Category Archives: Diversity

Safetyism Won’t Fly in the Workplace


I must be getting older, because my first reaction when I read about “safetyism” was that no one ever bothered to make me feel safe when I was in college. In fact, I expected my professors and campus organizations and speakers to push me in ways that would cause me to think differently than when I started college as a seventeen-year-old freshman—and I expected that I would be uncomfortable with some of the ideas I heard. I could control some of my discomfort by choosing certain courses and programs and events over others, but I didn’t expect to have total control. Sometimes I stayed away from campus events because I didn’t want to hear what was being said. Other times I went to events, even when I didn’t think I’d agree with the speaker—I went because I wanted to learn something.

But apparently, many college students these days do not view college the same way I did.

Coddling of the American Mind coverIn The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure (2018), authors Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt discuss the growing trend on campuses to make the environment ‘safe’ from threatening ideas. After growing up with helicopter parents and participating only in supervised activities, today’s students are not prepared to cope when confronted with ideas and conduct unlike what they have experienced in the past.

I haven’t read The Coddling of the American Mind, and so this post summarizes the book based on several reviews I have read. My purpose in citing this book is primarily to comment on what it means for the workforce of the future.

The first section of this book explains what the authors believe are three “great untruths” that children are being taught: That pain and discomfort make them weaker; that they should trust their feelings completely; and that the world is composed of a dichotomy of good people and evil people. The book then discusses the authors’ perspective on the historical, social, psychological, and political causes for these untruths. Finally, the authors attempt to offer solutions, such as intellectual humility (no one has all the answers), courage to think independently (pursuing truth wherever it leads), and emotional resilience (handling adversity by controlling your emotions and reactions).

So why is the notion of “safetyism” a relevant topic for a blog focused on corporate and employment issues? Because the college students of today will be employees within just a few years. How will young people who believe that discomfort makes them weaker, who rely on their emotions, and who see the world as a battle between good and evil survive in a corporate environment? I see serious problems when these new adults enter the workplace.

  • If young people cannot deal with emotional pain, how will they react to having their errors pointed out to them? Will they expect to have their every action praised and applauded, whether it was productive or not? How will they respond to bosses who push them to work harder or smarter? What will they do during frank performance discussions? How will they handle merit pay decisions when they don’t come out on top?
  • If they rely primarily on their own emotions, how will they react to the personality quirks and behavioral foibles of other employees with whom they must work? How will they deal with bosses who rant or make cutting remarks on occasion? How will they cope with budget cuts and other decisions that differ from their preferred courses of action? Like families, workplaces operate best when there is some give and take between the members—not every snappish comment is worth reacting to, and not every decision is all about you.
  • If they see a dichotomy between good and evil, how will they deal with people who think differently than they do? How will they compromise or find the best ideas after sifting through a number of possibilities? How will they interact with coworkers from different backgrounds and cultures than their own? How will they learn that the truth is often in the middle, and that people on both sides of a controversy can have developed their opinions rationally?

Keeping children and teens emotionally safe and protected from controversy does not turn them into adults able to speak for themselves. This emotional coddling does not prepare young people to live independently, nor to contribute openly and resiliently in the changing business environment we find ourselves in today.

Trigger warnings, micro-aggressions, safe spaces, and avoidance of unpopular viewpoints do not foster strong thinkers. Tolerance of this coddling in the interest of making students feel “safe” is no way to raise the next generation of leaders. We should hope that college campuses where these aspects of “safetyism” are rampant change their approaches to higher education quickly. Because corporations cannot afford to continue the coddling. At some point, young people will have to become adults, which might come as a rude awakening.

What do you think about the culture of “safetyism”?

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Diversity, Human Resources, Management, Workplace

Favorite Firing: Discharged for Writing a Religious Book


cute-164323_640As I’ve written before, protecting religious freedom deserves special recognition in American society. (See here and here.) The First Amendment begins “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .” Thus, religious freedom was the first right protected by the Bill of Rights. The Constitution’s protection of religion was extended to all levels of government in the Fourteenth Amendment.

I’ve been following the case of the former Atlanta Fire Chief who was fired after he published a book about his religious beliefs. See Cochran v. City of Atlanta and Mayor Kasim Reed, Case No, 1:15-CV-0477-LMM (N.D. Ga. December 20, 2017).

THE FACTS: Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran of Atlanta wrote a book entitled Who Told You That You Were Naked? Most of the book explained his thoughts on helping men become better husbands and fathers. But a few pages discussed his fundamentalist Christian beliefs related to homosexuality and sex outside of marriage. His opinions were certainly politically incorrect and even repugnant to much of American society today. As the District Court later stated, the book contained

“passages identifying those who engage in homosexual and extramarital sex as ‘naked’—or ‘wicked,’ ‘un-Godly’ sinners—whose deaths will be
celebrated.”

Chief Cochran self-published his book and gave copies to a few of his subordinates in the Atlanta Fire Department. One employee took the book to a union official, who took it to the city’s Human Resources Department. Human Resources launched an investigation to determine if Chief Cochran’s views as expressed in the book affected his departmental leadership.

Pending the investigation, Chief Cochran was suspended for 30 days without pay and told that he would need to attend sensitivity training. He says he was told he could not conduct media interviews during his suspension, but the city said he was told not to comment publicly at all. As outlined in the District Court’s opinion, Chief Cochran and members of the Georgia Baptist Convention and others launched a public campaign to get the Chief reinstated.

After his suspension and the city’s investigation, Chief Cochran was fired in January 2015.

There was no indication that Chief Cochran had any performance difficulties in his role as Fire Chief, nor was there any evidence that Chief Cochran had treated any employee or any member of the public with any disrespect or discrimination. However, the city feared that an employee might later allege discrimination and use Cochran’s book as evidence against the city.

After his discharge, Chief Cochran filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Atlanta and its mayor, alleging violation of his First Amendment free speech rights, retaliation in violation of his freedom of association right, unlawful prior restraint of speech in violation of the First Amendment, violation of his First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion, and violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process.

THE MORAL: Although Chief Cochran’s religious book was at the center of the controversy, the parties disagreed on how they stated its role in his discharge. As the District Court put it:

“Plaintiff contends that he was fired because of his religious speech—which is grounded in conservative Christian principles—in violation of the Constitution, while Defendants contend that he was fired because he did not comply with the City’s pre-clearance rules for outside employment [including publication of the book] and for facilitating a massive public relations campaign against the Mayor and the City. Defendants also contend that Plaintiff’s speech made the City potentially vulnerable to employment discrimination claims and substantial disruption.”

The case came before the District Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. The District Court granted each motion in part.

The District Court went through a lengthy analysis balancing the parties’ interests as required by the Supreme Court in Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968). Quoting Pickering, the District Court described the standard:

“‘To prevail under this analysis, an employee must show that: (1) the speech involved a matter of public concern; (2) the employee’s free speech interests outweighed the employer’s interest in effective and efficient fulfillment of its responsibilities; and (3) the speech played a substantial part in the adverse employment action.’ Id. If the employee establishes the first three elements, the burden then shifts to the government to prove by a preponderance of the evidence it would have reached the same decision absent the protected speech.”

Using this standard, the District Court found in the city’s favor and against Chief Cochran on several of his claims. The claims on which the city prevailed were Chief Cochran’s First Amendment free speech rights, freedom of association rights, and his claim of viewpoint discrimination. Because Chief Cochran was a supervisor, dissemination of his book in the workplace made it “not unreasonable for the city to fear” his views might cause “public erosion of trust in the fire department.”

The Court found

“In balancing all of the Pickering factors, Plaintiff’s speech caused such an actual and possible disruption that it does not warrant First Amendment
protection in the workplace . . . ”

And because Chief Cochran was an at will employee, the Court also found that his claim that he had been denied due process was not viable— he was subject to dismissal with or without cause.

To be frank, I think the District Court erred in giving so much credence to the disruption in the workplace, much of which was caused by the investigation itself. Also, the Court cited the social media campaign by plaintiff’s allies as evidence of disruption, but the plaintiff should not be held at fault because his situation was controversial in the city of Atlanta.

Although the District Court ruled in part for the city, the opinion also favored Chief Cochran in part, granting summary judgment for Chief Cochran on his prior restraint claim. The Court found that the city’s pre-clearance rules were an unlawful prior restraint and imposed “unbridled discretion” on city employees. Therefore, the Court held that the city’s decision to fire Chief Cochran for disseminating his book without approval “does not pass constitutional muster.” The city had not provided objective standards, and therefore the city could not require its employees to obtain permission before expressing their religious views.

As a result of winning on the prior restraint and unbridled discretion claims, Chief Cochran was eligible to receive his back pay and attorneys’ fees. In October 2018, several months after the District Court’s ruling, the City of Atlanta and Chief Cochran settled the case. In the settlement, Chief Cochran received $1.2 million.

This would have been a cleaner case had the Court recognized Chief Cochran’s religious expression rights more completely, but in the end, this was an expensive lesson for the city. And a good outcome for government employees who choose to express their religious beliefs, no matter how unpopular those beliefs might be.

Public employers should be careful when they restrict the speech and religious expressions of employees. Government employees should not face the chilling effect of possible discharge for expressing their religious opinions—whether in books, on social media, or in person. They should be free to state beliefs on their own time without fear of losing their jobs.

Under the Pickering framework, public employees, particularly those in supervisory positions, need to take care not to interfere with effective and efficient fulfillment of their agency’s responsibilities. But they should feel free to state their beliefs without fear of retribution.

What do you think about the protection of religious expression in the workplace?

1 Comment

Filed under Diversity, Human Resources, Law, Management, Workplace

Likely Impact of Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision on Employers


wedding-cake-3346747_640Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (Sup. Ct. June 4, 2018), is about discrimination in public accommodations, not employment discrimination. Moreover, the Supreme Court decided the case on narrow grounds—the Court ruled against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission because the Commission had voiced remarks showing a disdain for religion. The Commission did not act as a neutral decision-maker in the dispute between Jack Phillips, the Christian owner of a bakery, and two gay men who asked Mr. Phillips to make them a wedding cake.

Therefore, it might seem that this case would have little to do with employment cases. However, employers frequently find themselves in the same position as the Colorado Civil Rights Commission—arbitrating disputes between two employees each of whom has a protected status, but whose interests clash. These disputes can relate to race, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, or any other protected status.

Let’s just stick with religion—the primary issue in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. I once dealt with an employment discrimination claim in which a woman was fired after she repeatedly answered the phone of her retail employer “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth . . .” Needless to say, the non-Christian customers of this store (as well as many of the Christian customers) were offended to be greeted in this fashion.

At the time, the standard for religious accommodation in employment discrimination cases was whether accommodating the employee’s religious practices resulted in more than a “de minimis” burden on the employer. We successfully argued that offending our customers was more than a “de minimis” burden.

I still think that would be the result today. However, the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision makes it clear that religious practices are to be taken seriously.

In the case I described, we talked to the woman’s pastor, who told us (and her) that her church did not require her to answer the phone “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.” It’s clear under later precedents, however, that it doesn’t matter what the religious institution says, if the individual holds a sincere belief. Thus, this woman’s firmly held belief that she was called to answer the phone this way gave her protected rights, whether it was part of church doctrine or not.

And if we had belittled her in some way because of her belief or because of how she practiced her religion—as the Supreme Court found that Colorado Civil Rights Commission had belittled the cake baker—we might well have been liable for religious discrimination.

Justice Kennedy said in the majority opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop,

“The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. Phillips was entitled to a neutral decisionmaker who would give full and fair consideration to his religious objection as he sought to assert it in all of the circumstances in which this case was presented, considered, and decided.”

Moreover, the Court focused on how the Colorado Civil Rights Commission treated Mr. Phillips differently than other bakers who refused to make cakes with messages opposing gay marriage—those bakers were allowed to refuse customers with whom they disagreed, while the Commission had required Mr. Phillips to bake a cake supporting an occasion his religious beliefs caused him to oppose.

As Justice Kennedy said,

“these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

This is a tall order, but deference and courtesy on all sides is more likely to lead to a positive outcome than hostility and ridicule.

It is never easy to resolve situations when two protected interests clash. For me, the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision reemphasizes the importance of treating all interests with respect. At the end of the day, employers must choose sides, just as the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had to choose a side in this case. But all sides in the dispute should be heard and treated with courtesy and tolerance.

It would have been easy for my client to ridicule the employee who answered a business phone with an overtly religious message. But it would have been wrong. Just as it was wrong for the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to ridicule Jack Phillips and his beliefs.

When have you had to resolve a situation in which various employees’ protected rights clashed?

1 Comment

Filed under Diversity, Human Resources, Law, Management, Workplace

Managing Sexual Harassment Claims in the #MeToo Era


gear-67138_1280Now that I am only posting twice a month, I have less opportunity to comment on news issues that affect corporate management. But the #MeToo movement accusing many public figures in the entertainment and political world of sexual harassment has had an effect on other workplaces as well that is important to recognize.

I won’t list all the men (and occasional woman) outed for their past behavior. What is more important is how corporate managers and Human Resources professionals should respond going forward.

With the increased visibility of sexual harassment in a variety of workplaces, more employers are likely to see claims raised by their employees. The same was true in the weeks after Anita Hill’s allegations of harassment during the 1991 Clarence Thomas Senate confirmation hearings. Even though Senate confirmed Justice Thomas’s nomination to the Supreme Court, sexual harassment became a topic in many workplace discussions that year.

In some ways, corporations are ahead of politicians in addressing harassment issues. Ever since the Supreme Court’s decision in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 106 S. Ct. 2399 (1986), sexual harassment claims have been serious risks in the workplace.

And ever since the companion cases of Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998), employers have had a framework for how to minimize their exposure to claims of harassment based on the creation of a hostile work environment. Elements in that framework include:

  • Having a strong anti-harassment policy
  • Making it easy for victims to raise claims to someone other than the alleged harasser without fear of retaliation
  • Training all employees regularly on what the policy is and how to use it
  • Taking every claim seriously and investigating thoroughly, and
  • Taking appropriate action, if harassment is found.

And yet, even with these policies and practices in place, navigating harassment claims remains a minefield.

In the past thirty-some years, I have handled complaints against everyone from high-level executives to frontline employees. The #MeToo movement emphasizes that no one gets a free pass on harassing behavior.

I have dealt with everything from completely false accusations, to mentally ill employees alleging harassment because they are paranoid, to workplace flirtations and dating gone wrong (probably the most common problem), to quid pro quo demands in exchange for advancing a woman’s career, and even cases involving rape of a coworker.

When an allegation of harassment first arises, there is no way to know which situation one is dealing with. Sometimes the facts become clear very quickly, but other times the truth is hidden in murkiness. The standard is not “beyond a reasonable doubt” but what is “more likely than not”—is there a credible complaint of harassment and what actions are necessary to stop it from occurring again?

When the allegations of harassment are false, the male (99% of alleged harassers are male) feels wronged and his career can be damaged through no fault of his own. And when the allegations of harassment are true, the woman feels disbelieved and disrespected by the slow pace of a thorough investigation. When the allegations cannot be proven one way or the other, no one feels the process has worked. Whatever the outcome of the investigation, coming to the wrong answer, or not addressing the problem with appropriate action, taints the workplace.

So what are managers to do?

The best way to handle a claim of harassment has not changed in the #MeToo era from the steps outlined in Burlington Industries and Farragher. Take every claim seriously. Treat all parties involved with respect. Do your best to find the truth.

And above all else, make it clear from your own behavior that harassment in the workplace—harassment of any type—will not be tolerated. Stop the jokes, whether they be sexual or racial or homophobic. Treat every employee in the manner you want your loved ones to be treated at work.

In addition, in the age of smartphones and social media, recognize that anything you say or do might someday become public. Would you be proud to have your language or behavior show up on someone’s Facebook feed?

Once you as a manager are modeling the appropriate behavior, expect your employees to do the same.

It all comes down to company culture. Make sure yours does not tolerate harassment of any type.

What changes have you made to how you handle sexual harassment claims because of recent publicity on the issue?

Leave a comment

Filed under Diversity, Human Resources, Law, Management, Workplace

Favorite Firings: Stray Discriminatory Comments by Management Complicate Litigation


operation-540597_1280In the Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory newsletter for December 4, 2017, there were three cases reported that dealt with comments by management personnel about employees. In each case, when the employee sued, the employer was unable to get past a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment. Thus, in all three cases, the company faced lengthy litigation that might have been avoided, had managers been more careful with what they said.

THE FACTS:

In Creese v. District of Columbia, Case No. 16-2440 (RMC), D.C.D.C., Nov. 11, 2017, a corrections officer alleged that he was fired because he was not “manly” enough. His supervisor had made a few comments such as, “[n]o pretty boys needed in jail, so you need to take your earrings out.” The judge found that plaintiff produced enough evidence of impermissible gender stereotyping to survive a motion to dismiss his Title VII and Section 1983 claims.

In Sestak v. Northwestern Memorial Healthcare, Case No. 16-C-6354, N.D. Ill., Nov. 28, 2017, plaintiff Sestak, a labor and delivery nurse, alleged age discrimination after she was discharged for cause. She claimed that an unidentified individual stated that “older nurses would have difficulty” complying with new guidelines because older nurses “are too slow and spend too much time with patients” and that one of her supervisors stated that “older nurses’ often have difficulty understanding when the mother and baby become separate patients.” The court denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment.

In Carter v. A&E Supported Living, Inc., Case No. 16-00574-N, S.D. Ala., Nov. 29, 2017, a nurse was removed from the shift schedule at a group home for intellectually disabled individuals and then sued for pregnancy discrimination. She cited supervisors’ comments to her as evidence that she was removed from her work schedule because of her pregnancy and/or the related “high risk” conditions that the supervisors believed her pregnancy presented. One supervisor stated plaintiff “was at risk to be hurt and [she] didn’t want that for her or her unborn child, for her baby; nor did [she] want to put the people that [the employer] serve at risk…” Plaintiff was required to provide medical documentation that it was safe for her and her unborn child for her to perform the duties of her position. The judge denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

THE MORAL:

The general legal standard is that stray comments in the workplace do not automatically lead to violations of the discrimination laws. However, they can be evidence of a discriminatory intent. And, of course, the more egregious and frequent the remarks, the more likely courts are to find liability. I’ve written other posts (see here and here and here) about how supervisory comments can get their employers into trouble.

In each of these cases, the employer put forth nondiscriminatory reasons for the actions taken against the employee. But the existence of the supervisors’ comments about pregnancy or gender or age complicated the cases enough to let the judges refuse to grant the defendants’ dispositive motions. The employers may end up winning these cases, but they face lengthy and expensive litigation before they do. Settling the cases may prove to be the better option.

Moreover, in the environment we face today, with heightened sensitivity toward sexual harassment and discriminatory remarks, employers would be well advised to re-emphasize the need to avoid even casual comments about employees’ health, appearance, and any other topics that might touch on a protected status.

It’s a shame that we must be so careful in the workplace and avoid many topics of everyday conversation, but it’s the safest course. As demonstrated by these three cases decided by different courts in recent weeks, supervisory comments continue to present litigation challenges to employers. It is best to involve Human Resources and lawyers if there is any question about what topics are permissible to discuss.

What’s your opinion on the current state of conversation in the workplace?

Leave a comment

Filed under Diversity, Human Resources, Law, Management, Workplace

Coping with Implicit Bias in Mediation


workplace-1245776_640A few weeks ago I attended a training program for mediators on implicit bias. As the presenter said, we all see every situation we encounter through the lens of our own experience. That’s what gives rise to implicit bias.

One definition I’ve seen of “implicit bias” is “a term of art referring to relatively unconscious and relatively automatic features of prejudiced judgment and social behavior.” This sounds bad, but the presenter at the training program made it clear that he did not think implicit bias is bad or wrong or morally repugnant. In his opinion, implicit bias isn’t the same as prejudice. It is simply the lens through which we see the world. We can’t escape it, but we should be aware of it.

Whether it has a moral dimension or not, implicit bias does impact every step of dispute resolution. To begin with, our view of the world colors how we interpret the events that happen to us. Moreover, the lens through which we see events stirs up different feelings and reactions about what happened in each person involved—each one of us sees the world differently.

So what should mediators do about implicit bias?

Recognize and Manage Your Own Implicit Bias.

The first step in dealing with implicit bias is to be aware of it. As mediators, we should reflect in advance what aspects of the case might trigger our own emotions, as well as those of the parties. We need to be mindful of our own hot spots.

We can prepare ourselves before a mediation by setting aside our own problems and concerns, so that we can address the parties’ needs. Some mediators engage in other physical activity before mediating. Others practice meditation or other mindfulness exercises. The point is to open our minds to being empathetic to people who come from different perspectives than we do. We need to be ready to engage the parties where they are, and not where you are.

Mediators are supposed to be neutral and impartial. Managing our own implicit bias is critical to our value to the dispute resolution process.

Recognize and Manage the Implicit Bias of the Parties.

The next step is to understand others’ perspectives. As mediators, we need to manage the process and not let the parties act vindictively. But it is important to let their emotions into the process. Let the parties tell their stories.

Asking questions in a calm and respectful manner is a good way to determine what biases each party (and each attorney) brings to the dispute. Sometimes, the parties are less of the problem than their lawyers, so it might be necessary to explore the attorney’s perspective as well as his or her client’s .

As mediators, we have to assess whether it is more productive to have these probing conversations in a joint session or in a caucus. If the parties are working well together, it can be more effective to let each person tell his or her story, then ask the other “Does that ring true for you? If not, why not?” But if they are not behaving respectfully, or if emotions rise out of control, then separation is probably best. Then, however, the mediator must act as the interpreter of the story to the other side . . . which risks bringing our own biases into the discussion.

The key to dealing with implicit biases is to treat them as an unavoidable part of the equation. They aren’t good or bad, they are just another set of variables that will impact the process and the result. Remember that mediation is designed to let the parties resolve their own conflict—biases and all.

When has your implicit bias impacted a dispute you were trying to resolve?

Leave a comment

Filed under Diversity, Mediation

Alpha Dogs and Leadership


dogs-1231010_1280Because this blog was on hiatus all summer, I didn’t comment on the political stalemates and morasses during those months. And I’m not going to comment directly on the ongoing issues today. But what I saw over the summer—and what I continue to see this fall—reminds me of a situation I encountered many years ago involving “alpha dogs” in a corporate setting.

My work group attended a gender diversity program sometime in the mid-1990s. I was not in management at the time; I was one of several individual contributors who ranged widely in seniority. I was in the middle of the pack at the time.

One of the comments about gender differences that the facilitator made during this gender diversity session was that men often try to be the “alpha dog” in a meeting by one-upping the other men in the room. Women, on the other hand, care less if they are seen as the highest power in the room. (Keep in mind that this program took place decades before Sheryl Sandberg’s “Lean In” philosophy became vogue.)

I might have forgotten this “alpha dog” comment, except that a few days after the diversity program, I was talking about it with a male colleague, one of the more senior employees in our group. He freely admitted, “That’s why I have problems with [our male boss]. He and I both want to be the alpha dog.”

I thought about it. He was right—these two men did both try to be top dog. And trying to be the alpha dog wasn’t working for my colleague, because he didn’t have the corporate authority to pull it off. He wasn’t the boss, but he often tried to be.

I made a deliberate decision. As a fairly young and introverted female, seeking to be the alpha dog wasn’t going to work for me either. Therefore, I would consciously act like I was NOT the alpha dog. I would not overtly try to one-up other people I encountered in the workplace. I would defer to others intentionally. I would seek to provide good service to my colleagues and clients, rather than to command them. That didn’t mean letting others step all over me, but it did mean not being arrogant or seeking top billing on projects.

I’ve written before about “servant leadership,” a philosophy that advocates leading by serving others. I didn’t hear of that concept until ten or more years after the 1990s gender diversity program, but it resonated with me when I learned about it.

How did servant leadership work for me?

Generally, it worked well, at least through the middle years in my career. Over time, there were more and more times when I had to take command and make decisions. And occasionally, I didn’t get as much credit for my work as I thought I should have. But those times were less frequent than one might expect.

However, there were times after I moved into senior corporate roles when more of a command approach might have worked better. There were definitely people—mostly men, but a few women—who took advantage of my understated approach or who thought me weak. I could usually deflect them by being the best prepared person in the room, but there were a few jerks who only understood power, who only thought highly of other “alpha dogs” and sought to be the “alpha dog” with everyone except the CEO. They were never my favorite people, but sometimes I did have to flex my style to deal with them effectively.

dogs-1231008_640Unfortunately, many of today’s leaders—particularly the partisans on both sides of the aisle in Washington—seem to be of the “alpha dog” mentality. One-up-man-ship is all they understand. And so our nation has become increasingly polarized. If more of them would exercise servant leadership, we would all be better off.

What leadership style have you generally used? When have you had to flex your style?

Leave a comment

Filed under Diversity, Leadership, Management, Philosophy, Politics, Workplace