WHEN THERE'S AN ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM, DO YOU CALL IT OUT?

When working on a group project with others, do you go out of your way to avoid conflict? Too many of us believe that being conflict-averse is a good thing. We seek to be in the company of others who agree with us and like our ideas. Similarly, when in the presence of these like-minded people, we all too eagerly express our liking for and agreement for their ideas. If given the option, we find that we want our own company, that is, we desire to work with those whom we believe to be most like ourselves. We find it comfortable. Comfortableness, however, should give us a sinking feeling, much like "sinking into a soft and cushiony sofa--it can lead to inertia--and make it difficult for us to get up and get going. In reality, it is member differences, not their similarities, that make project teams work. It is what drives them forward.

Each of us brings something special--something unique--to the teams we are on; it is our different strengths and insights that our teams need to achieve their goals. Expressing different points of view, being direct in disagreeing and honest in assessing alternative courses of action, being willing to call out the elephant in the room rather than pretending it does not exist, that keep a team from drifting into dysfunction. Simply put: When we all think alike, we're likely not doing enough thinking. Dare to think different! Not everyone may like it, but they will like the results that your challenge fosters.

The Communication Power of Looks

“LOOKISM” is the preferential treatment given to those who conform to social standards of beauty. It is gender-neutral affecting both men and women alike. It tells us that we tend to perceive those judged physically attractive as more competent and socially graceful that those not so endowed. Because of that, people perceived as "good looking" tend to acquire more friends and have more sex, and more money. According to one economic study, being in the top third in the looks department delivers a 5 percent bonus while being in the bottom 9 percent delivers a 7 to 9 percent penalty.

            Interestingly, a dental assistant  was fired by her dentist boss some years back simply because he judged her to be too attractive, too tempting to pass unnoticed, and he was worried that if he didn’t fire her, he would end up having an affair with her.

            The dental assistant sued the dentist for sex discrimination. The district court in Iowa dismissed the case, contending that the dental assistant was fired not because of her gender but because she was a threat to the dentist’s marriage. The dental assistant appealed, only to have the Iowa Supreme Court uphold the lower court’s decision, maintaining that an employee can be lawfully terminated if the boss views the employee as an irresistible attraction.

Point: Discrimination based on beauty is rooted in the same sexist principle as discrimination against the ugly. Both lie in the power of the male gaze—the fact that men’s estimation of beauty is the defining feature of the category. Lookism may be gender neutral; the workplace, however, may not be. In too many workplaces, the glass ceiling is being reinforced by a "looking glass".  Think of those model-thin pharmaceutical sales reps for example, whose job is to persuade physicians to prescribe their products. It seems that in contemporary society we face the Goldilocks dilemma: you can’t be too cold or too hot—You have to be “just right.” Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but in the workplace, the beholder is endowed with a “Y” chromosome.

         How do you suggest we remedy this?

(For background, see Michael Kimmel, “Fired for Being Beautiful,” The New York Times, July 17, 2013, p. A25)

HOW SHOULD HIRING DECISIONS BE MADE?

You are competing for a job. You are one of many candidates qualified for the position. How do you become the company's candidate of choice? Will your "human skills" like being able to carry on an intelligible conversation and being adept a reading social cues make a difference in your being selected?

Interviewers are people too--complete with implicit biases that can affect the hiring decisions they made. Perceiving you to share similarities with them--perhaps you attended the same school, have a friend in common, or enjoy playing the same sport--could incline an interviewer to view you more favorably than other candidates.

But what happens when the decision is taken out of human hands and automated instead? Might an algorithm encoded into software precipitate better hiring decisions than a human interviewer? Could the use of technology actually help to increase workplace diversity as opposed to workplace homogeneity. Or are some of the human qualities necessary to succeed in the workplace uncodable--like gut feelings and human chemistry? And what about the biases we worry about in interviewers, might these not be as likely to exist in the created software--since humans did the coding.

In your opinion, what really determines your cultural suitability for a job, and who should decide if you have what's needed:  a person or a computer?

(See Claire Cain Miller, "Can an Algorithm Hire Better Than a Human?" The New York Times, June 25, 2015.)

TRUTH BE TOLD

What is lying's role in relationships? How important is it to tell others the truth and have them tell you the truth? Do our relationships last because we tell the truth? Or, is it feasible, that they last because we don’t? And if we don’t tell one another the whole truth, does that mean, in truth, that we are lying to each other?

But do we even know when we’re lying? According to research studies, many of us tell at least a couple of lies every 10 minutes. That’s a potential 18 lies per hour. Is it even remotely possible that we do this without realizing it? For one thing, there are different kinds of lies: we have lies of commission (we tell outright lies) and lies of omission (We don’t reveal the complete truth).

We also have different motivations for lying. Sometimes a lie is self-protective—we lie because we don’t want to get into trouble, embarrass, or expose ourselves. Other times, we lie to protect another person’s feelings or because we don’t want to reveal what we are really thinking or feeling about him or her. Is there such a thing as being “too honest”—that is, telling another person too much truth? Maybe there are untruths about ourselves that we need to believe are true for us to continue to function and be happy. 

Thus, we may perceive some lies as acceptable because they help shield us from truths we don’t want to or are not strong enough to face. That also means that we may perceive those lies that protect the liar but not the person being lied to as bad. However, it may be that both good and bad lies exist only in the eye of the beholder.  If so, are the lies you tell yourself more or less harmful than the lies you tell another person? And once you have told that lie, does “coming clean” ever really wipe the lie-slate clean between you? Or if discovered by the person being lied to or revealed by the liar, is the lie an irrevocable destroyer of personal credibility and therefore trust? Where do you stand on this question?

RACE AND YOUR BRAIN

Though many speak of our society as post-racial, others contend that because of how our brains are wired, racial divisions persist. It appears that whether we are young, middle-aged, or senior citizens, we have a natural propensity to categorize faces by race. And we do this within one-fifth of a second of seeing another person’s face.

When does this bias start? It begins very early in life. Infants as young as 3 months old, whether they are white or black, prefer to look at faces of people drawn from their own race. Apparently, once we learn to distinguish “in-group” members from “out-group” members—it is a challenging lesson for us to unlearn. In fact, when shown faces of people whose race is ambiguous, if the face is smiling, we judge it to be the same race as we are, but if it is frowning, we judge it to be of another race.

With one exception, virtually every ethnic group is biased in favor of its own. The exception is African-Americans who do not appear to have an in-group bias, but remain essentially neutral. The question is: What can the rest of us do to prevent ourselves from displaying a predisposition in favor of in-group members? Cross-race friendships can help as can being exposed to images of and hearing stories about heroic people from other races.

(See Nicholas Kristof, “Our Biased Brains,” The New York Times, May 7, 2015, p. A29)

DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A SUCCESS?

An American Express survey suggested that Americans define the nature of success differently than in years passed. Being in good health, finding time for the important things in life, having a good marriage/relationship, and knowing how to spend money well are part of the new definition, replacing material success signposts such as wealth and concrete achievement. Supporting this switch, “The Third Metric: Redefining Success Beyond Money and Power” conference spearheaded by Mika Brezezinski and Arianna Huffington, reinforced that our old definitions of success simply no longer work. “More, bigger, better—we can’t do that anymore,” said Huffington. In a commencement address she had driven this message home: “Right now, America’s workplace culture is practically fueled by stress, sleep deprivation and burnout.” Huffington's suggested solution: to create a movement that embraces the notion that physical and spiritual wellness are essential for a successful life. In support, she references the two nap-rooms available for Huffington Post employees. A 2^nd solution: to build workplaces that reward empathy and kindness. 

Wouldn’t it be nice if leaders incorporated such ideas into public policy, or at the very least, into all workplaces? 

            The Nonprofit Families and Work Institute cites six criteria necessary for an effective workplace: challenging and learning on the job, autonomy, work-life fit, support from a supervisor, a work climate of respect and trust and, of course, economic security.

See Alina Tugend, “A Budding Movement to Redefine the Successful Life,” The New York Times, June 15, 2013.