All Posts in Office Politics

|In: Business Ethics|Last Updated:

In the end, technique can’t substitute for courage.

Take, for example, brainstorming. By now, most of us in business have learned how to brainstorm properly. We sit at the table, politely waiting our turn while the facilitator asks for our ideas in strict rotation, writing them down verbatim while we all take great care to avoid offering even the slightest appearance of criticism lest it intimidate the flow of creative thought.

Then we get our milk and cookies and take a nap.

Not only can’t technique substitute for courage, but it can prevent the very benefits you’re trying to achieve. Brainstorming, or at least the form of brainstorming most of us have been taught in facilitation school, not only doesn’t work but can’t work.

Let’s start with the standard practice of presenting ideas in strict rotation. The reason for doing so is to make sure everyone gets a chance — important among children; ridiculous among supposed adults who by now ought to grasp how to converse in public. Forcing adults to take turns in a brainstorming session is a superior way to drain the energy out of a group. Jill makes a point that Fred wants to embellish. Fred, however, has to wait until three other people have presented entirely different ideas, not because they especially wanted to, but because it was their turn. By the time Fred’s turn arrives, any remaining shred of continuity has fled the room and the effort Fred must expend to restore it greatly exceeds the value of the embellishment, so Fred doesn’t bother.

Nor does Fred bother to do anything else. His mental energy has been used to repress the expression of his idea.

Meanwhile, Ralph has made an off-the-wall suggestion. Rather than offer her critique, Kayla bites her tongue because it isn’t time for critiquing right now. That’s too bad, because had she been allowed to do so her comments would have caused a mental light bulb to turn on in Zack’s mind.

So here’s a suggestion on how to make brainstorming work: Rather than spend a lot of time and energy preventing the flow of ideas so as to cater to the timid, why don’t we spend a small fraction of it counseling the timid on the nature of professionalism.

My parents’ generation charged pillboxes on Guadalcanal. Compared to that, is asking someone to speak up in a team meeting too much courage to ask for?

Comments

|In: Career Management|Last Updated:

If you want to know why practitioners of the hard sciences sometimes sneer at social scientists, look no farther than the popular book Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman. In it, Goleman presents a groundbreaking discovery: People who are socially graceful enjoy more success than people who are intellectually brilliant but socially inept. This unexpected insight was, until Goleman’s book, known only to high school nerds, IT professionals who report to “a suit,” and those who read Dilbert and actually get the joke.

I have a problem with Emotional Intelligence (measured by something Goleman calls “EQ”), not because it’s wrong, but because it’s dumb.

To be fair, my criticisms of this book are in the domain of the purely rational. As Goleman points out, we’ve overemphasized the importance of rationality, the trait that separates us from every other species on the planet, and underemphasized the importance of our emotional selves. I guess that means we ought to base our evaluation of this book on whether it makes us feel good.

But I just can’t bring myself to endorse a book that so hopelessly confuses description with prescription.

Goleman’s description is correct, although so obvious one wonders why anyone would bother buying a book to understand it. Put succinctly, it’s that if you want to succeed you have to get along with people. It’s an accurate statement; one made in this space many times. If you want a successful career, pay attention.

But Goleman takes it a step beyond, to the Panglossian conclusion that this is a good thing. Maybe it is, although I have a hard time agreeing that we should downplay facts and logic in favor of something any baboon can master … literally!

Here’s the point Emotional Intelligence should have made: We tend to hire and promote those with superior social graces over those who excel at their work, and buy from the sales representative with the best haircut, firmest handshake, most resonant voice and tasteful clothes. But that’s a very bad way to behave, and with training we can learn to overcome it.

Or as I once explained to a hiring manager who reported to me, I’d rather apologize for my technicians’ poor manners than for their lack of competence.

Of course, had Goleman made this point instead, Emotional Intelligence wouldn’t have become a best-seller and he wouldn’t have become as successful as he has.

Which just goes to show that if nothing else, Goleman eats his own cooking.

Comments