Diversity or Adversity

Tonight, I'll be discussing the topic of diversity with my students.  All in all, it's a fairly diverse class for an undergraduate section.  We have representation from multiple cultures and races and a good split between genders.  I'm trying to figure out how to make workplace diversity real to them.  How will I put them in the shoes of a store manager who is having a communication conflict with a hearing-impaired customer?  How do I communicate the anxiety of somebody who opening up about her sexual orientation?  How can I portray the feelings of somebody who perceives that he's being discriminated against based on race?  How should I approach the subject of somebody who feels inferior because of a lack of education?

We can talk a good game about tolerance and acceptance.  We can discuss how there are two remaining viable candidates left within the Democratic candidates and neither is a white male.  We can cover some "really meaningful" case studies.  But how can I help them see that true diversity is NOT about adversarial conflict?  It's about embracing the similarities as well as the differences.  And when differences do exist, they make a wonderful teaching tool.

But when they leave my classroom tonight, will they really get it?  Or is it just another "unit" on their way to the first exam?

brain fART

There was a great article in this morning's Des Moines Register about a Vice President at Principal Financial Group, Jerry Patterson, who turns the corporate antics around him into art.  Having been employed by and contracted at PFG, I'm sure there is no lack of corporate fodder to inspire him.  His artwork has a bit of an edge to it, playing off the years of material he's observed while working at the Des Moines employment giant.  You can view some of his artwork at his website, including the image to the right.  Congratulations, Jerry, on the well-deserved publicity.

I've been thinking about creative outlets quite a bit recently.  Scott Adams turned his days of dysfunctionality at one of the Baby Bells into Dilbert.  Personally, I have journals bursting at the seams with notes about specific people and their behaviors over the years.  Earlier in my career, I figured out that I could either let the difficult personalities get to me, or I could just make a few notes about them during the exchange and preserve the moment for later.  The results of that behavioral record-keeping have been Race Through The Forest and GUST.  The best compliments I receive on either book are when people ask if I've been spying on them in their companies.  Regardless of which "big box employer" or "small mom and pop shop" you work for, there will always be bad behavior.

The question is:  do you let it get to you or have you created an effective and healthy way of coping with it?

Life With Britney and Phil

I was reading the blog of one of my former undergrad professors, Dr. Jann Freed of Central College.  A few weeks ago, she went on a (justifiable) rant about Britney Spears' being named Celebrity of the Year.  Her lead-off question is right:  what does it say about us as a society that we give her this honor?

Of course, I barely have enough time to think about those who fall into the category of celebrity.  I am vaguely aware that Heath Ledger passed away last week, and I'm sad to think that somebody so young will never realize all the avenues of his potential career.  But I didn't know Heath personally, and this post isn't about him.  It's about Britney.  Are her antics really honest pleas for help, or is she simply addicted to publicity?  Well, that's where Dr. Phil swoops in light a knight on a horse, meets with Britney and shares her story with her adoring public (and anybody else unfornate enough to intersect with the news story).

But Dr. Phil has learned a hard lesson that no "good deed" goes unpunished.  He's now in hot water for practicing without a license and for violating HIPAA regulations.  Oops.  Occasionally, exploiting another individual for your own benefit can backfire.  But these are celebrities... we "little people" never succumb to such antics... right?

Um... what about the office gossip?  What about character sabotage?  What about the typical petty behaviors encountered in cubicle-ville?  Often, these bad behaviors are covered over with excuses that the target's bad behavior warrants the exploitation.  In other words, they had it coming.

In a "small town" like Des Moines, talking about other people has a tendency to get back to them.  And I've found that Iowans have excruciatingly long memories and are good at "keeping score."  With blogs and social media, this small town mindset is easily extended to larger markets.  Granted, there may be some bridges that are worth burning (or at least being able to singe the edges), but if you're going to be working with people for a longer period of time, you may want to watch which bridges you burn.

Geeking Out With Troy

I know I said I was going to learn how to say "no" more often, but this was an offer I couldn't refuse (even without Mafia influence).  Troy Worman, blog geek extraordinaire and all around awesome guy, has just started a new blog called www.processgeek.com and invited me to contribute on occasion.  I just put up my first post this morning.

Why am I doing this?  Well, if one is truly to Carpe Factum, one has to be able to define the "factum" that one wants to "carpe."  In other words, it's all well and good to say you want to seize the accomplishment, but if you can't design what the accomplishment looks like, it's going to be awfully slippery to try and seize it.  The past few years, I've been finding myself wearing a "business analyst" hat with my clients as much as (if not more than) my project manager's hat, and I've found that I really enjoy playing that role.

Since my next book deals with systems thinking and process improvement, Troy's timing and invitiation were perfect.  Plus, I like being part of a collaborative writing effort, as you may have noticed on Office-Politics and Iowabiz.

A New Semester

Tonight begins a new semester at Drake.  While there are a few familiar faces from other classes I've taught, there will be many new students.  For all of the students, most of what I'm covering will be new content, even though I've trekked through it many times before.  So, before class starts, I'll be reminding myself to rekindle the same wide-eyed wonder I experienced the first time I encountered this material.  If I'm bored, my students most definitely will be bored.  Then nobody would have fun.  We can't have that, can we?

Besides the Leadership Class I taught last semester, I'm also teaching a class on Creativity for Business (one of my favorites), and an undergrad class on organizational behavior.  It sounds like an interesting mix.

Speaking of Drake, how about that Men's Basketball Team?  They're going sixteen wins straight, and just cracked the AP Top 25 Basketball Poll for the first time in over 30 years!

Today is a great day to be a Bulldog.  WOOF!

The Trojan Candidate

"I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes."

OK, I think I've figured out why I don't like Barack Obama.  If you recall, before the Iowa Caucuses, I mentioned that he looked and sounded really presidential, but there was just something about him that my gut said, "No way!"

Well, if his "you're likeable enough" comment to Hillary during the New Hampshire debate didn't turn my stomach, last night's South Carolina "whine with cheese" certainly did.  Mind you, I'm not arguing against the validity of the comment.  The Clinton machine is at top speed.  Both Hillary and Bill are creating a full-court press after being blindsided by Obama three weeks ago.  And, as is unfortunately normal in politics, facts and records are being distorted to make Barack look bad.

But come on... Obama is complaining about a "home court advantage" that he knew existed between the Clintons before he got into this race.  Hillary is the closest thing to an incumbent in this election, so for him to level that kind of comment seems petty at best.

But this post isn't really about national politics.  I'm using it to demonstrate a phenomenon of office politics... something I like to call the "Trojan Horse/Sacrificial Lamb" approach.  It's the office politics approach to using a hit man, and it is especially common with bullies in the work place.  Why dirty your own hands when you can get somebody else to do it?  I used to work for a consulting firm that was notorious for hiding the accountability of attacks among it's owners/management staff.  If you think you might be the victim of this approach, here are some things to look out for:

• Relationship with "attacker" - does this person have a valid reason to attack you?  Have they ever?
• "Attacker's" relationships - does this person have relationships with people whom you consider opponents?  How close are the relationships?
• Logic - Does the attack make sense?  Did you do something (inadvertently or on purpose) to warrant the attack?
• Outcome - What do you stand to lose and what does your attacker stand to gain?

If you think the attacker may be working on somebody else's behalf, don't fall into the shoot the messenger mode.  That is probably the outcome the mastermind is after.  You two go on the attack of each other while the master-mind rises above the fray.  This kind of relationship requires you to do a little more investigating.  Keep calm about the attack.  If you cannot stay calm while the attack is going on, try to gain some time before you engage the attacker.  Ask a lot of questions to gain understanding.  Ask the right kinds of questions, and the "Trojan Horse" generally tips his hand.  Talk to other people who may be involved in the conflict to gain a more objective view.

Remember:  your goal initially may not be to survive the attack as much as it is to figure out who or what is really behind the attack.  This should be the case regardless of whether your attacker is acting alone or on behalf of another.  After all, one of the key steps of office politics is to understand the players, their motives, and the environment.

I do have to give Obama credit for one thing last night:  he called their strategy for what it was (even if his wording and approach could have used some finesse).

If You're (Slap) Happy And You Know It...

They're always grumpy.

Why doesn't she cheer up?

He makes Eeyore look like a prozac addict.

CAN'T WE DO ANYTHING?

We've all been there... dealing with the perpetually negative coworker who complains about everything.  It's even worse when the coworker is the boss... and all of their negativity is directed at you.

Marilyn Haight of the Boss and Workplace Issues Blog brought this issue to light last week.  She has two very valid reasons for why you cannot hope to make a negative boss happy:

1. It's not your job to make any person you work with happy. It's your job to fulfill the duties of your job description as best as you can and meet or exceed your objectives. Nothing more. That's all a boss has the right to expect from you.

2. No one can make another person happy. Period. In fact, no one can make another person feel any emotion. Emotions are born within us by the way we choose to respond to external events. Miserable bosses either cannot be happy or enjoy being miserable, maybe because it gets them attention that they couldn't get otherwise—just look at the attention you're giving them by trying to find a way to make them happy.

I agree wholeheartedly with Marilyn's assessment; however, there are a couple of things you can do to mitigate their unhappiness ... and protect your happiness ... PROACTIVELY.

1. When receiving an assignment, ask them what result would make them happy.  Then document it and send it to them, creating a sort of "contract."  When you deliver what they asked for and they are unhappy, remind them of the documentation.
2. Set expectations early and often.  Communicate progress, roadblocks, and results rather than throwing your work over the wall at them and waiting for a reaction.  Face-to-face communication is best, as you can then watch their reactions.
3. Don't allow bad behavior.  It's OK for them to communicate disappointment, but do not allow them to cross the line.  Temper tantrums are never OK.
4. Take away lessons learned.  If your boss or coworker is communicating unhappiness about a work element, ask them to help you learn from it to make the next time better.
5. Don't take it personally.  Some people are just negative.  Spend your energy on things you can change.

Continually playing into their bad behaviors is just going to help the problem continue.

Snow Business Of Yours

We received a light dusting of snow yesterday, and it is always interesting to be one of the first out and about after that happens.  Why?  I like to look at tracks.  It intrigues me to see what people were doing after the snow fell.  Who spun out their car?  Who was walking and fell?  Who switched lanes?  Freshly fallen snow gives a nice imprint of human and automotive behavior.

The bottom line is that accountability and accomplishment are inextricably tied together.  To achieve true, lasting accomplishment, somebody will know what you've been up to.  I had run across a blog post that focused on weight loss, but the concept held true to any kind of real accomplishment (in business or in life):

but I think you know by now that I, and many of us ... are absolutely convinced of the fact that what matters and what will really make the difference in our journey is including meaningful, powerful, gracious, and supportive accountability into our weight loss journey."

What if your organization left tracks as visible as those in the new fallen snow?  What would they show?  An organization that is living out its mission, straight and true?  A corporation that switched lanes and spun out?  A company that plowed through a snowbank of an obstacle?  What about if that question applied to you?  What would it show?

So... who is holding you and/or your company accountable?

Bucking For a Promotion

There have been a few people approaching and/or emailing me recently, asking for advice about snagging their next promotion.  There are a lot of office politcs that go into promotions - both earning them and deciding who gets them.  However, more than office politics, job promotions are lessons in personal branding and self-marketing.  It's the start of a new year, and many people are assessing where they want to go with their careers.  The biggest mistake that most professionals make is assuming that performance alone will earn them a promotion.

First and foremost, remember that you are a commodity in the job market.  You have a warm body, a pulse, opposable thumbs, and you can remember the inhale-exhale sequence without prompting.  Congratulations.  If that sounds overly harsh, look around you at some of the people who have been promoted to management and leadership roles.  There's at least one in every office who got to where s/he is for reasons other than job performance.  Don't get me wrong, performance is important; however, it is just the baseline criteria (when and if it is used).

• Wardrobe!  David Lorenzo talks about the importance of dress in his Career Intensity blog.  If you want the promotion, start dressing the part.  Look at how the people dress who are at the next level you want to attain.  Then start dressing like them.  Be careful not to go overboard on this one.  I knew one guy who was blatantly obvious about this (bow-tie and suspenders) and it back-fired on him because the boss's wardrobe was so... um... unique.  If you have questions, contact a personal coach or go to a nicer clothing store where they have personal shoppers trained to help you.
• Talk the Walk - Jelene Coogan shares this little jem of wisdom:

While technical skills will take you several rungs up the corporate ladder, the climb to the top requires taking your communications to a whole new level. 1. Take 100% responsibility for your communication As a top-level communicator, it is essential that you take 100% responsibility for your communication. When you speak, there will be times when your message is not understood by the other person as you intended. Yes, its very easy to blame the other person and even make judgments about their intelligence. Yet, that brings you no closer to your goal of getting your message across and (even unspoken) judgments can seriously damage the relationship. As the communicator, it is up to you to re-package your message so that it is better understood.

• Assess the Competition - Who else is up for a promotion?  What is their relationship with the decision-makers?  (For that matter, what is YOUR relationship with the decision-makers?)  Is the competition your current peers?  Might they hire from the outside?  If you don't know who you are up against, how can you differentiate your unique brand proposition?  Mike Wagner always talks about how brands should be 1) Different; 2) Inviting; 3) Relevant; and 4) Truthful.  If you look at your career up until now, down you honestly own each of these four criteria to make them want to promote you?
• What Time Is it? - You may need to do some honest and serious self-assessment on this one as well.  Many professionals go for promotions at the wrong time (professionally or personally) because they've convinced themselves that if they don't get this promotion right now, that there will never be another opportunity.  And then they are crushed when they do not receive the promotion.  It may be that you are not getting this promotion because there really is something bigger and better in store for you.  Only you can decide that.
• Map it out - I tell my students and clients alike that if upward mobility is your goal, always be thinking 1-2 promotions beyond the one you are attempting to get.  As the old saying goes, "Nothing is worse than climbing the ladder of success only to find out it was leaning against the wrong wall."

So before you write off your next promotion opportunity as "office politics," make sure you are assessing some of the elements that could help you take that next step... or be prepared to get bucked off a few times.

Flickr Photo compliments of Matt Owen of US Rodeo Supply.

Jibber Jobber Likes GUST

Special thanks to Jason Alba over at Jibber-Jobber for his great review of GUST the other day.  While the "uneasiness" Jason felt while reading the book was not an intended side effect, I am glad he felt the pain of the characters in the book so vividly.  (Jason, I took the worst of my cubicle-dwelling years to create those people... they really do exist.)  In his words, here's how he described his initial impressions:

My first impression as I’m reading this book is “man, this office setting is so draining that there is no way I would work here!” But then I remembered how long I stayed at my draining job. No matter how bad things got (and they got bad), I always thought they would get better.  I think a lot of people put up with bad jobs for a variety of reasons - fear of the job search, is the grass really greener on the other side (pretty sad thought, if all jobs suck as bad as “this one”), worried about tarnishing resume, worried about not returning any loyalty that you felt from your company (training, transfer, etc.), worried about letting your boss or coworkers down (either because you respect them or because of peer pressure), concern about a bad employment market (will I be able to land again), etc.

But he doesn't leave his readers hanging for long as he wraps up the review with some very complimentary accolades:

Timothy L. Johnson does a great job of making my stomach churn, while giving me tool after tool, technique after technique, and arming me to prepare with office politics.

Thanks, Jason, for the awesome review.  While Andy Sernovitz didn't write a review, he was kind enough to send me an email the other day with a "well done" on the book... always appreciated from a talented guy like him.

Check out both Jason's and Andy's blogs.  These are two guys who can help you further your career and seize your accomplishments.

Is Your Rule-Breaker Like Herbie or Christine?

Everyone knows the rules.  Cars are inanimate objects.  They are not alive.  They cannot think for themselves.  They cannot act for themselves.  They must be driven.  Those are the rules.

Uh... don't tell Herbie or Christine those rules.  Herbie will ignore you.  Christine will kill you.  But that's the way it is with "that type" of person.  We call them rule breakers, loose cannons, renegades, free thinkers.  They react.  Then we try to squish them.  The problem is that we don't take the time to figure out why they are the way they are.

Take Herbie for instance.  He's a loveable VW Bug.  He helps people.  He has feelings.  He wins races.  He spurs romance.  Heck, he even made Lindsay Lohan look presentable for two hours of her short yet disastrous career.  The car breaks the rules for the greater good.

Then there's Christine, the evil-possessed Plymouth Fury of Stephen King's imagination.  Her rule breaking is based on malice and jealousy.  It is based on sabotage and injury and destruction.  People who cross Christine wind up dead.

So, which one is your office renegade?  Are they breaking the rules because they found a better way to kill the sacred cow?  Or are they breaking the rules because they found a way to kill the secretary's career?  Is their motivation to make it better or make it badder (yeah, yeah, I know, not grammatically correct... just work with me here, OK)?

I found a great post by what appears to be a now-defunct blog (too bad) on the Dwonder Blog.  I suppose even dead blogs have something to say on occasion.  Anyway, the author of the blog was talking about avoiding office politics and shared the following snippet:

If you choose not to play, be sure you don't criticize those who do, or the game itself. You'll be labeled a loose cannon or a troublemaker. You'll also be a target for skilled political players who may decide to use you to further their own agendas. It's easy to identify the person who doesn't want to join in as the malcontent who's responsible for badmouthing unpopular decisions. Well, says you, I'm not being negative, I'm just saying that things should be based on merit - the quality of your work, not who you kiss up to. I agree - in principal. It sounds great, but I've never seen a company where there wasn't some element of politics at work.

And so we need to figure out WHY we're labeling somebody as a loose cannon, and if their rule-breaking tendencies actually can add value to the organization and to their coworkers.  That should be part of your diagnosis before taking action.

And as for that rule about cars not being alive, I'd really appreciate it if you didn't say anything like that around Gerald.  He's really hyper-sensitive about those things.

What Would You Rather Do?

Let me ask you this:  Would you rather attend a business conference or a reunion (family or school, you decide)?

What if you could have both?

No, I'm not talking about a mafia conference with "da family" - I'm talking about SOBCon08.  SOB is short for Successful and Outstanding Bloggers, an honor conferred by the Grand Dame of Blogging, Liz Strauss.  They are spread across the globe.  Last year, Liz teamed up with Terry (Starbucker) and launched SOBCon.

I wasn't really sure what to expect when I drove to Chicago last May, other than the ability to get to meet numerous bloggers with whom I had been communicating via blog, email, and phone.  As I wrote  last May, it was a surreal experience.  A hug was the standard greeting... we all knew each other already.  The face-to-face meeting was a mere formality since the relationships were set.

But it wasn't just about hearing speakers share with us how to make our blogs better.  It wasn't just about an open exchange of ideas across industries.  It wasn't just about learning the art of marketing.  It wasn't just about the hugs and the talks.  This conference... this reunion... was about something much bigger.  At the risk of sounding a little soft, this meeting of the minds was about making magic.  That's really the best way I can put it.

This year's conference has been set for May 2-4 in Chicago.  Terry and Liz are already promising bigger and better than last year.  Check out the SOBCon08 site for continued news about registration and other details.  And I hope to see you in Chicago.  This will be an investment you will value for a lifetime.

Office Politics Overload

Wow!  Either there are a lot of people who are dealing with office politics (and wondering how to handle office politics), or Franke James just likes me.  (For those who don't know, she is the editor and owner of Office-Politics.com, a website to which I contribute regularly.)  I've been on a letter-answering binge recently.  You can check out all my letters here.

There have been some doozies:  a "backfired" employee raffle, a horny commanding army officer, an upwardly-sucking coworker, and an unempowered trainee have all been crossing my desk recently.

Yesterday, I had the honor of addressing the local chapter of IABC (International Association of Business Communicators) and the even greater honor of having Claire Celsi in the front row (heckle-free, no less).  I shared with them how to use office politics as a proactive tool rather than a reactive weapon.  The presentation was very well received, and I am appreciative of the opportunity.

So, it's a new year... are you still being stumped by office politics?  You know what to do.

Image from despair.com

This Little Light of Mine

The other night, I was able to follow along with the SWAT team once again.  My role has evolved a little with them, and in addition to researching my next book, I am now their volunteer photographer.  (As volunteer community service goes, I scored the jackpot!  These guys are great!)

Rather than following specific scenarios as they had the last two times I've tagged along, the guys spent most of their time on basic drills:  room entries, searches, Lincoln drills, stairways, stacks, night vision, and corner advancement (using mirrors).  After dark, they were given some basics on flashlight safety and technique.

Huh?  Police SWAT guys need to learn how to use a flashlight?

There is actually a lot more to the art and science of flashlight usage than meets the eye, especially for the tactical officer.  A SWAT operator needs to be able to search a room quickly.  If that room is dark, he needs to use his flashlight in a way that's not going to make him a walking target.  Some of the techniques discussed included strobing (turning your light and off quickly so you can advance a few feet at a time) and rotating the flashlight with your wrist to make it difficult for the "bad guys" to pinpoint the light source.  The instructor was a wealth of knowledge on do's and don't's to keep everyone safe.

While listening to the very knowledgeable SWAT instructor, I started thinking about some of the parallels with communication.  Sometimes, it becomes difficult to pinpoint the source of a message as well.  When there is "big news on the grapevine" or the "office gossip is running rampant," the source of their information can be challenging to determine.  The media and pollsters in New Hampshire figured that one out this week as well, with Obama's 10 point lead becoming a 3 point loss to Clinton.  Where did they get their data?  Who knows?  But it turned out to be very inaccurate.

So what do you do when somebody is strobing and rotating a piece of "communication light" in front of you?  How can you get to the source to determine where the light is really coming from?  A few ideas:

• Don't act on the information too quickly - if you can, sit on it overnight or for a few days.  Some rumors are simply a "flash in the pan" and fizzle out quickly.  The more sensational the rumor, the faster it seems to fizzle.
• Find multiple, independent sources - if you hear people from different departments and functions who are saying pretty much the same thing, there may be a little more validity to the information.  Don't be afraid to do a little independent investigative research yourself.
• Consider the source - what is the credibility of the individual who is speaking?  If they are nothing more than the office tabloid mongerer, then it's probably a case of "boy crying wolf."
• Challenge the source - using phrases like "Wow, that's serious information, where did you hear that?" or "I bet the boss will go on a witch-hunt over that news" may get the person to back-pedal a little and tone down the message.

The last thing about flashlight safety also applies to communication:  don't allow yourself to get blinded unexpectedly.  For SWAT operators, it could mean their life.  For you, it could mean your career.

A Lawyer In My Pocket

Brett Trout has done it again.  Less than a year ago, I reviewed his prior book and now he has cranked out another useful reference... this time it is Cyber Law:  A Legal Arsenal For Online Business.

Why should you care about a resource on Cyber Law?  Well, let's put it this way... how many of your projects have some on-line component... a web-page, a blog, email interfaces?  Oh... say... ALL of them?  (Unless you're living back in the 20th Century and doing everything paper-based.)

This is not a sit-down and read cover-to-cover book, although you could if you wanted to.  This is intended as a reference guide.  As I mentioned before, Brett is a "real person's attorney" - gone is the legal jargon that baffles the rest of us; in its place is easy-to-understand terminology and examples.  His book is logically organized with useful appendices and an easy-to-find index at the back.

In the first chapter, Brett makes the compelling case for why you should care about the internet's impact:

Change is, of course, the most important factor to consider when analyzing the Internet.  The resources you accessed last week may not be available today.  New resources will develop tomorrow, supplanting resources you considered earlier.

Brett seamlessly covers things like blogs, social media, and intellectual property laws (darn those copyrights!).  He also covers that pesky topic that no blogger likes to think about:  balancing freedom of speech with responsibility and accountability for one's actions and words.  With nods to topics like email privacy in the workplace and online scams, this book serves as a complete 360 for the novice to today's legal internet environment.

So before the words "legal action" come out of your mouth or somebody else's, be proactive and buy Brett's book.  It may save your tail.

Caucus Office Politics: Annoyance or Irrelevance

To my fellow Iowans:

Thanks for letting me poke fun at our politcal process (more at the expense of the candidates than at your expense, so maybe I should be thanking them).

I'd like to encourage all of you to get out and caucus tonight.  I've heard many of you complain about the incessant TV ads and the irritating phone calls over the dinner hour.  Please, we deal with humidity and mosquitos during the summer months... how bad can the candidates really be?

The important issue is demonstrating to the rest of the nation that we are relevant decision-makers in this process.  We get to be first.  You may be thinking "big whoop" to that, but it goes beyond bragging rights.  Think about the millions of dollars that are poured into our state over the past several months all because a bunch of people want to seek the presidency.  This is the first time in 80 years that there has not been a sitting incumbant (President or VP) running for this office.  It's a wide open field.  And we have protected our "first in nation" status once again.

In office politics, the players complain a lot about little annoyances until they are gone... and they are generally replaced by even larger annoyances.  The little annoyances for us are a few ads and phone calls.  The larger annoyance is that nobody would pay attention to our little state if it weren't for the caucuses.  We owe it to the rest of the nation to take this seriously.  We owe it to ourselves to protect it.

Regardless of whom you love or hate, just get out and caucus tonight.  It won't take that much of your time.  I was originally planning on staying home with our children so my wife could caucus without interruption.  Then we decided we'd take the kids with us.  We need to set an example for them that we live in a democracy, and it's something to be proud of.  We even decided to split the parties (one going Republican; the other, Democrat) and compare notes later.

Tomorrow, Iowa will be a political ghost town as all of the candidates scamper off to New Hampshire.  Let's make sure that Iowa is not a political ghost town in four years.

Carpe Factum, Folks!  Get out and caucus.

Caucus Office Politics: In the Dogma House

You didn't think I was going to let Mitt Romney off the hook, did you?

You all know, of course, that if Mitt Romney wins the election, that the Mormon Church will be running the US, didn't you?  No?  Well, that's the rumor going around.  Mike Huckabee said so (which is entirely possible given all the mud-slinging between the two).

Actually, it was just one of those early "urban myths" that was circulating about the former governor and business leader.

This is one of those office politics situations that always amuses me:  guilt by association.  Of course, Mitt has good company.  The Catholic church took over the US when Kennedy was elected in 1960... not!  Because somebody is associated with a given organization, association, team, or department, a lot of times we apply the "halo effect" to them and make assumptions based on these affiliations.  This is the reason many organizations bring in consultants to lead cross-departmental issues; we have no loyalty or affiliation.

So, what are your associations that make your colleagues scratch their heads?

Caucus Office Politics: The Early Winners

I don't even need to tally votes or watch the polls tonight to find out who the winners are for the Iowa Caucuses.  I've already identified one Democrat and two Republicans who are winners:  Tom Vilsack, Tom Tancredo, and Sam Brownback.

Yes, yes, I know they dropped out already and that they have as much chance of being president as Britney Spears has of becoming the next role model for wholesome living and abstinance.

However, in office politics, sometimes knowing when to drop out of a conflict and walk away can make you a big winner in the end.  Too few people know how to lose a battle in order to win a war.  I wrote a post a few months ago on effective retreats, and the principle of "win-win or no-deal" holds true in almost any situation.  Instead, too many people press ahead only to worsen their case.

Tonight, the official winners will be Huckabee, McCain, and Romney for the Republicans.  For the Democrats, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama will impress the caucus-goers.  No big surprises there.  (The order is really irrelevant - win, place, or show are all rewarded.)  However, in the game of office politics, an early departure means that you may get to come back and fight another day.

Caucus Office Politics: Bad Hair Day

In retrospect, it was probably blown way out of proportion, but it happened nonetheless.

John Edwards needed a haircut.  When you're on the campaign trail, you have to look your best at all times, and getting a good trim is difficult.  So, you see if you can get a reputable stylist to make a house call.  To your private jet.  On the tarmac.  Then you pay him $400 and send him on his way.  Realistically, it was probably a cut for which he would have spent $50-70 if he had gone into the salon, so the $400 is reasonable from the stylists' view, who most likely had to forfeit a half day's worth of business to accommodate Edwards.  And the haircut had to happen, because if the media get a hold of a picture of you with bad hair, a picture like that can haunt you through the rest of the campaign.  So the $400 haircut seemed reasonable.  He could afford it.  He needed it.  It happened.  So, what's the problem?

The problem is that John Edwards has been trying to pass himself off as the "working man's" candidate.  He's one of us.  He was raised poor in the South (um, yeah).  And now he's pushing for you, the little guy, and he wants your vote tonight.

I truly think that Edwards believes he has good intentions.  But he made the error in judgment of spending $400 on a commodity where most of the people he is trying to reach maybe spend 2-3% of that amount for the same service... or they do it themselves.  And certainly never in a private jet on a tarmac.

Office politics is mostly about perception.  There may be a perfectly good explanation for your actions, but if those same actions can be twisted around, they probably will be.  My first boss out of college had a habit of using the phrase "in all fairness" when she was trying to sell us on a concept.  The more times she used the phrase, the more unfair we knew the policy actually was going to be.  We would do IAF counts at meetings to figure out how much we were getting screwed over.  Shrewd office politicians - both for positive and negative actions - know how to play with perception and use it to their advantage.  A lot of perception starts with self-awareness, though, so if you don't have a keen grasp of how you are coming across, you may be challenged in understanding how others perceive you.

So, how are you managing the "spin" that revolves around you?

Caucus Office Politics: Gut Check

Barack Obama says all the right things to become President of the United States.

Barack Obama looks presidential (and his wife looks first-lady-ish).

Barack Obama seems personable, funny, intelligent, and articulate.  He appears to balance big picture strategies with the tactics needed to pull them off.  He's "stately."

Barack Obama could probably unite the two parties better than most of the other candidates.

Then why on earth can I not caucus for the guy?

Simple:  because of my gut.  Something deep down in the pit of my stomach (and no, it's not the enchiladas my wife made for New Year's Eve) is telling me that "President Barack Obama" is the biggest mistake our country could make.  And doggone it, I can't put my finger on the reason why.  And that is bugging the heck out of me.

But my gut has never steered me wrong.  Every time I've ignored it and given somebody the benefit of the doubt (against my better judgment), I keep wishing I'd have listened to it.  Every time I have listened to it, I've not regretted it.

There is a lot of intuition that goes into playing the game of office politics.  If you are somebody who is very tangible and black-and-white, you are probably somebody who takes an ostrich stance to office politics.  Some of you do it well, but I'd be willing to bet that the lack of engagement bites the rest of you.  The gut-check isn't just fluffy.  All of our experiences (direct and vicarious) go into making up our intuition.  It all just sort of swirls there and helps us as we create perceptual filters about the world around us.  And those perceptual filters aren't all bad.

So tonight, I won't be caucusing for Barack Obama.  My logical side says I should.  But I gotta listen to my gut on this one.

Caucus Office Politics: Tomb of the Unknown Soldier

Um... Duncan who?

Duncan Hunter?  Nope, never heard of him.

What?  You say he's running for president?  Really!  What country?

No!  Ours?  Which party?  Republican, eh?  You sure?  OK.

In office politics, sometimes it pays to make a little noise.  A lot of people get passed over for promotions and cool projects because nobody knows they are even there.  Kind of like Hunter Duncan... er... um... I mean Duncan Hunter.  I think.  Not sure, really.

Have I made my point?  Good.  Now get out there and make sure people know about you... in a positive way (or even in a negative way... at least they'll hear about you).

If you're not managing your publicity and self-branding effectively, you may as well just pack in your career now.  Just like Dalton Hopkins... uh... Duncan Hunter will be headed back to (pssst... where's he from again?)  You, just like this "candidate" (wink, wink, nudge), will merely be a footnote in history.

Caucus Office Politics: Conveniently Unavailable

It's been interesting to watch John McCain slowly start to gain ground in Iowa, since he and Rudy Giuliani have purposely been avoiding the state since the beginning of the caucus season (which I believe started sometime in 2005, right after Bush's inauguration).  Actually, the unofficial launch is the Straw Poll that was held last June, from which both candidates bowed out.  Neither has made much effort to maintain a strong presence in Iowa, and I was a little surprised when The Des Moines Register gave McCain its nod for Republican selection.

McCain, at the eleventh hour, has been engaging a little more than previously.  All of a sudden, the Iowa publicity is appealing to him.  Rudy still hasn't made much of a splash here and probably won't be in the next 24 hours.  What amuses me is when I see this kind of behavior in office politics.  It's a basic power play, where somebody in power (generally an executive) will avoid meetings and phone calls and not respond to emails, leaving the parties on the other end to attempt to progress without him or her.  Then the offender swoops in at the last second and upsets the entire apple cart, leaving everybody scrambling from their hit-and-run drive-by management.  For those who read GUST - The "Tale" Wind of Office Politics, the chief antagonist in the book was based off of an actual executive who played those games.

Are McCain or Giuliani right for the nation, let alone right for Iowa?  Who knows?  A buddy of mine is an editor for a small town paper, and they were unable to get representatives from either camp to even show up for an editorial board interview.  When you make yourself unavailable, you leave a lot of room for people to make assumptions.  That's my best way of dealing with this type of individual:  document the assumptions about what is acceptable behavior (showing up for meetings, turnarounds on requests, etc.).  If only we could apply those rules of engagement to the candidates.

Caucus Office Politics: The Tainted Past

We attended a New Year's Eve party with some friends from church and the topic of Hillary Clinton came up.  There's no doubt about it:  the only woman in the pack is very polarizing.  I've shared in the past why she is a valid choice for the presidency, but I'd like to explore some of the reasons why people think she isn't.

Her policies on issues like healthcare is what bring people to a boil first.  Seems that a lot of people cannot get past something that happened fifteen years ago when she was leading a committee for her then-president husband.  Even Peggy Noonan, one of my favorite columnists, has made her unbridled loathing for Hillary well-known.  The other thing people bring up is the whole Clinton legacy... the lying, the stealing, the murdering, the framing, the manipulating... the list does go on.  A few of my conservative friends really put their finger on the pulse of things:  the Clintons always get away with everything.

Hmmm... they always get away with everything.  There is something to that.  The Clintons have been compared to Teflon in that nothing ever seems to stick; it just rolls off.  But I don't think it's as simple as getting away with things.  Let's compare the Clintons to family dynamics... most people can relate to the following two roles in the family:

1. The youngest child
2. The weird Uncle Floyd from Kentucky

The youngest child (perceived as spoiled) gets away with things because we have to know how to manipulate what we need to in order to survive among a sea of dysfunctional older siblings (no offense, David and Shelley).  We purposely set out to make our voice heard as the newcomer in an already-established family.  In other words, getting away with things is a purposeful choice.  While the Clintons have shown some of these traits, I think their Teflon capabilities now fall into the latter category.

Many of us have a "weird Uncle Floyd from Kentucky" (OK, OK, change the names and locations to suit your own situation).  You bring your new spouse to the family gathering, and she spots him in the corner doing something obnoxious asks who that is.  You simply respond, "That's Uncle Floyd from Kentucky" as if that is all the explanation needed.  You're just resigned to the fact that Uncle Floyd will always act weird.  So it is with the Clintons... that's why nothing sticks to them.  They are the weird Uncle Floyd from Kentucky.  It's as if we have created an entirely new category of "acceptable behavior" based on what the Clintons do, but it applies only to the Clintons.

I'm neither condoning nor condemning Hillary with this post.  Regardless of the past Clinton behavior, one cannot debate that most Americans felt pretty good during the 1990's about themselves and their way of life.  After eight years of the Bush administration, I personally believe that Americans collectively need to feel good about themselves again while pursuing the significant accomplishments that made this country great in the first place.  After listening to an ocean of rhetoric spouting from every single candidate, I still think that Hillary (among a couple others) could achieve this one objective well enough to deserve a glance at the White House.

Now to office politics.  How many times have we excluded somebody because of their past?  Sometimes it is warranted, but I've seen some teams and organizations shoot themselves in the foot by ignoring the best person for the job because of some past transgression.  (Here in Des Moines, you'd be surprised how slight the transgression needs to be.)  In office settings, people need to separate personal feelings about individuals from their knowledge about whether that individual can perform.  There are and always will be situations where the individual just isn't trustworthy and should be ignored, but (as in many things), it's a subjective call.

So... which candidate is next?

Caucus Office Politics: This is Off The Record, Right?

From now through Thursday night, I thought it would be fun to inject some "office politics" insight into the behaviors of the political candidates, all scrambling like silly little ants over the picnic crumbs.  Since the Iowa Caucuses are fast approaching, we'll see if we can glean some office politics lessons from their behaviors.

Let's start with class clown, Mike Huckabee.  He's seeing some things crumble here in Iowa, so he spends tens of thousands of dollars on some commercial spots.  Then he decides they are too negative so he pulls them... BUT not before giving the media a "sneak preview" of the ad he's not going to be showing them.

Never in the annals of potty-training two children have I witnessed a greater potential for leakage.  Duh, Mikey!  If you're going to pull an ad, pull the ad.  Who do you think you're fooling here?

We see the same thing happen in office politics, though, don't we?  One of the "game balls" of office politics is information, and information is power.  One of the great office politics games that I see people employ with this game ball is to share "just enough" to obtain the desired effect without spilling all the beans.  But Governor Huckabee is probably going to see this antic come back to bite him.

So, he's used religion and he's faked taking the high road in order to "engineer" our perceptions of him.  Hmmm... gotta wonder what's next in the office politics game.

Just Add One

It's pretty simple.  Instead of writing 2007, you write 2008.  That's all there really is to transitioning to a new year, right?

Well, I can't think about moving forward with the new year until I look back and thank all the people whose comments helped make 2007 a "Carpe Factum" year to remember:

Liz Strauss, Bob Donaldson, Phil Gerbyshak, Robert Hruzek, Matt Owen, Brett Rogers, Delaney Kirk, Sandy Renshaw, Roger von Oech, Mike Wagner, Valeria Maltoni, Brett Trout, Terry Starbucker, Scot Herrick, Jake Parillo, Andy Brudtkuhl, Jack Rogers, Bob McIlree, Shaula Evans, Tim Putnam, Josh Nankivel, Tom Haskins, Dean Fuhrman, Sherry Borzo, Blaine Collins, Jane Greer, Beth Peck, Penelope Trunk, Troy Worman, Adam Steen, Lucia Mancuso, Ann Michael, Mike Sansone, Peter Stinson, Randy Ross, Drew McLellan, Dana Dennis, Joanna Young, Hunter Arnold, Lisa Gates, Jodee Bock, Claire Celsi, Mitch Matthews, Bob Ravenscroft, Dean Stantin, Rush Nigut, Rick Cockrum, Connie Reece, Tom Clifford, Wendy Piersall, Tony D. Clark, Chris Brown, Chris Cree, Kammie Kobyleski, SueAnn Denny, Shelley Davison, Dawud Miracle, G.L. Hoffman, Franke James, Sheila Scarborough, Janet Green, EM Sky, Dan Schwabel, Charlene Polansky, Don Hensley, April Groves, Derrick Sorles, Erik Potter, Crysta Wille, Kevin Brady, Art Dinkin, Ron McDaniel, Penina Finger, Lewis Green, Barbra Sundquist, Bob Glaza, Gavin Heaton, Rebecca Thorman, Linda Zdanowicz, Erika Andersen, Steven Davies, Michael Krigsman, Eric Peterson, Jeff Hutton, Meikah Delid, Rosa Say, Angela Maiers, Jen Chan, Mark Eversmall, Raven Young, Steve Farber, Bob Loch, Marti Lawrence, David Graves, Mik Watson, Kare Anderson, Jeff Wignall, Chris Bailey, Mike Rohde, Paul Williams, Erin Blaskie, Kevin Eikenberry, Jerimi Kopsa, Michael Adhi, Jeanne Dinnini, C.B. Whittemore, Anita Danger, Laurence-Helene, Pawel Brodzinski, Priscilla Palmer, Toby Bloomberg, Mike Dewitt, Anna Farmery, and Ricardo Bueno.

I can't thank each of you enough for stopping by, reading, and engaging me in conversation.  You've encouraged me, challenged me, and made me grow as a person and as a blogger.

(If I forgot anybody, my sincerest apologies.)

To all of the above, and to those who just stop by to read but have not engaged me in conversation yet, I thank you and wish you all the best in 2008.  My goal for this year is to "just add one":  there's always one more reader, one more comment, one more trackback, one more link that is just at the tipping point of blogging excellence.  My plan, therefore, is to "just add one."

Carpe Factum in 2008!