene wrote in the Atlantic.
The female candidates onstage—Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, and Tulsi Gabbard—largely spoke when the moderators addressed them. Their reluctance to interrupt, or push back when interrupted, seemed to reflect their experiences vying for airtime next to their male colleagues, and an understanding that they would be penalized for conducting themselves the same way. (Warren, in particular, may have been all too aware of criticisms that she comes off as a “schoolmarm.”)
It’s a double bind: Speak up, and risk being seen as aggressive, or stay quiet, and risk being characterized as invisible.
Just saying that every woman watching this debate knows what it’s like to have a bunch of dudes try to talk over her
— Kasie Hunt (@kasie) June 28, 2019
Gillibrand’s short-lived candidacy
Before she even announced her presidential run in March, Kirsten Gillibrand had weathered criticism for being the first Democrat to call for Al Franken to step down, after sexual misconduct allegations against him came to light. Many of his supporters have laid blame at Gillibrand’s feet, despite the fact that Franken made the decision to resign.
Gillibrand has long been vocal on women’s issues, leading many to see her as the “feminist” candidate, even in a pool of six women. According to an analysis by the Women and Politics Institute at American University, Gillibrand brought up issues like pay equity and reproductive rights more than any other candidate during the July debate.
But with her call for Franken’s resignation came a characterization that Rebecca Traister called the “seventh dwarf of female political personalities.” Gillibrand was swiftly dubbed an opportunist, for whom denouncing Franken was politically expedient and self-serving—labels that were often lobbed at the likes of Clinton. The framing of Gillibrand as an opportunist then came up during the July debate, when she questioned an old op-ed Biden wrote that claimed that when women worked outside of the home, it led to “the deterioration of the family.” Biden retorted by saying Gillibrand had previously praised his efforts around gender equity, and that he could only think of one thing that had changed since. “I don’t know what’s happened except that you’re now running for president,” he said.
I’m still recovering from Biden throwing all his “good on women” stuff at the wall and wrapping with “Gillibrand is an ambitious opportunist.”
— Irin Carmon (@irin) August 1, 2019
Of course, Gillibrand has since dropped out of the race, and many point to the fallout from the Franken incident as a key reason for why her campaign never quite took off. Gillibrand says the decision to end her campaign was sealed once she didn’t qualify for the September debate. “I think being able to have a voice on a debate stage, when other candidates have that, is really important,” she told the Times, “Without it, I just didn’t see our path.”
Warren’s pregnancy discrimination claim
On the campaign trail, Warren has repeatedly referenced a setback early in her career, when she claims to have been fired from her first teaching job because she was pregnant. Warren was six-months pregnant when the principal at her school said the job she had secured for the following year was going to someone else. In early October, right-leaning media outlets challenged Warren’s claims, citing her description of the experience in a 2007 interview and the contents of a transcript from a 1971 school board meeting, which indicated her teaching contract was extended.
Warren dismissed those questions, clarifying that the board decision preceded her termination, since she had hidden her pregnancy as long as she could. The skepticism of Warren’s claims could, in part, be chalked up to politics as usual. But it’s also a reflection of how allegations of pregnancy discrimination in the workplace are often received, despite data that supports an increasing number of claims in recent years.
By the way it’s 2019 and women are *still* told to hide their pregnancies or plans to get pregnant from prospective employers.
— Jessica Valenti (@JessicaValenti) October 8, 2019
These cases aren’t always clear-cut, especially in the corporate world, where pregnancy discrimination may take the form of, say, being passed over for a promotion. When people do take legal action—as tens of thousands of women have at companies like Walmart, AT&T, Whole Foods, and 21st Century Fox—employers can often find a way to rationalize their decisions and spin the case in their favor. Whether in a court of law or the court of public opinion, women like Warren bear the burden of proving their credibility.
Warren and Biden spar over the CFPB
During the October debate, Warren was the target of attacks from many of the presidential candidates who shared the stage with her—a response to her rise in the polls. But one interaction stood out: Late in the debate, Biden asserted that he was “the only one on this stage that has gotten anything really big done.”
Warren responded by talking about one of her signature achievements, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which she spearheaded after the 2008 financial crisis. In a move recognizable to many women, Biden cut in to claim credit for helping Warren establish the agency. “I agreed with the great job she did, and I went on the floor and got you votes,” he said. “I got votes for that bill. I convinced people to vote for it, so let’s get those things straight, too.”
This sort of an exchange isn’t uncommon. Men do tend to receive credit for women’s ideas, particularly in cases where they collaborate, and often their voices are heard more clearly. In this case, Warren didn’t take the bait, instead coolly praising President Obama. “I am deeply grateful to President Obama, who fought so hard to make sure that agency was passed into law, and I am deeply grateful to every single person who fought for it and who helped pass it into law,” she said.
Biden’s response was to imply Warren simply did what was expected of her—nothing more, nothing less. “You did a hell of a job in your job,” he said. Warren took a beat—likely to bite her tongue—and offered Biden a terse “thank you.”
That “exchange” between Biden and Warren. Women felt that.
— janashortal (@janashortal) October 16, 2019
The angry candidates
It’s little surprise that Warren held back when she faced off against Biden: In the weeks after that incident, Biden and Pete Buttigieg issued thinly veiled missives that painted Warren as angry—too angry. In a Medium post responding to Warren’s own criticism of Biden, Biden’s campaign said her “my way or the highway” approach reflects an “angry unyielding viewpoint that has crept into our politics.” (He also dubbed it condescending and “representative of an elitism that working and middle class people do not share.”) Meanwhile, Buttigieg accused Warren of being “so absorbed in the fighting that it is as though fighting were the purpose.” And that’s not the first time Buttigieg has suggested Warren cares more about the fight than she does outcomes.
Warren, for her part, tries to lean into this characterization. “I am angry and I own it,” she said in an email to supporters. But it’s a label that, when weaponized, can weigh down female candidates—and, more broadly, women in the workplace. “The casting of powerful women, especially those who open their mouth in rebuke or criticism, as worryingly angry or aggressive is of course all part of a very old playbook on how to discredit them by rendering them unappealing, unattractive, disruptive, and altogether unlikable,” Traister wrote recently.
Textbook sexism: Pete & Joe spend weeks attacking a woman who spends her days smiling and hugging people, who in addition to being a frontrunner is the top second choice of everyone else’s supporters, yet ~she~ is “angry” one? Warren can handle it, but the men need to be pressed. https://t.co/aZDFcPYxHO
— Adam Jentleson ???????????? (@AJentleson) November 7, 2019
During the November debate, Klobuchar and Kamala Harris seemed acutely aware of that double standard. (For Harris, it is compounded by the stereotype of the angry black woman.) Given the chance to address Buttigieg’s weaknesses on the debate stage, both candidates demurred—even Klobuchar, who has previously criticized his lack of experience. Instead, she segued into an observation thick with irony. “Women are held to a higher standard,” she said. “And I think any working woman out there, any woman that’s at home, knows exactly what I mean. We have to work harder, and that’s a fact.”
Klobuchar and Warren ask for forgiveness
By early December, Harris had dropped out of the race, which left just Warren and Klobuchar on the debate stage. (Gabbard, who has yet to suspend her campaign, didn’t qualify for the debate.) The last question posed by moderators was out of left field, but it unintentionally served a different purpose. Presented with the choice of whether they would ask for forgiveness or give a gift, the men onstage opted for the latter; Andrew Yang used the opportunity to promote his book, while the rest of the male candidates offered a variety of aphorisms.
Klobuchar and Warren, on the other hand, asked for forgiveness, alluding to characterizations that suggested they were too fiery. “I know that sometimes I get really worked up, and sometimes I get a little hot,” Warren said. “I don’t really mean to. What happens is, when you do 100,000 selfies with people, you hear enough stories about people who are really down to their last moments.”
‘Did anyone notice that in the final question, the women asked for forgiveness while men used the opportunity to shill their books? (Not all men, yes yes, but, you know, three.)’ @rachelsklar @CNN Who Won The Democratic Debate? Roundup: https://t.co/sB9KyxKJZp
— Cindy Gallop (@cindygallop) December 20, 2019
Klobuchar, who has faced scrutiny for her treatment of staffers, also seemingly apologized for, well, caring too much. “I would ask for forgiveness anytime any of you get mad at me,” she said. “I can be blunt. But I am doing this because I think it is so important to pick the right candidate here.”
The term “workaholism” was introduced in 1971 to describe the uncontrollable need to work incessantly, and it has the same meaning today.
Contrary to popular belief, though, workaholism isn’t so much about the actual hours that peo…
Polarization and conflict seem to be everywhere these days, and the workplace is no exception. When you spend a great deal of time with colleagues and managers, chances are that some conflicts are going to arise. Whether it’s disagreement on the best course of action to solve a thorny project issue, or a bigger-picture conflict over the direction of the company, finding common ground can be a challenge.
That may be why a 2019 report from online education company Udemy found that the No. 1 soft skill workers need is conflict management skills. The report says that we spend about 2.8 hours per week resolving conflicts, so we’d better be good at doing so.
“What I see at the moment is a lot of reactive, ego-driven behavior,” says mediator Louisa Weinstein, founder of the Conflict Resolution Centre, a mediation and training company. Of course, the behavior is most obvious in politics, but it also makes its way to our interpersonal relationships, she says.
If you’re at an impasse with a colleague, there are a few ways to approach finding common ground. Try following these six steps:
Assess the obstacles
One of the first questions you must ask yourself in trying to get to a place of agreement is what’s standing in your way, says Garriy Shteynberg, PhD, an associate professor of social psychology at the University of Tennessee. Is there some hidden agenda or reason that the other party would not want to compromise or try to get to a place of agreement?
“But there are cases in which people are motivated to disagree,” he says. “It’s not like you’re looking for common ground with a person that believes something opposite of you. Many times, what you really want is to cement your part as an identity. And that requires disagreement, actually not agreeing.”
If those types of dynamics exist, you may find yourself routinely in conflict, and it may be more difficult to find shared values and agreement. If that’s the case, you may need more third-party intervention or ground rules for engaging with the other person.
Know your top and bottom lines
Finding areas of agreement is a form of negotiation, Weinberg says. So, it’s helpful to understand what you want the outcome to be. “‘Actually, what are my top and bottom lines? What are my walk-away points? What are my alternatives?’ Start to think creatively about not just, ‘How do I get my way?’ but, ‘How can I create something good out of this situation?’” she says. This kind of scenario exploration is often overlooked by people in conflict, she adds.
Choose the right time and place
When you’re working toward consensus, it’s best to be calm. So, if you’re upset or irritated by a disagreement or comment, take some time to cool off, says Gina M. Weatherup, founder of Chantilly Mediation and Facilitation, a workplace conflict resolution firm.
When you’re planning a time to discuss the matter, to the best of your ability, allow enough time so the meeting isn’t hurried. If possible, choose a neutral location or opt for a change of scenery, like a coffee shop, or even a conference room, rather than someone’s office.
Get curious
Preconceived notions can be the enemy of progress when people are attempting to find common ground, says Jaime-Alexis Fowler, founder and executive director of Empower Work, a firm that provides counseling and support for workplace issues. Work on shedding what you think you know and become curious about the other person’s beliefs, values, and other motivating factors. “When we’re holding onto that perspective really strongly, we often forget to ask questions or get curious about why someone else also feels strongly,” she says.
Weinstein agrees and suggests putting yourself in the other person’s shoes. Ask each party in the disagreement what they really want, and try to listen to what they say. But also watch for visual cues or clues about what they may not be sharing. “What I say I might want to begin with may not be actually what I want. It may just be a way of showing you that I’m strong,” she says. Sometimes, people just want to feel empowered, heard, or valued.
Also, getting to know your colleague on a personal level—including interests, details about family members, hobbies, etc.—can also help interpersonal communication and collaboration, by creating a stronger connection.
Determine the type of disagreement
People typically have three types of disagreements, Shteynberg says. One is a disagreement on values, and another is a disagreement about what is good. Increasingly, the third is a disagreement on basic facts. It’s important to know the common ground you’re searching for first. Are you trying to align your values in the decision? Are you in disagreement about the actions that will create the best or most successful result? Are you even in agreement on the underlying facts in the first place?
As you ask more questions and have discussions, the type of disagreement may be clearer. For example, if you’re arguing that the best way to increase profits is to buy cheaper materials, but one of your colleague’s primary values is providing the best possible quality, you’ll likely have a different discussion than if your colleague doesn’t believe that profit margins need to be increased at all.
Bring in the right parties
If you continue to have trouble finding common ground, you may need to bring in a third party to help you navigate the situation, Weinberg says. Having an objective party in the room can help you defuse tension, get your points across, and identify areas of agreement.
“Mediators are kind of sorting boxes with a sorting box and will help you put the right thing in the right compartment so that you can then address it and prioritize it,” she says.
The public agency will continue to review the project, followed by more public consultation and then a final decision this spring
Kevin Carmichael: By showing some emotion over the Iranian air crash, McCain CEO nudges business leaders into realm of humanity
Frustrated at how to act on the environment? Focusing on what you care about and role models you know may sustain you and the environment most.
In every act of giving is also an act of receiving. In the workplace, people don’t ask because they dread the social costs of seeking help, or they prefer to be self-reliant.
Are you stuck in a loop of trying to be always-on, always-available, and always-informed? Figure out exactly what triggers the stress and discover how to stop the cycle.
