Sexual harassment is now the major topic in the workplace. The following is adapted from my book, Decoding the Workplace.
     
In most organizations masculine norms are common, and the higher you advance in the organization, the stronger the norms become.  As Sheryl Sandberg put it in Lean In, “the blunt truth is that men still run the world.” Only in the past two decades have women moved in significant numbers into leadership positions in corporate America.
 
The predominance of men in most of our organizations has created male cultures where masculine norms and roles are pervasive --and sometimes decisive. When a woman rises to near the top of an organization, the question may become, is she one of the boys?
 
The "boys" have the rules they play by, the games they play, the subjects they talk about. Will the woman fit into the group? Business is conducted on the golf course, in the locker room, on hunting trips.
 
And then there is the comfort factor, will we be comfortable with this woman around? Will we be comfortable with her on our executive retreat in the Caribbean?
 
Compounding this is the fact that as you go higher in organizations, the norms tend to become stronger. And they extend beyond the workday. Those who lead our organizations are available 24/7. There are social engagements, dinners, parties, plus the work that must get done, the decisions that must be made. You will entertain, you will be at these functions, you will see that our main client has a great time.
 
When you are "on" all the time, disconnects between thought and deed are more likely to be revealed. Your actions must fit the group norms or you will not remain part of the group.
 
In spite of this male culture, some women break the glass ceiling. The long term answer to the predominance of masculine norms is more women in our organizations, women in positions of leadership. Where women are represented proportionately across an organization, norms may slowly change. Where women actually outnumber men in significant numbers, one would expect masculine norms to give way to more feminine norms.
 
More troublesome are those workplaces where the masculine norms border on (or even embrace) sexual harassment, crude humor, and sexual innuendo. Polls suggest that perhaps 50% of all women in the workforce have experienced some form of harassment. A new poll taken today would probably find that percentage low.
 
As legally indefensible as these conditions may be, women may be reluctant to "rock the boat.” A paycheck is a paycheck. The question becomes at what cost? Some women endure very stressful working conditions that impact health and productivity just to keep a job.

"Boys will be boys" is not an acceptable response to these issues. Where dysfunctional norms impact on the quality of work life, management should exercise leadership and work to eliminate. Changing norms can be difficult but the costs here are not only to the individual but also to the organization.
 
Image "#METOO" by Mihai Surdu. Obtained from https://pixabay.com/en/metoo-women-harassment-sexual-2859980/
​
Used with permission: Public domain per CC0 
 
© John Ballard, PhD,  2017. All rights reserved.
 
Decoding the Workplace, BEST CAREER BOOK 2016 Next Generation Indie Book Awards 

Planning is a topic not often discussed. You may have heard that some people plan, others do. Academic business programs teach planning from big picture strategic to day-to-day operational. Henri Fayol, the great French industrialist and management scholar, said planning was fundamental to business success.
 
But what about in other aspects of our lives? We have a wealth of information about how to set SMART goals and the importance of goal-setting – but what do we know about planning?
 
In the November 2017 issue of Psychological Science, Park, Lu, and Hedgcock published a stimulating article on planning. Their focus was on the different outcomes obtained from forward planning versus backward planning.

• forward planning: “planning the steps required to reach a goal in chronological order, starting with the step temporally closest to the present and ending with the step furthest from the present” (p. 1620).
• backward planning: “planning the steps in reverse chronological order, starting with the step furthest in time from the present and ending with the step closest in time” (p. 1621). 

From their review of other studies:

• visualizing a goal or event “makes it easier to analyze the event and comprehend necessary steps to make it happen”
• contrasting a future goal or event with the current reality helps separate “reachable and unreachable goals” (assuming goal has been elaborated)
• contrasting a future goal or event with the current reality increases commitment and effectiveness (assuming goal has been elaborated)
• “Thinking in reverse order makes people less likely to perceive the present reality as an impediment” (p. 1621)
• “Backward planning is particularly helpful for complex problems” or planning where there is much uncertainty

 
Therefore they predicted “mentally contrasting the future attainment of desired goals with the present reality will help people clearly see the reality to overcome and selectively commit to essential steps for goal achievement.” They expected this mental contrasting through backward planning to be more motivational and effective. Forward planning has more potential missteps, more choices emerge, potentially less motivation as the steps unfold.
 
In five studies with various designs this is pretty much what they found. Backward planning

• led to greater motivation and “better goal-directed behavior”
• better anticipation of  the necessary steps to the goal
• better following the plan
• higher expectations that the goal would be achieved

They concluded “planning in reverse chronological order may not only help people have a clearer view of tasks to execute but also improve their actual performance” (p. 1629).
 
My take-aways:
 
1. Park, Lu, and Hedgcock’s studies involved individual planning. Like much of psychological research, the participants were undergraduate students. My guess is their findings would hold up well for individual or small group planning. Too often we’ll set a goal and then try to figure out how to get there, usually thinking about what do we have to do first? Could we more fully visualize the goal desired and work backwards from that goal? It may be harder to start that way but once planned, it may be easier to execute. Goal-setting is important but perhaps also is where do you begin the planning?
 
2.  I am a firm believer in the power of goal-setting. In my personal and professional life, I have done much planning. Which is better – a roadmap or a compass? I think it may depend on the goal. 
 
3. My preference for planning in organizations is to use PERT (Program-Evaluation-Review Technique) in a simplified form. Working with others identify all possible steps in the process to achieve the goal. Flow the steps sequentially (some may be able to occur simultaneously). Take a hard look at each step and potential difficulties. Estimate times to accomplish each step. Then find the critical path, the series of most time-intensive steps that must be achieved to accomplish the goal. What are the most critical steps? I am not sure if this is forward planning or backward planning. Step creation need not be forward. Steps are identified and then ordered. The benefit here is the capability to analyze and steps to execute the plan.
 
4.  I concur with the authors on the importance of visualization. Regardless of your occupation or goals in life, visualizing the goals you want to achieve, seeing in your mind what goal achievement would be like, should increase the probability of those goals being achieved.
 
Park, J., Lu, F., & Hedgcock, W. M. (2017). Relative effects of forward and backward planning on goal pursuit. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1620-1630.
 
Image "Planning" by Nick Youngson, . Obtained from http://www.picserver.org/p/planning.html
Used with permission: Public domain per CCO 3.0
 
© John Ballard, PhD,  2017. All rights reserved.
 
Author, Decoding the Workplace, BEST CAREER BOOK Next Generation Indie Book Awards 2016.

Why are some people more successful than others in the workplace, home, life? Setting SMART goals can be one factor but there are others, such as resources, time, situational constraints. Some would add luck. All things being equal though, much success probably comes from within ourselves, psychological characteristics that tend to lead some of us to be more successful than others.
 
Two stalwarts of psychology addressed this topic in the September issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science: Angela Duckworth, known for her work on grit, and Martin Seligman, known for his work on learned helplessness. Their article focuses on the importance of self-control but it summarizes concisely three psychological factors affecting success:

• self-control – “the capacity to regulate attention, emotion, and behavior in the presence of temptation.”
• grit – “passion and perseverance for long-term goals.”
• conscientiousness - being careful, being thorough; desiring to do a task well (one of the Big Five personality factors). 

Duckworth and Seligman discuss the pros and cons of lumping these together in studying success versus studying separately. The bottomline is both lumping and splitting help understand the differences and underlying dynamics. Here are some insights I noted:

• In middle school students, self-control equaled intelligence measure in predicting grades and test scores but exceeded intelligence measures on predicting absences, procrastination, and time watching TV.
• Self-control is important to outcomes in life, including income, finances, health, and “occupational prestige.”
• Conscientiousness includes self-control and is highly related to longevity, wealth, and health.
• Gritty people have a “single-minded, sustained commitment” to “enduring goals of superordinate personal significance.”
• “A gritty person cannot be gritty about everything.”
• Being able to delay gratification of “ill-timed or inappropriate impulses” is a hallmark of self-control and develops early in life, according to Freud.
• Suggestions: teach goal-setting and planning; affect situational factors to downplay temptations; try to make negative emotions “less overwhelming.

My take-aways:
 
1. Many factors contribute to success. Your definition of success may be very different from another’s. I knew a local rock band that were truly outstanding, but when given the opportunity for national, even international exposure, declined. Making music was a joy – not a lifestyle calling. Being a “rock star” was not part of their individual definitions of success. What does success mean to you?
 
2.  I see self-control and grit as important factors for individual success in any part of life. I have written about grit here previously. But grit is not necessarily predictive of organizational success unless the enduring goal is somehow tied to the organization. Given recent headlines about sexual harassment in the workplace, we can probably agree that self-control should have a greater emphasis in our training and conduct. Just how long can you go without looking at your smartphone?
 
3. On the other hand, conscientiousness is of great organizational and personal significance. We can measure conscientiousness, correlate with organizational outcomes, and design into selection systems. As I have written previously, it is the most important trait affecting health and success that you may have never considered.
 
4. Lumped or separated, these three factors offer a good self-assessment as to your success. How is your self-control? Do you have an enduring goal that you are pursuing with passion? Are you thorough in your work, striving for good outcomes in the various parts of your life? 

Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. P.  (2017).  The science and practice of self-control. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(5), 715-718.
 
Image modified from image by Darrell A. Obtained from https://www.flickr.com/photos/117427305@N05/32031185350/
Used with permission: Public domain per CCO 1.0
 
© John Ballard, PhD,  2017. All rights reserved.
 
Author, Decoding the Workplace, BEST CAREER BOOK Next Generation Indie Book Awards 2016.
Please visit www.decodingtheworkplace.com.

Are your leaders ethical? Are they trustworthy, honest, and fair? Ultimately these are perceptions. The apparent ethical leader may not be. In the Ken Burns & Lynn Novick‎ documentary "The Vietnam War", leaders are shown saying one thing in public and something different in private.
 
Organizational researchers study perceptions and how these perceptions are related to other factors such as job satisfaction or performance. Research has indicated perceptions of ethical leadership are related to job satisfaction and employee commitment.
 
In a study reported in a 2014 issue of the Journal of Business Ethics, Monica Sharif and Terri Scandura extended the research on ethical leadership to organizational change. They hypothesized that “one important source of employees’ response to change may be the ethicality of their leader.” Organizational change can be a time of great strain on leaders as well as subordinates. Leaders seen as ethical may influence subordinates positively. Ethical leaders have a greater chance of having employee support even if the decisions are difficult or unpopular.
 
Working from a survey of about 200 supervisor-subordinate dyads, Sharif and Scandura confirmed findings that leaders perceived as ethical have employees who are:

• more satisfied with their jobs
• perform better
• engage in greater organizational citizenship (e.g., going beyond their duties to help others and the organization).

 
In regards to organizational change, those who experienced change and perceived their leaders were ethical outperformed those not experiencing change. Performance was actually higher during times of change where leaders were seen as fair and trustworthy.
 
They concluded “ethical leadership may amplify the effects of involvement.”
 
My take-aways:
 
1. Perceptions are reality. Sharif and Scandura raise an important question. Organizational change is hard. Leaders who are not seen as trustworthy or fair would seem to handicap the change effort. On the other hand, fair and trustworthy leadership can inspire success, even when difficult.
 
2. My guess is ethical leadership is situational. It is possible to see a leader as ethical in some situations but not in others. Likewise, another employee may see the situation exactly opposite. The key for leaders is to understand how perceptions of their fairness impact employee performance and understand themselves well enough to know how they are perceived. This means leaders must seek realistic feedback from those they trust, those who will be open and honest with them. Leaders should know themselves.
 
3. I suspect culture plays a large role here. To what degree are trust, honesty, and transparency core values in your organization’s culture? Ethical leaders should excel in trusting cultures. But ethical leaders may be needed even more in cultures that lack trust.
 
Sharif, M. M., & Scandura, T. A. (2014). Do perceptions of ethical conduct matter during organizational change? Ethical leadership and employee involvement. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(2), 185-196.
 
Image, “Ethics” by Nick Youngson (http://nyphotographic.com).  Obtained from http://www.thebluediamondgallery.com/wooden-tile/e/ethics.html 
​Used with permission: Creative Commons 3 - CC BY-SA 3.0
 
© John Ballard, PhD,  2017. All rights reserved.
 
Author, Decoding the Workplace, BEST CAREER BOOK Next Generation Indie Book Awards 2016.
Please visit www.decodingtheworkplace.com.

My blog is usually about the practical implications of research on leadership, management, and the workplace. In my last blog I described my 1991 solar eclipse adventure. In this one I share my August 2017 total solar eclipse experience. 

We followed the North Platte River westward across the Great Plains of western Nebraska. Buttes of sand and clay stood like sentinels guarding passage west. Courthouse and Jail Rocks, Chimney Rock, Scotts Bluff. Home to the Arapaho for centuries. Transient passage for Easterners heading west in the mid-1800s: the Oregon Trail, the Mormon Trail. Riders of the Pony Express knew this land.
 
We came to experience a total eclipse of the sun. For over 25 years I had anticipated this day, August 21, 2017. Coast-to-coast the shadow of the moon would travel the United States. I studied charts, examined the probabilities for clear skies, and chose western Nebraska. With a detailed atlas of Nebraska, I plotted the eclipse centerline and its borders. I knew where the sun would disappear. Should clouds come, I knew my alternatives.
 
From the atlas I chose a location on the centerline north of Scottsbluff. I did not want to trespass on anyone’s property. The atlas identified several ranches scattered across that land. To learn who owned the land where I wanted to be, I called the nearest ranch. This was to be my introduction to “Nebraska nice,” something that I would experience repeatedly during our visit. The rancher graciously and warmly invited my wife and me to join her family and friends at their ranch for the eclipse.
 
In the days leading up to the eclipse, the weather forecast for Scottsbluff for that Monday changed daily: partly cloudy, clear, cloudy, rain. I awoke Monday morning and looked out the window of our hotel. We were encased in fog, dense fog. My mind went back to 1991 and the fog that enveloped Mauna Loa on the morning of that solar eclipse. It was threatening yet comforting. I knew it would probably burn off as the uncovered sun rose higher in the east. And it did.
 
My wife and I traveled north on Nebraska State Route 71. For 30 miles cars, trucks, vans, and RVs lined the highway, positioned at every conceivable space. We crossed the sandhills, left the highway, and found the ranch. Groves of trees framed the house and buildings. On the acre or so of short grass and fenced from the surrounding landscape, several families and friends were settling in for the day’s event.
 
The husband and wife who owned the ranch greeted us as if we were old friends. We felt welcome and at home. We chose a spot. I set up my solar telescope and within minutes shouted repeatedly, “First contact! First contact!”
 
As the eclipse progressed, I shared telescopic views with our new friends and others who joined us. I enjoyed sharing. The image of the sun was red in the Corona telescope. We watched as the moon eclipsed sunspots. Several people took photos through the telescope. With the eclipse to be high overhead, I spread a quilt and placed pillows so my wife and I could lie down and observe totality in comfort.
 
About 15 minutes before totality, we noticed the diminishing sunlight. My anticipation grew as we looked westward over the trees for the approaching umbra. About five minutes before totality, an area in the west seemed a darker blue, then it darkened, and grew wider. As the shadow approached, it appeared as the black wall of a massive thunderstorm raging across the plains. Quickly it grew higher in the sky. Venus appeared brightly in the shadow while the sun’s final crescent was still shining. Then sunlight was gone from the land and a beautiful diamond ring hung in the sky for an instant.
 
And there it was. The eclipsed sun. The corona. Venus, Mars. A hint of red from a small prominence. The landscape was silent. Words fail me. Nothing prepares you for the majesty of a total solar eclipse. Two and half minutes pass swiftly. I lay down beside my wife, held her hand, and gave myself to this moment.
 
All too quickly another diamond ring and sunlight returned to the land. I offered a short prayer of thanks to the Universe for that is what I felt in my heart. A precious gift. A most special gift. This was my birthday eclipse.

Image, "Total Solar Eclipse, August 21, 2017" by Shahrin Ahmad. Obtained from https://www.flickr.com/photos/shahgazer/35988271284/in/pool-nasa-eclipse2017/
Used with permission. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/
Image cropped for use on this page. 

© John Ballard, PhD, 2017. All rights reserved.
 
Co-Author, Miracle at Red Hill: A Total Solar Eclipse Adventure.
 
Author, Decoding the Workplace, BEST CAREER BOOK Next Generation Indie Book Awards 2016.
Please visit www.decodingtheworkplace.com.

On Monday August 21 workers across the United States will take vacation days, mental health days, “sick” days, or long lunches to witness one of the greatest spectacles to be seen from Earth, a total eclipse of the sun. Many will be disappointed as clouds obscure the event, but those unobscured by clouds in the 60-mile wide path of the moon's shadow will experience an event unlike any other.

In my blogs I share practical implications of academic research on leadership, management, and the workplace and add a few take-aways of my own. This blog is different. 
 
In 1991 my friend Richard Bilodeau and I backpacked up Mauna Loa on the Big Island of Hawaii to see a total eclipse of the sun. The beginning of our adventure is told here at this website. Our adventure continues in our Kindle e-story, Miracle at Red Hill: A Solar Eclipse Adventure. It is the story of our climb up the volcano and Richard's experience of the eclipse. It is Richard’s story. He was at Red Hill; I was farther up the trail at Fire Hill. 
 
On the morning of the 1991 eclipse I sat on the ledge of a 1984 lava flow just off the Mauna Loa trail. The sky at 12,000 feet was clear with just a few high cirrus clouds. In the distance far beyond, a layer of clouds was stealing the eclipse from the lower altitudes. It was a little after 6:00 a.m. I fired up my Peak 1 backpacking stove, made a pot of coffee, and settled in. Everything was perfect. I had expected to watch the eclipse in solitude in a volcanic wilderness.
 
Around 6:15 I heard a voice calling “John, John, is that you?”
 
Fifty yards or so in front of me standing in the middle of the lava flow was a park ranger, then another. They figured I’d have a great place from which to view the eclipse and wanted to join me. In the hour leading up to totality, I shared my welder’s glass #14 with the park rangers. We watched as the moon slowly devoured the sun. By 7:15 the mountain air was much cooler; the sky, much darker. Five minutes to totality I began searching the sky earnestly for any sign of the umbra, the moon’s shadow.
 
I was terribly excited, even anxious. I had never seen a total eclipse of the sun. My heart pounded. About a minute before totality I could see a deep blue shadow stretched across the dim sky. The umbra was falling from the sky! As it fell, it got darker and wider and fell faster and faster. I knew what I was seeing and I was still fearful. On the western horizon toward the summit, framed by indigo tinted with a deep green, a wall of darkness, like a massive black curtain, was racing toward us faster than the mind can comprehend. In an instant we were in the shadow. Turning toward the sun, we saw Baily’s Beads, then the Diamond Ring. There was a hole in the sky with a dancing, shimmering corona. The park ranger of Japanese ancestry yelled, "Yattaaaaaa!"  We were full of pure joy.
 
I later explained to my friend Richard, “Strangely I felt a connection to people through the ages who have stood in the shadow of the moon. I don’t know why. It was as if I were participating in a sacred ritual that had been passed down for millennia.”
 
I became totally absorbed by everything I could see, and not see. The universe seemed to flow through me. I was so happy I cried. I had to wipe away tears to see the eclipse. It may have been the longest yet shortest four minutes of my life. The eclipse was majestic, absolutely majestic. I completely forgot I had binoculars, such was the moment.
 
Best wishes for Monday, August 21. When the eclipse is partial, you MUST protect your eyes with solar filters, solar glasses, or welder’s glass. But should you be so fortunate as to stand in the shadow of the moon during totality, bask in the glory above. 
 
Image, “1991 Solar Eclipse,” from my collection of photos.
 
Both image and this blog © John Ballard, PhD, 2017. All rights reserved.
 
Co-Author, Miracle at Red Hill: A Total Solar Eclipse Adventure.
 
Author, Decoding the Workplace, BEST CAREER BOOK Next Generation Indie Book Awards 2016.
Please visit www.decodingtheworkplace.com.

Mindfulness, meaning, engagement, and employee happiness are terms encountered with increasing frequency in management and business articles. Probably related to each of these is a concept rarely mentioned: self-compassion. How do you feel about yourself? You may show compassion to others but do you show compassion to yourself? If you backed your car into a garage post, how would you feel? Dr. Kristin Neff, a leading scholar and researcher of self-compassion, offers an online test to determine how self-compassionate we are.
 
Several years ago I blogged about self-compassion and Dr. Neff’s work. From her website: “Self-compassion means you are kind and understanding when confronted with personal failings” and has three elements:

• Being kind to ourselves: Be “warm and understanding toward ourselves when we suffer, fail, or feel inadequate, rather than ignoring our pain or flagellating ourselves with self-criticism.” 
• Accepting our common humanity: Recognize that “suffering and personal inadequacy is part of the shared human experience – something that we all go through rather than being something that happens to ‘me’ alone.”  
• Being mindful: Observe one’s “thoughts and feelings as they are, without trying to suppress or deny them,” being non-judgmental.

I was reminded of the importance of self-compassion while reading the May/June issue of Explore. Dr. Roberto Benzo and colleagues reported a questionnaire study of 400 healthcare workers examining the relationships among self-compassion and a variety of other measures, such as happiness, mindfulness, stress, and exercise. They found:

• self-compassion was highly related to happiness (r = .63)
• “self-compassion was associated with decreased feelings of isolation”
• accepting our humanity and being mindful were “the most predictive of happiness”
• Self-compassion had a far greater impact on happiness than exercise.

My take-aways:
 
1. The study by Benzo and associates was at one hospital. It would be interesting to compare employees at different organizations using the same measures, that is self-compassion, happiness, and such, but add measures for engagement, job satisfaction, and customer satisfaction. My guess is organizations with employees who score higher on self-compassion would also be score higher on engagement and organizationally customer satisfaction would be greater.
 
2. This study and others underscore the value of self-compassion and mindfulness training in corporate settings. While such training may seem “touchy-feely,” the potential to affect the bottom-line and customer care may be significant.
 
3. I recommend spending some time at Dr. Neff’s self-compassion website. Watch videos and listen to the exercises. Take time to take care of you.
 
Benzo, R. P., Kirsch, J. L., & Nelson, C. (2017). Compassion, mindfulness, and the happiness of healthcare workers. Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing, 13(3), 201-206.
 
Neff, K. (2017) Self-compassion. http://self-compassion.org
 
Image, “Garage Post.”  © John Ballard, 2017
 
© John Ballard, PhD,  2017. All rights reserved.
 
Author, Decoding the Workplace, BEST CAREER BOOK Next Generation Indie Book Awards 2016.
Please visit www.decodingtheworkplace.com.

Would you work late alone with someone of the opposite sex?  Would you have dinner alone with a co-worker of the opposite sex? The New York Times published the results of a survey online July 1, “It’s Not Just Mike Pence. Americans Are Wary of Being Alone With the Opposite Sex,” and in print July 2, “When Job Puts Sexes Together, Workers Cringe.” Over 1200 people have commented online.
 
Morning Consult surveyed over 5000 people. Women were asked “Is it appropriate or inappropriate to do the following activities alone with a man who is not your spouse? Having a drink, having dinner, having lunch, driving in a car, having a work meeting.” Men were asked the same, “With a woman who is not your spouse?” I do not know if the data were adjusted for sexual preference. The findings:

• Inappropriate to have a drink alone with opposite sex: 48% (men); 60% (women)
• Inappropriate to have dinner alone with opposite sex: 45% (men); 53% (women)
• Inappropriate to have lunch alone with opposite sex: 36% (men); 44% (women)
• Inappropriate to drive in a car alone with opposite sex: 29% (men); 38% (women)
• Inappropriate to have a work meeting alone with opposite sex: 22% (men); 25% (women)

 
From the print article by Claire Cain Miller:

• “Men and women still don’t seem to have figured out how to work or socialize together.”
• “Many men and women are wary of one-on-one situations”
• “(Women) are treated differently not just on the golf course or in the boardroom, but in daily episodes large and small, at work and in their social lives.”
• “When men avoid solo interactions with women – a catch-up lunch or late night finishing a project – it puts women at a disadvantage.”

 
The sociologist Robert Bell (1981) wrote about cross-sex friendships:

• “Over the years probably the most universal restriction on friendships has been to limit them to persons of the same sex.” (p. 95)
• “a greater number of cross-sex friends were reported by persons in white-collar occupations and with some college education” (p. 102)
• “If one believes it is wrong, shameful, or threatening to become friends with the opposite sex, then the chances of doing so become seriously restricted.” (p. 103)
• “The power and pervasiveness of the sexual dimension in cross-sex relationships is the result of social conditioning from an early age.”
• Many believe “mild sexual feeling for one another” will create problems.
• Others see sexuality “as an uncontrollable drive, which is a gross exaggeration.” (p. 108)

 
Kim Elsesser and Letitia Anne Peplau (2006) researched the difficulties of building cross-sex friendships at work and how this can impact careers.  They call these barriers to cross-sex friendships “the glass partition.” The impact is less for men in female-dominated organizations than for women in male-dominated organizations. From Elsesser and Peplau:

• “those not able to form friendships are at a career disadvantage”
• “Friends (provide) information access, work-related assistance . . (and) psychological support”
• “relationship with those more senior . . (can) be valuable to the careers of junior employees”
• “A preference for same-sex friendships restricts an individual’s pool of potential friends.”
• “Increased awareness of sexual harassment with organizations may impact cross-sex friendship development.”
• “The glass partition may differentially disadvantage women who work in predominantly male organizations.” 

 
Women in the Workplace 2016 is a report by LeanIn.Org and McKinsey & Company. It describes the uneven playing field for women and recommends (p. 18) companies:

• “make a compelling case for gender diversity”
• “ensure that hiring, promotions, and reviews are fair”
• “invest in more employee training”
• “focus on accountability and results” 

The report does not address the glass partition.
 
My take-aways:
 
1.  I find the New York Times survey discouraging. I concur with Elsesser and Peplau that difficulties in creating and maintaining cross-sex friendships in the workplace can limit co-workers helping and supporting each other. The “glass partition” probably explains at least in part the “glass ceiling.”
 
2. For some, cross-sex friendships may be difficult but what is the alternative? My guess is the glass partition contributes to issues for women in many workplaces, and probably is a major factor affecting women in STEM careers. Women need men as partners in the workplace and vice versa. So much of what is accomplished in the workplace is done informally. And it is through interactions such as lunches, dinners, meetings, and such that we learn about each other and build trust.
 
3.  In my opinion the glass partition is a larger and more intractable issue than the glass ceiling. It is more subtle and part of our sex role development from childhood. We make progress by recognizing problems and then finding solutions. Is the glass partition inherent or can we create cultures where we work truly as equals?
 
4. Where are we today? In reading the comments to the New York Times article, I think Patrick from Oregon summed it up:
“Probably too simplistic, but I suspect that the bottom line is this:
1. For women, it's concern, or fear, about harassment, or worse.
2. For men, it's fear of false accusation and litigation."
 
Bell, R. R. (1981). Worlds of friendship. Sage Publications.
Cooper, M., Epstein, B., Finch, A., Konar, E., Krivkovich, A., Kutcher, E., Thomas, R., & Yee, L. (2016). Women in the Workplace 2016. LeanIn.Org & McKinsey&Company.
Elsesser, K., & Peplau, L. A. (2006). The glass partition: Obstacles to cross-sex friendships at work. Human Relations, 59(8), 1077-1100.
Miller, C. C., (July 1, 2017).  “It’s Not Just Mike Pence. Americans Are Wary of Being Alone With the Opposite Sex.” https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/upshot/members-of-the-opposite-sex-at-work-gender-study.html?
 
Image, “Woman in Black Suit Jacket Facing Man In Blue Denim.”  Obtained from https://www.pexels.com/photo/woman-in-black-suit-jacket-facing-man-in-blue-denim-dress-shirt-same-standing-165907/  No permission required. https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
 
© John Ballard, PhD,  2017. All rights reserved.
 
Author, Decoding the Workplace, BEST CAREER BOOK Next Generation Indie Book Awards 2016.
Please visit www.decodingtheworkplace.com.

We have heard “don’t judge a book by its cover” but we are innately primed to do so in our interactions with others. Understanding how we perceive faces and how those perceptions can affect hiring, leading, and our workplace interactions is very important. The June 2017 issue of Current Directions in Psychological Science is a special issue devoted to face perception. Here I share information I gleaned from several of the articles.
 
Importance of the face

• “The face is typically the first thing that people notice when encountering another individual.” (Rule, 211)
• “Faces can signal behavioral intentions and internal mental and emotional states.” (Rule, 211)
• “The human face transmits a wealth of signals that readily provide crucial information for social interactions.” (Caldera, 249)
• “No other stimulus conveys such rich information in so finite a space.” (Adams, Albohn, & Kveraga, 243) 

Social categorizing (Rule & Sutherland)

• “Faces contain many informative cues that people use to infer each other’s characteristics, making them arguably the most dominant and fruitful means through which people perceive each other and categorize individuals into groups.” (231)
• “Evidence moreover suggests that perceivers categorize others into social groups unintentionally upon seeing their faces.” (231)
• Big three social categories: age, race, sex
• But we also categorize or make inferences on more subtle characteristics such as sexual orientation.
• “People use the same facial features to stereotype and form prejudiced beliefs about others as they do to categorize them.” (233)
• These categorizations and stereotypes can affect hiring decisions and how people interact.

First impressions (Zebrowitz)

• “Impressions from faces are fast and automatic.” (Zebrowitz, 237)
• First impressions “can lead to inaccurate impressions of people’s psychological traits and has significant social consequences.” (237)
• Four main dimensions of first impressions from facial cues: warmth/trustworthiness & power/dominance
• Impact of perceived central traits: perceive warmness, perceived more positively in spite of negative information; perceive coldness, perceived more negatively.
• People prefer faces “they have seen before” or “similar to previously seen ones.” (238)

Eyes (Adams, Albohn, & Kveraga)

• “Eyes represent the most dynamic and richly informative social stimulus we encounter in our daily lives.” (244)
• “The eyes produce some of the most genuine, dynamic, and socially relevant signals we use to perceive those around us.” (244)
• “We are more sensitive to eye movements than to head movements or postural behaviors.” (244)

Culture (Caldara)

• There are some cultural differences in facial processing, contrary to what social scientists previously thought.
• Westerners (Europe and American cultures): fixate on eye and mouth regions
• Easterners (China, Korea, Japan): more global face processing
• For determining emotions: Westerners, mouth; Easterners: eyes

Leadership (Antonakis & Eubanks)

• “Facial appearance should play a small or a very limited role in observers’ selection of leaders; however, research convincingly shows otherwise.” (270)
• The more distant the potential leader and the less information we have, the more we rely on facial characteristics for judgments about “character and competence.” (270)
• “Appearance plays a significant role in being selected as a leader  . . . and being paid a higher salary.” (272) 

My take-aways:
 
1.  Perceptions based on facial characteristics occur quickly. First impressions may be wrong. Knowing this, we can try to guard against prematurely reaching conclusions. This possible bias underscores the need for objective measures in hiring and promotions.
 
2.  Research suggests there are some cultural differences in how we process facial characteristics. This is useful information not only for interactions in other countries but also at work with people of different ethnicities.
 
3.  This issue suggests that we infer integrity, confidence, and such from facial characteristics, rightly or wrongly. As followers we look to our leaders for these qualities. My guess is perceived facial characteristics will continue to play a role in leader selection, given human nature. However, organizations might be wise to make corrective actions should the selected leader not be able to provide the leadership needed.
 
Adams, R. B., Jr., Albohn, D. N. & Kveraga, K. (2017) Social vision: applying a social-functional approach to face and expression perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(3), 243-248.
Antonakis, J., & Eubanks, D. L. (2017) Looking leadership in the face. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(3), 270-275.
Caldara, R. (2017) Culture reveals a flexible system for face processing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(3), 249-255. 
Rule, N. O. (2017) Introduction to the special issue on face perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(3), 211.
Rule, N. O., & Sutherland, S. L. (2017) Social categorization from faces: evidence from obvious and ambiguous groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(3), 231-236.
Zebrowitz, L. A. (2017) First impressions from faces. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(3), 237-242.
 
Image, “Luther Ballard,” from my collection of family photos.
 
© John Ballard, PhD,  2017. All rights reserved.
 
Author, Decoding the Workplace, BEST CAREER BOOK Next Generation Indie Book Awards 2016.
Please visit www.decodingtheworkplace.com.

Great leadership can be the catalyst to great success. In the National Basketball Association, the Golden State Warriors have earned the NBA Championship two of the past three years. Last year LeBron James of the Cleveland Cavaliers demonstrated incredible leadership in rallying his team down 3 games to 1 to defeat the Warriors 4-3. But Steve Kerr, head coach of the Warriors, exemplifies the characteristics of leadership that could elevate the performance of many organizations.
 
Kerr was absent during most of the championship playoffs due to his recovering from back surgery. But as Chris Ballard (no relation) wrote in the May 29 issue of Sports Illustrated, “No Coach, No Problem.” Ballard’s article provided insight into Kerr’s leadership style, illuminating characteristics of outstanding leaders:

• Respect. Great leaders earn respect and respect others. Players and other coaches respect Coach Kerr highly.
• It’s not about you. When you make a moment about you and not the team or the organization, you start to lose them. It is always about them, about those you lead. Kerr allowed Sports Illustrated only one photo of himself.
• Humility and compassion. Kerr: “The people to me who are the most powerful leaders are the ones who have great talent in whatever their field is, great conviction in their ability to teach it and act it, but an awareness and a humility and compassion for others” (p. 30)
• Nurture freedom, build trust. Coach Kerr has built a culture where players are participants willing to share ideas. It’s not “my way or the highway” but the opposite. The players trust each other and the coaches and vice versa.
• Empower. Kerr’s leadership is highly participative, not hierarchical. Regardless of minutes played, every player is part of the process, the flow, and ready to step up when called.
• Grit. Out of high school Kerr only had one scholarship to a major college basketball program. Ballard noted that as an NBA player for 15 seasons, Kerr only started 30 games. Success goes to those who persevere.
• Communicate. Kerr has conversations with players where as he puts it, he may “overcommunicate” and sometimes he writes notes to players. Players know where they stand; what they need to do to improve.
• Know your people. Warrior player Draymond Green: “he knows me . . . That’s his thing. He has this feel for exactly what each player needs” (p.32).
• Perspective: Kerr: “Take things seriously, but not yourself.”
• Live your core values: Kerr: “What I learned from all the coaches I talked to was that your entire process has to reflect your core values” (p. 34). Kerr’s core values: joy, competition, compassion, mindfulness.

Chris Ballard summed up Kerr’s leadership as follows: "You want to lead like Kerr? Just be humble and grateful, curious and self-aware. Communicate, value family and empower others. When bad things happen, keep a broader perspective. Most of all, create something bigger than yourself  . . .  the real test of a leader is what happens once they leave” (p. 35).
 
My take-aways:
 
1. A great article with good insights for all who choose to lead. My opinion is that allowing your core values to be reflected in your work may be problematic in some organizations. If your core values as a leader do not align with the core values of the organization, then living those core values may be tough. It happens. Sometimes the core values of an organization are not the espoused values.
 
2.  Organizational culture is key. Trust is bedrock for a healthy culture. Kerr trusts and listens. Show me a culture where there are high levels of trust, I expect to see a successful organization with engaged employees. Show me a culture where there are low levels of trust, I expect disengaged employees. Trust starts at the top.
 
3. I really like Chris Ballard’s summary of how to lead like Steve Kerr. Kerr learned much from Gregg Popovich, President and Head Coach of the San Antonio Spurs. Kerr and Popovich are great leaders from whom many can learn.

Ballard, C. (2017, May 29). "No coach, no problem." Sports Illustrated, 126 (15), 28-35. 
 
Image, “Steve Kerr,” by Keith Allison.
Retrieved from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Steve_Kerr_(16453076458)_cropped.jpg
Used with  permission:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en 

© John Ballard, PhD,  2017. All rights reserved.
 
I am very grateful to Coach Popovich for endorsing my book Decoding the Workplace, BEST CAREER BOOK Next Generation Indie Book Awards 2016.
Please visit www.decodingtheworkplace.com.