I’ve collaborated for several years now on leadership issues with Diane Craig and Sandra Corelli at Corporate Class in Toronto, Canada. Their Power Up Your Presence interviews provide excellent tips for empowering yourself, especially if you’re a woman. Here is my interview with them on the launch of their new podcasts.
In November of 2007 at Huffpost, I described the “magic” of Joe Biden’s emergence in a debate. He rallied then when it mattered and surprised most of us again yesterday – Super Tuesday. What I wrote then applies yet again:
“Isn’t this the Joe Biden who jokes about how frequently he inserts his foot in his mouth? Yet this is also the Joe Biden who has been impressive not only in debate formats of late but in other venues as well.
If anyone came across as having the necessary experience to be President last night, it was Joseph Biden. He turned the debate around, away from pettiness, to focus on what matters to the American people when he said they care about making mortgage payments, their sons and daughters fighting in Iraq, crime, and keeping their jobs.
Who is this unmasked man? Suddenly he’s the candidate with the big picture, the one capable of articulating it as well. I don’t know about you, but I keep expecting him to say something completely off base, but he’s been focused. And his preparation showed – all thirty-five plus years of it…
Biden stood out, demonstrated depth, and connected with the concerns of real people. It’s inspiring to hear the views of this relaxed Joe Biden and to observe his class, searing intellect, dedication to country, and engaging humor.
I remain undecided. But Biden is growing on more than just me. Something very magical has happened to Joe. Maybe it won’t last. But it’s good for the country and a joy to behold.”
His “stunning” comeback as they referred to it this morning on CNN’s New Day, is akin to the emergence of that Joe Biden we saw in November of 2007. We saw that side of Joe again in the debate with Sarah Palin. I advised his team on that debate. How would Joe do in a debate with a woman? What was necessary for him to win? Here is what I wrote then.
Again, the magic emerged. There’s a long way to go for Biden and Bernie Sanders is an able competitor as we’ve seen, but yesterday we saw a John McCain moment when the underdog surged.
DAMNED IF SHE DOES is now available on Amazon! The audible version is forthcoming. A sequel to SHADOW CAMPUS, described by Forbes as a “fast-paced” and “masterful” debut, DAMNED IF SHE DOES nevertheless stands alone. Young professor, Meg Doherty, has kept a dark secret. When she stumbles upon the viciously murdered colleague at the heart of that secret, she quickly becomes the primary suspect. Kirkus Reviews calls this New York City-based crime mystery a “page-turning success.” Hope you enjoy it!
When I began writing my new novel Damned If She Does, Harvey Weinstein was still a powerful man and a threat to women who entered his broad sphere of influence. Women in all walks of life were largely keeping quiet about toxic work climates, let alone sexual assault. For some, the reason was fear. Still others were wracked by humiliation and self-blame. The majority had one thing in common: They knew they would likely lose in court and, perhaps worse, their family, friends and co-workers would never look at them in the same way.
Is today a new day? Certainly the Weinstein verdict is a wake-up call to men and women alike that when it comes to rape impunity is not guaranteed. This is big. Very big. But women without the financial means to seek justice and whose perpetrators are not famous will wonder if the price is still too high.
Wagatwe Wanjuki, an LA-based writer and anti-rape activist took this from the Weinstein trial and asked an important question:
“It really just highlights how hostile it is for victims. Weinstein doesn’t have to testify but the victims do, and they have to be blamed and detail really graphic details of really traumatic incidents,” she said. “This is why few rapists ever get arrested, very few are convicted, and even fewer go to jail … How do we move away from being dependent on a very traumatic process?”
Actor Rosanna Arquette’s takeaway was more salubrious. She said that women would not stop speaking out, regardless of what happens: “We will continue to fight for truth and justice, and we are always going to be here supporting all women.”
In Damned If She Does, these two sides battle in the mind of a young professor who finds her attacker violently murdered and becomes the primary suspect. If she shares her secret, will she pay too high a price even if it might help her case and ease her own guilt? Is it too late? Will her family see her in the same way? Her dilemma will continue to haunt women — ones I know — ones you know.
Yes, yesterday did change things. And perhaps as Weinstein is sentenced in New York and goes to court in LA, women who have nothing to do with his case will feel some degree of vicarious vindication. Others may be encouraged to step out of the darkness of secrecy and fear to accuse those who have abused them not just by the act, but for the rest of their lives in the reliving.
Michael Bloomberg’s candidacy has brought sexual misconduct to the fore again – with Elizabeth Warren facilitating the charge. According to Bloomberg, he has told bawdy jokes. He regrets and is embarrassed by them. But, he explained on The View, “that’s the way I grew up.”
Maybe so. But he is grown up and has been for a considerable amount of time. What voters need to know is just how deeply this problem is rooted. And whether what he has said to and about women are jokes at all.
Emily Martin, vice president for education and workplace justice at the National Women’s Law Center, explained: “When the leader of an organization has a pattern of making sexist remarks, whether they’re framed as jokes or whether they’re framed as putdowns, that not only impacts the immediate target of those remarks, it’s a message that goes to the organization as a whole.”
If we look at the Spectrum of Sexual Misconduct at Work (SSMW) that I developed to help assess levels of gender-offensive behavior, the concerning comments alone alleged to have been made by Bloomberg aren’t level 1 or 2 offenses – not even level 3. You can read about a range of them here.
Placing them on the Spectrum, it’s difficult to see how any of the examples commonly shared in the press are any lower than level 4, (Highly Offensive), and to the extent that they involve denigration of women the better fit is potentially level 5 (Evident Sexual Misconduct) of the 6 levels ending in Egregious Sexual Misconduct.
Yes, Michael Bloomberg’s philanthropic endeavors are laudable. But is Warren right? Will we be hearing the “drip, drip, drip” of serious sexual misconduct after he becomes the Democratic Party candidate? Is there a reasonable likelihood of this? In either case, he and his team should take a hard look at the SSMW, stop the bobbing and weaving, and honestly face the music now.
The short answer is: Yes. In fact, we’ve learned from Donald Trump’s election that anything is possible. So, why not a woman U.S. president for the first time in history? And I don’t mean to be facetious. Sexism is a serious issue, especially from Donald Trump should he run against a woman. The outcome of such an election, however, will largely depend on who shows up to vote, how enlightened they are about the issues that matter most, and whether hacking will once again play a significant role.
We’ve learned that there is a greater likability burden on female candidates and that their flaws and mistakes are fodder for many in the press who can’t seem to help themselves. As we read and hear such criticisms, we should remember that leadership is not the purview of males alone, though it has certainly been largely their prerogative.
After Donald Trump won the election in 2016, I posted this blog on Huffington Post about the gender issues that Hillary Clinton faced: This Should Be A Sexism Wake-up Call To Young Women. Hopefully, the 2016 election was a sufficient wake-up call for Americans to recognize that gender stereotypes can blind voters to what really matters.
After Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders deal with who said what to whom and in what manner about whether a woman candidate can win in 2020, our energy should be focused on making sure the task of choosing the best candidate to face Donald Trump is not side-tracked.
You don’t need to be an expert in communication to have seen another truth emerge during the impeachment hearings: Statesmanship has taken a huge hit.
Congressmen Nunes, Jordan, Conaway, and Ratcliffe, in particular, were apparently so desperate after hearing the duty-bound testimonies of Taylor, Kent, Yovanovitch, Miller, Williams, Vindman, Hill and Holmes that they shamelessly attacked their integrity.
We saw how far the Republican Party has come from its roots – adrift in a murky sea of vitriol. Representative Hurd, a Republican, disagreed with impeachment, but didn’t lower himself in his summary by disparaging witnesses.
Yet, how far so many others have fallen, choosing the low and pathetic route of personal insult in place of civility in search of truth.
The next formal stage of impeachment is not in the hands of the people. But nothing stops voters from writing to their senators and congressional representatives rejecting rampant incivility – especially aimed at people who did not choose to testify and who have quietly and admirably served their country.
Aren’t congressional representatives and senators supposed to be above this? Do they no longer care about setting an example? Is there no bottom to their deepening chasm of crudity?
There’s simply no excuse.
Watching Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch respond to hours of impeachment inquiry questions was inspirational. Here was a woman who fit what I’ve described in The Secret Handshake as having both a Purist and Team Player political style. She believed that doing her job in a nonpartisan way in service to her country was expected – indeed what she’d committed to under oath. It is also what she delivered, even when that meant literally dodging bullets.
Clearly, had she been left in place, not ripped from her ambassadorial position in Ukraine by President Trump, she would have been an obstacle to what increasingly appears to be his nefarious plans to influence the 2020 elections.
When it became clear that she enjoyed extraordinary respect from her colleagues, a smear campaign attributed to Rudolf Giuliani and the president was unleashed. Here is where they made a mistake common among those possessing power: They chose the wrong victim.
There is nothing quite like the truth combined with admirable values and courage. Yovanovitch not only had these on her side, but also clarity of thought and expression. Soft-spoken at times during the impeachment hearing, still feeling the pain of presidential mistreatment, betrayal and intimidation, she responded with palpable conviction, not allowing detractors to put words in her mouth.
Yovanovitch was the first through the gap, two representatives pointed out. Her willingness to come forward, to face a barrage of criticism, to be questioned, insulted by some of the most powerful people in the world, and to risk her safety, encouraged others to do the same.
There’s one thing I’ve learned first-hand about people with exceptional power – real or imagined: They often underestimate those they view as underlings. This is especially the case when the underling is a woman.
I’ve written about this in They Don’t Get It, Do They? And in my first novel – Shadow Campus. Such people attempt to terrify, assuming the target of their bullying will simply walk away. They enlist others to do their dirty work. Some threaten the target indirectly or by saying things like, “If you do anything about this, it will ruin your career.”
Sometimes such tormenting works. But women like Yovanovitch whose values are firmly set and whose accomplishments are indisputable, have power. So, when the opportunity presents itself, they come forward.
Yovanovitch received a standing ovation as she left the hearing. Another “wrong victim” made those who attempted to destroy her career on route to achieving reprehensible goals pay a stiff price – perhaps, despite the odds, even a lasting one.
In yesterday’s impeachment hearings we saw two men, William Taylor and George Kent, highly credible and deeply devoted to country, thrust into a limelight they never sought in their careers. They stepped forward to tell what they know no matter which political party it might offend, no matter how it might affect their lives and careers. They did this when others refused because they felt compelled to do so.
U.S. Senator and prisoner of war John McCain defined courage as a brief, singular occurrence: “that rare moment of unity between conscience, fear, and action, when something deep within us strikes the flint of love, of honor, of duty, to make the spark that fires our resolve.”
As I wrote in “Courage as a Skill” published in the Harvard Business Review, this definition conjures up an image of the hero who – instinctively, spontaneously, and against the odds — suddenly takes charge and stands up for what he or she sees as right.
Certainly, one type of courage is as McCain described. But more often courage is a special kind of calculated risk taking. It’s not so much an inborn characteristic but a skill that improves with practice. The less often we act courageously, the less likely we’ll do so in the future. Courage needs to be cultivated. If we see too little of it for too long, we can expect a lack of courage to become the norm.
What I call the “courage calculation” – assessing how and when to step forward rather than go with the flow – requires knowing and revisiting core beliefs and a willingness to defend them. It often involves considering the worst-case scenario and making a conscious decision that even that will not stand in the way of doing what is right as we know it.
Being courageous is tough, especially for people who don’t know how to calculate its benefits according to priorities. They lack a key skill. Courage for them is akin to walking off a cliff. And naturally they fear the fall.
Real courage is bolstered by thinking about ways to avoid the fall – knowing this isn’t the only job you’ll ever have, the last breath you’ll ever take – believing deeply, in any case, that you must speak up or take action to protect or to serve. It’s about remembering what you promised to yourself, your family, or your country. And then taking steps that are consistent with those promises.
True leadership involves courage – standing up for what matters most for the people relying on you. Without courage, leadership is empty – more about accruing wealth than guiding and empowering others. It’s false and the person who “leads” without courage doesn’t lead at all.
