,

Leveraging a Multigenerational Workforce

‘Leveraging a Multigenerational Workforce’ – it’s a bit of a mouthful and the debate on the topic isn’t any easier to digest.

As the retirement age creeps slowly upward, leaders are faced with the challenge of managing a multigenerational workforce. How do you encourage the Baby Boomer and Gen Z staff members to connect and work together? Their idea of humor is entirely different and it’s nearly impossible to translate.

With each generation exhibiting unique characteristics and experiences, it becomes essential for leaders to understand these differences and find ways to leverage them for the success of their teams.

The Generational Divide: A Kaleidoscope of Differences

Traditional Leadership: Wisdom and Experience

The traditional generation, born between the 1920s and 1940s, is characterized by a strong work ethic, loyalty, and respect for authority. Traditional leaders often possess a wealth of wisdom and experience, gained through years of dedication to their craft. Their leadership style tends to be hierarchical, emphasizing a clear chain of command and obedience to rules. Key attributes of traditional leaders include:

  • Respect for established processes and protocols
  • Emphasis on discipline and adherence to rules
  • Strong focus on loyalty and dedication
  • Command-and-control approach to leadership

Traditional Leadership: Drawbacks

  • Resistance to change: Traditional leaders may be resistant to adopting new ideas, technologies, or approaches that challenge established processes and protocols. This resistance can hinder innovation and hinder the organization’s ability to adapt to changing market dynamics.
  • Lack of flexibility: The command-and-control approach of traditional leaders can create a rigid and inflexible work environment. This can stifle creativity, discourage independent thinking, and limit the potential for individual growth and development within the organization.
  • Limited inclusivity: Traditional leaders often prioritize loyalty and obedience to authority, which can lead to a lack of inclusivity and diversity in decision-making processes. Different perspectives and ideas from diverse team members may not be adequately considered, resulting in missed opportunities and a less dynamic organization.
  • Communication gaps: The hierarchical nature of traditional leadership can create communication gaps within the organization. Information may flow primarily from the top down, making it challenging for lower-level employees to provide input or raise concerns. This can lead to a disconnect between leaders and their teams, affecting morale and overall productivity.
  • Slow decision-making: Traditional leaders may adhere strictly to established processes and protocols, resulting in slow decision-making. This can be problematic in fast-paced industries or situations that require quick responses to emerging challenges or opportunities. Delays in decision-making can hinder progress and impede the organization’s ability to stay competitive.
  • Limited development opportunities: While traditional leaders possess valuable wisdom and experience, their emphasis on discipline and adherence to rules may limit the opportunities for employees to learn and grow. This can result in a stagnant work environment where new ideas and approaches are not encouraged or nurtured.

Baby Boomers: Visionary and Collaborative

Born between the 1940s and 1960s, Baby Boomers have witnessed significant societal changes and are known as visionaries and catalysts for transformation. Baby Boomer leaders often strive to make a lasting impact and leave a positive legacy. They value collaboration and seek consensus among team members. Key attributes of baby boomer leaders include:

  • Strong visionary outlook and long-term strategic thinking
  • Emphasis on teamwork and collaboration
  • Willingness to challenge the status quo and drive change
  • Effective communication skills and ability to inspire others
  • Desire to leave a lasting impact on the organization and society

Baby Boomers: Drawbacks

  • Resistance to new technology: Baby Boomers tend to be comfortable with emerging technologies compared to younger generations. Their reluctance to fully embrace technological advancements can result in missed opportunities for digital transformation and hinder the organization’s ability to stay competitive in a rapidly evolving digital landscape.
  • Difficulty adapting to change: Baby Boomers may have been catalysts for transformation during their youth, but they can sometimes struggle with adapting to new and rapid changes in the modern business environment. Their focus on long-term strategic thinking may make them hesitant or slow to respond to sudden shifts in the market or industry trends.
  • Reluctance to delegate authority: This group often possesses a strong desire for control and may be reluctant to delegate authority to others. This can create bottlenecks in decision-making processes and limit the empowerment and growth opportunities for their subordinates. It may also prevent the organization from fully utilizing the diverse skills and perspectives of its workforce.
  • Generational gaps in communication: Baby Boomers may face challenges in effectively communicating with younger employees. Their reliance on traditional communication methods, such as face-to-face meetings or phone calls, may limit their ability to connect and engage with younger team members who have an aversion to answering phone calls.
  • Potential resistance to unconventional ideas: While Baby Boomers value collaboration, their emphasis on consensus and teamwork may lead to a reluctance to consider unconventional or disruptive ideas. This can stifle innovation and limit the organization’s ability to explore new approaches or take calculated risks necessary for growth and staying ahead of the competition.
  • Limited focus on work-life balance: Baby Boomers often have a strong work ethic and dedication to their careers. This can sometimes translate into long working hours and limited emphasis on work-life balance. Resulting in employee burnout, decreased morale, and difficulties in attracting and retaining younger talent who prioritize a healthier work-life integration.

Generation X: Adaptable and Independent

Generation X, born between the 1960s and early 1980s, is known for their adaptability and independence. Having experienced rapid technological advancements, they are comfortable with change and possess a creative and entrepreneurial mindset. Generation X are often focused on results, promoting a work-life balance, and empowering their teams. Key attributes of Generation X include:

  • Adaptability to changing circumstances and technological advancements
  • Preference for a flexible work environment and work-life balance
  • Emphasis on empowering employees and encouraging independent thinking
  • Strong problem-solving skills and resourcefulness
  • Results-oriented approach to leadership

Generation X: Drawbacks

  • Potential for workaholism: Generation X’s emphasis on results and their entrepreneurial mindset may lead to a tendency to work long hours and prioritize work. This can create a workaholic culture within the organization and lead to burnout.
  • Resistance to hierarchical structures: Generation X, known for their independent thinking, may be resistant to traditional hierarchical structures. While this can foster a more collaborative and inclusive work environment, it may also create challenges. For example, maintaining clear lines of communication and decision-making processes.
  • Difficulty with micromanagement: This generation’s preference for empowering employees and encouraging independent thinking may clash with their desire for results. In some cases, this can lead to difficulties in finding the right balance between empowering employees and ensuring accountability. Some Generation X team members may struggle with micromanagement tendencies, which can hinder creativity and autonomy among teams.
  • Generation gap in technology adoption: While Generation X are generally comfortable with technological advancements, they may not have the same level of fluency and adaptability as younger generations. This generation gap can result in challenges when implementing emerging technologies to their full potential.
  • Potential for risk aversion: While Generation X are resourceful and adept at problem-solving, they may also exhibit a certain level of risk aversion. This caution can be attributed to their experiences of economic recessions and market fluctuations. While calculated risk-taking is important for innovation and growth, an excessive aversion to risk can hinder the organization’s ability to seize new opportunities.
  • Resistance to change fatigue: Generation X has experienced significant changes in technology and society. They may, therefore, be more prone to change fatigue. These team members may have participated in multiple organizational changes and transformations throughout their careers. Thereby leading to a degree of skepticism or resistance when faced with new initiatives. This resistance can hinder the organization’s ability to adapt to rapidly evolving business landscapes.

Millennials and Generation Z: Collaborative and Purpose-Driven

Millennials (born between the early 1980s and mid-1990s) and Generation Z (born in the late 1990s and early 2000s) have grown up in the digital age. These generations value collaboration, diversity, and purpose-driven work. They seek to make a meaningful impact and prioritize work that aligns with their personal values. Key attributes of Millennials and Gen Z include:

  • Embracing technology and digital communication tools
  • Emphasis on teamwork, diversity, and inclusion
  • Desire for work that has a positive social or environmental impact
  • Openness to feedback and continuous learning
  • Preference for flat organizational structures and participatory decision-making

Millennials and Generation Z: Drawbacks

  • Impatience with career progression: Millennials and Generation Z’s desire for rapid career advancement can sometimes lead to impatience. In addition to a lack of willingness to invest the time and effort to develop the skills and experience required for higher-level positions.
  • Over-reliance on digital communication: While these generations excel in leveraging technology and digital communication tools, they may struggle with face-to-face or interpersonal communication skills. Heavy reliance on digital platforms for communication can sometimes hinder their ability to build strong relationships. In addition to conveying complex ideas effectively, or navigating difficult conversations that require emotional intelligence.
  • Balancing work and personal life boundaries: Millennials and Generation Z prioritize work-life integration and often seek flexibility in their schedules. However, this blurred line between work and personal life can lead to challenges. Such as setting boundaries and managing their time effectively which risks burnout.
  • Need for constant feedback and validation: Millennials and Gen Z grew up in an era of constant feedback and validation through social media and online platforms. They often crave frequent recognition and affirmation for their work. This can create a demand for immediate feedback and validation, which may not always align with the realities of a workplace.
  • Decision-making in a participatory environment: These generations value inclusivity and participatory decision-making processes. However, in certain situations where quick and decisive action is required, this can lead to delays in decision-making. It can be particularly challenging in high-pressure or time-sensitive scenarios.
  • Potential for information overload: Being digital natives, Millennials and Gen Z have grown up with an abundance of information at their fingertips. However, this constant access to information can lead to overload and decision paralysis. Sorting through vast amounts of data and filtering out the relevant information can be a challenge, requiring them to develop strong critical thinking and information management skills.

Leveraging Multigenerational Workforces

Effective leadership in a multigenerational workforce necessitates a nuanced and adaptable approach. One that recognizes and leverages the unique characteristics of each generation. To promote a harmonious and productive work environment, leaders must embrace diversity and value the varied strengths, perspectives, and experiences that individuals from different generations bring to the table. There are many ways to leverage multigenerational leadership styles to optimize a business’ productivity. By doing so, we can create a cohesive team that thrives on the collective wisdom of multiple generations.

  1. Embrace diversity: Recognize and appreciate the diverse strengths, perspectives, and experiences each generation brings to the table.
  2. Foster cross-generational mentorship: Encourage knowledge-sharing and mentorship programs to bridge the generation gap and facilitate mutual learning.
  3. Communicate effectively: Tailor communication strategies to accommodate different preferences, whether it’s face-to-face meetings, emails, or digital collaboration platforms.
  4. Provide growth opportunities: Offer professional development programs that cater to different learning styles and provide avenues for advancement.
  5. Lead by example: Demonstrate inclusive leadership behaviors, such as active listening, empathy, and respect, to inspire and engage employees from all generations.

Conclusion: Leading a Multigenerational Workforce

In today’s rapidly evolving world, organizations must embrace and leverage the power of leading a multigenerational workforce. By understanding the different styles of generations, we can harness their collective strengths. In turn, we can create a dynamic and inclusive work environment that fosters innovation, collaboration, and success. Keep in mind that leadership is not about imposing a single style. Rather, it’s about adapting and evolving to meet the diverse needs and aspirations of our team members. Embrace the wisdom of Traditional Leaders, the vision of Baby Boomers, and the adaptability of Generation X. Then add the collaborative spirit of Millennials and Gen Z to create a multigenerational leadership style able to navigate the complexities of contemporary business.

/0 Comments/by
, ,

Providing Effective Feedback

As leaders, one of our most important responsibilities is to provide effective feedback to our team members. Feedback is a crucial tool that helps us to understand what our team is doing well and where they could improve. It is a two-way communication process that helps to build trust, foster growth, and encourage development.

What is Effective Feedback?

Feedback is the process of providing information to an individual or group about their performance. It can take many forms, including verbal, written, or nonverbal communication. Feedback is a crucial tool for personal and professional development, allowing individuals to understand their strengths and weaknesses and make necessary adjustments.

Want to achieve your full potential?

Reinvent Yourself Today!

Importance of Feedback in Leadership

As leaders, we need to provide feedback to our team members regularly. Here are some reasons why feedback is essential:

  1. Builds Trust and Encourages Open Communication: Feedback helps to build trust and encourages open communication between the leader and the team. When team members receive feedback, they feel heard and valued, which leads to increased trust and engagement. Open communication also allows leaders to address any concerns or issues before they become bigger problems.
  2. Encourages Development and Growth: Feedback provides team members with an opportunity to learn and grow. When we provide feedback, we are not just pointing out what needs improvement; we are also highlighting the areas where the team member is excelling. By acknowledging their strengths, we can encourage them to continue to develop their skills and grow professionally.
  3. Increases Accountability: Feedback increases accountability, both for the leader and the team member. As a leader, it is our responsibility to provide constructive feedback that helps our team members to succeed. By providing regular feedback, we are holding ourselves accountable for our team’s success, and we are also encouraging our team members to take responsibility for their own growth and development.
  4. Enhances Performance: Feedback enhances performance by providing team members with the information they need to improve. When we provide feedback, we are helping team members to identify areas where they can improve and develop their skills. This, in turn, leads to better performance and increased productivity.

Tips for Providing Effective Feedback

Providing effective feedback is an art form that requires practice and skill. Here are some tips for providing effective feedback:

  1. Be Specific and Timely: Feedback should be specific and timely. We should provide feedback as soon as possible after the event or behavior we are addressing. The feedback should be specific, focusing on the behavior and its impact on the team and the organization.
  2. Focus on Behaviors, Not Personalities: Feedback should focus on behaviors, not personalities. We should avoid using judgmental language and focus on the behavior and its impact on the team and the organization.
  3. Use the Sandwich Method: The sandwich method is a technique that involves sandwiching negative feedback between two positive statements. For example, we could say, “I appreciate the effort you put into this project. However, I noticed that you missed the deadline. Next time, let’s work together to ensure that we meet our deadlines.”
  4. Encourage Two-Way Communication: Feedback should be a two-way communication process. We should encourage team members to provide feedback to us as well. This allows us to understand their perspective and make necessary adjustments to our leadership style.

Conclusion – Providing Effective Feedback

Feedback is an essential tool for leaders. It helps to build trust, encourages development and growth, increases accountability, and enhances performance. As leaders, we should provide feedback regularly and effectively, focusing on behaviors rather than personalities, and encouraging two-way communication. By doing so, we can create a culture of growth, development, and success for our team and our organization.

Contact Us

Reach out to the team to book a consult.

/0 Comments/by
,

How to Apply Rupture and Repair Therapy as a Leader

The concept of “rupture and repair” is widely used in the fields of social work and community services. It has origins in attachment theory founded by John Bowlby (1958) and is well known in therapeutic disciplines such as psychology, psychiatry, and contemporary trauma-informed practice disciplines such as neurobiology. It is also something you can adapt to your leadership practice with great benefit.

In simple terms, “rupture and repair” is about breaking, fixing, and improving relationships. Specifically, it is about a breach or disconnect in a relationship followed by the restoration and positive continuation of that relationship.

Level Up Your Leadership

View our self-paced, online courses designed to level up your leadership skills and take that next step in your career.

My experience with rupture and repair comes from my work with children and young people with trauma/abuse histories. The majority of this population has been betrayed by their loved ones, and as a result, they have ongoing trouble forming attachments and building trust. By using the rupture and repair approach as a way to promote healthy conflict resolution, we could assist in their healing by showing them that they are safe and appropriate people in the world with whom they can communicate openly.

From a leadership perspective, this approach can be invaluable. Conflict in the workplace is inevitable. If a leader reaches across the divide to help reconnect their employees after a conflict, it can improve and strengthen relationships across the team.

How Professional Relationships Can Break Down

Let’s say you have received an email from a staff member. They are unhappy with a work policy and demand to know what you plan to do about it. Imagine that the employee’s tone is blunt to the point of aggression and very accusatory, attacking your abilities and competence as a leader. 

You may be tempted to match the employee’s tone by going on the defensive, matching their aggression with your own in an attempt to shut them down or “be right.” If you are experiencing additional stress in other areas (such as a looming deadline or a sick family member), that might further fuel your ire. The moment you hit Send, however, you have created a rupture in that professional relationship.

Repairing Professional Relationships as a Leader

Regardless of who is “right,” it is your responsibility as a leader to fix the situation.

To start the repairing process, take the following action:

  1. Reach out to your employee and apologize. Do not make excuses or try to justify your actions. What matters is that your poor communication caused the rupture. Ideally, you should do this as soon as possible after the rupture. However, make sure you fully acknowledge and accept your responsibility for the situation before you reach out. If there’s a chance you will return to a defensive posture, it might be better to wait.
  2. Let them know how much you value their contributions. This whole thing started because this employee was trying to bring a potentially problematic issue to your attention. That kind of proactiveness and concern is what makes them a great team member.
  3. Listen. Whether they need to vent further about the initial problem or they want to talk about how the rupture has made them feel, give them plenty of space to speak freely. They may say some things that are hard for you to hear, but hear them you must. It is your job as a leader to accept those critiques instead of thinking up ways to defend your behavior.
  4. Assure them that you will address their initial concern as soon as possible. You might even consider asking them to assist you, giving them an even greater sense of ownership and input over the resolution.
  5. Follow through. If you’ve told them you would have an answer for them by the end of the day, do it.

By addressing ruptures quickly with a desire to fix what is broken (instead of a need to win), you are more likely to come out of the situation with a stronger professional relationship than you had before the rupture. 

Contact Us

Reach out to the team to book a consult.

Learning From Ruptures

At  Eighth Mile Consulting, we believe that mistakes are opportunities for reflection and improvement. Next time you experience a rupture, spend the extra ten minutes repairing things regardless of who you think was at fault. More than likely, you will both come away with a greater sense of trust and support. This could translate into improved performance and productivity down the road.

We also know that accountability and accepting critique doesn’t always come naturally–it takes training. If you’re looking for a straightforward lesson on how to face your mistakes head-on, explore our 8-week online personal development and leadership program or contact us for personalized coaching.

/5 Comments/by
, , , ,

Has Political Correctness Gone Too Far? Honesty and Respect in Workplace Communication

Please lower your shield and spears, I swear I come in peace. Recently, I ran a poll where I ventured the question: “Has political correctness gone too far?” I knew I was opening a can of worms. But I had also grown weary of tip-toeing around issues that needed to be addressed, especially with regard to workplace communication. And honestly, I was curious. What is it about this topic that polarizes people so greatly?

Poll Question Has Political Correctness Gone Too Far with results indicating 84% of respondents replied yes and 16% replied no.

As you might imagine, this poll generated both a lot of responses (over 2500) and a lot of comments justifying why they voted the way they did. This revealed some very interesting differences between the groups, as well as some surprising similarities. It also raised a few questions about political correctness and workplace communication.

Political Correctness: Social Evolution or Censorship?

For the purposes of this analysis, let’s look at the respondent groups separately. 

The Yes Group 

Those who said that political correctness has gone too far all justified their decision based on variations and combinations of the following beliefs:

  • Political correctness is a form of censorship. Labeling something as un-PC is just another way of censoring the truth, resulting in the deceleration of cultural evolution.
  • People are too quick to take things personally. People who label things as un-PC are too sensitive and can’t handle conflict.
  • Political correctness tramples over some people’s opinions and not others. This results in a feeling of discrimination.

The No Group 

Conversely, those who don’t believe that political correctness has gone too far seem to have the following beliefs in common:

  • Political correctness is a natural social evolution. It is a by-product of people becoming more enlightened about the effect our behaviors have on others.
  • We do not fully understand our own biases and assumptions. Therefore, we do not always know the damage we are causing others.
  • Political correctness is only vilified by bullies or those who don’t want to be held accountable for their actions.

Political Correctness and Communication Breakdown 

The differences between the two groups are clear. It’s the things they have in common that I found interesting. Both groups had assumptions, biases, and subjective viewpoints that made true communication and understanding nearly impossible.

Assumed Intent

Perhaps the most striking commonality between the groups was that they both assumed the other group harbored ill intent toward them.

  • The Yeses assumed that the Nos were using political correctness to suppress free speech because they were too weak or too stupid to handle “the truth.”
  • The Nos assumed that the Yeses were trying to misdefine the term itself as censorship so they could continue to voice every (presumably horrible) opinion they held. 

In essence, both parties assumed the worst of each other.

The assertions they made about each other fed the narrative of “evilness,” which further polarized and alienated everyone involved. 

Assume the worst about people and you get the worst

Ha-Joon Chang

I’m not saying there are no evil people in the world. But how likely is it that everyone in X group is evil just because they don’t agree with you on this point? Not very. In fact, I suspect that all the respondents, regardless of group, are more alike than they think. They are all looking at the information available to them and drawing conclusions that make sense as they see it. 

So how did they come to such different answers?

Filtering and Context: How and Why We Believe What We Do

Our brains are geared in such a way that they are constantly trying to make sense of the complexities surrounding us. We can’t ingest every single thing, so we filter out what seems unimportant in order to focus on what is. However, because everyone filters based on different criteria, none of us are viewing the world objectively (or accurately).

What you see is filtered through your beliefs. You rarely see “reality.” You see your version of it.

-Joe Vitale

Our ability to focus is a great asset. But when the majority of our beliefs are grounded in partial truths and a singular perspective, it becomes problematic. Even a little scary. Incomplete perceptions of reality can all too easily lead to ignorance, bigotry, and hate.

However, when we delve deeper into an issue–especially the opposing viewpoint–we learn the importance of context. What might be correct in one case is wrong in another. Or something might be both right and wrong at the exact same time.

If we rely solely on the information provided by our subjective experience, we will never reach the actual truth. Only by making a conscious effort to look at every facet of a situation can we come close to truly understanding it.

Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias is “the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one’s prior beliefs or values.”  Quite simply, if you look for evidence to support your opinion, you will find it–and will subsequently ignore all proof to the contrary, no matter how much of it there may be. 

“I think it’s outrageous if a historian has a ‘leading thought’ because it means they will select their material according to their thesis.”

-Antony Beevor

We saw this behavior in the reaction to the poll itself. The more people stated their opinion as unequivocally right, the more entrenched in that opinion everyone else became. 

Confirmation bias is like a feedback loop. Words said into a microphone come out of the speaker so loudly it is picked up by the microphone, then played out of the speaker, on and on until the cacophony is so loud that nothing else can get through. If left unchecked, it results in irreversible damage to the system and everyone listening to it.

Political Correctness and Workplace Communication

So where do we go from here? In all this polarized thinking, is a meeting of the minds still possible? 

And what of workplace communication? Is there a way to have honest dialog if we are constantly worrying about offending each other?

The short answer is yes, open and honest workplace communication is possible, even in an age of political correctness. But before you can journey down that path, it’s important to understand a few distinctions first.

Understand The Difference Between Values and Beliefs

Values are guiding principles that define our identities by guiding our efforts and behaviors. Though they may shift in priority over the years, one’s values tend to remain constantly present throughout their life.

Beliefs are things that one accepts as true, often without proof. Beliefs can and often do change as we grow and our understanding of the world becomes more refined.

When it comes to forming allegiances, we often place more importance on shared beliefs rather than shared values. However, because beliefs are by definition malleable, they are bound to be challenged or even disproven over time.

The highest-performing individuals and teams make a deliberate attempt to surround themselves with people who have like values but different beliefs. This diversity fuels innovation and creativity, but it doesn’t happen overnight. It requires confronting and breaking down inaccurate beliefs in order to rebuild them into something that more accurately reflects the reality we live in. 

Leading the Charge

This endeavor is not for the faint of heart. There will be a period of defensiveness, bruised egos, and uncertainty. It is in these moments when people might take offense, and others might cry that political correctness has gone too far. But if everyone in the group remembers that the goal is improved workplace communication, understanding, and growth, then what breaks occur will heal courtesy of your shared values. 

Don’t Take Offense

The moment you become offended by something an employee says, the dialogue stops. When the dialogue stops, you lose your influence. After that, it’s only a matter of time before you lose that employee too. The moment we as leaders take offense, we shift the focus onto our personal feelings and ignore the actual problem.

Our egos are the trap. They want us to come out on top at all costs, even if it means dismissing others’ input or hearing only the things we agree with and ignoring the rest. It takes significant fortitude and discipline to absorb someone’s message while taking into account the context of how they arrived at that conclusion. No matter what you’re personal feelings, when it comes to workplace communication, you must listen to and respect your team’s beliefs and opinions in their entirety.

Look for the Silent Majority

As a general rule, the loudest people in the room rarely have the best understanding of the group’s true values or beliefs. Just because they speak a lot doesn’t mean they speak for everyone. 

Instead of relying on these “squeaky wheels,” look around to see if there is a subgroup of individuals who are reticent to deal with the louder, more dominating participants. These individuals may believe that they are alone in their thinking when the opposite might be true. 

As the leader, however, you cannot fall into that trap. As discussed above, getting to the truth of a situation is not simply accepting what is presented to you. You must find a way to communicate with everyone, ideally by creating opportunities for their opinion to be heard. 

Beware of Festering Resentment

Perhaps the most important thing to recognize is that a lack of two-way communication in this process can quickly lead to resentment. This happened repeatedly with the two groups in the political correctness debate. After a period of entrenched and fruitless bickering, things devolved to the point where people simply shut down because they felt everything they said was being twisted and attacked.

If you think the damages associated with offending people are bad, wait until you see the results of drawn-out resentment. For a society as well as a business, there is nothing worse.

So: Has Political Correctness Gone Too Far?

The answer is yes, no, and it depends.

Very politically correct of me, I know. Still, the fact remains that the answer to the question “has political correctness gone too far” is case-specific to individual societies and cultures. To apply or vanquish political correctness in every arena without accounting for context is not only unhelpful but also fuels the biases that lead to polarization and breakdowns in communication.

One could argue that 84% of people responding one way is an objective indicator that something is amiss. But even if that is the case, fixing it is not as simple as labeling all political correctness as “censorship” and doing away with it altogether. To come to any consensus requires further analysis and contextualization to determine what has caused each respondent to answer the way they did. It also requires participants to let go of their assumptions, recognize their biases, check their egos at the door, and be willing to truly listen to each other.

On social media, civil discourse like that seems unlikely. But for a team of coworkers with shared values, you can hold different beliefs and still have productive workplace communication. And if a belief is confronted and proven inaccurate, it can be rebuilt from a place of mutual growth and support.

In the end, I hope that I inspired some of the 2500-odd respondents to reassess the way they communicate with others. Perhaps it challenged their preconceptions or pressure-tested their previously-held beliefs. Ideally, perhaps some would delve further combat their confirmation bias, and find a slightly different (and, I hope, more accurate) understanding of the world. And that’s a good thing. Regardless of our differing beliefs, I hope we can all agree on that. 

Still unsure about how to foster open and honest workplace communication without sowing discontent or losing respect amongst team members? Our 8-week online leadership training course might be the solution. With four self-paced modules, regular interactive workshops, and individualized coaching, we will make sure you get what you need to build a stronger team.

/3 Comments/by
, ,

Virtue Signalling – Positive Messaging with Dark Connotations

An astute individual scrolling through social media will observe endless support towards groups attending to issues afflicting society. Most would logically agree that this is good, imagine a world where nobody gave a damn. Sounds like the precursor for localised hell and misery.

It is evident the people who are raising these groups are operating from pure intent linked in admirable and noble values. My parents used to recite a short mantra in our household ‘find a need, fill a need,’ advocating for the importance of proactivity and initiative.

This article is not targeted towards the importance of social initiatives, that would by hypocritical of me, after having raised numerous not-for-profit and for-purpose organisations.

Instead, my attention is drawn towards the dark and insidious side effects resultant from the mismanaged language and messaging many of these groups subscribe to. Specifically, this article will explore ‘virtue signalling’, “the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one’s good character or the moral correctness of one’s position on a particular issue.”

In simple terms, virtue signalling is saying or doing things in order to be seen positively supporting trending causes or initiatives, not necessarily because of the value of the cause itself (although they can be mutually supportive).

The Dark Side of Positive Causes

Said plainly, I feel some of these social initiatives have become a means by which some individuals assert their moral high ground onto others. It is not uncommon to see the demonising of people, judged to have been inactive in supporting certain causes or social movements.

There is an old phrase, ‘if you are not with us, then you are against us.’ This might seem simple enough until you cross reference the same idea with an age-old adage, ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend.’ These two concepts merged together create for a smelting pot of animosity and confusing loyalties.

My concern is that the level of reflexive aggression from groups purportedly claiming to be good, might indeed be causing unnecessary enemies and destruction.

To my mind it seems a bridge too far to assume that people who are not actively supporting a cause are therefore positioned as enemies to that cause. It seems like a good way to create unnecessary adversaries. It certainly doesn’t seem like a survivable strategy when we consider there are no shortages of social issues. Afterall, utopia doesn’t (and won’t) exist. There will always be room for improvement in any social construct. It behoves us to ensure that the systems we apply for determining friend from foe are refined enough to provide longevity to our causes.

Just because someone is not investing their time and resources towards a specific goal, does not mean they are against it…

Yet here we are, surrounded by narratives and messages that demand action for causes determined to be of high priority. A determination made by someone else with their own bias, ambitions, and perspectives. The problem is when everything becomes high priority, nothing is high priority (by definition). At any one time, we have limited provision of resources. Discernment requires that we individually prioritise our resources towards initiatives which demonstrate potential for the highest impact and effect.

Conformity, guilt, and fear

It seems certain segments of society are overshadowed by an ominous cloud characterised largely by guilt and shame.

As part of my profession, I have invested significant time towards researching and investigating what makes people tick. My synopsis is there appears to be two emergent camps: Those which believe people are primarily influenced by incentives/rewards vs those which feel people’s behaviours are influenced by fear. I sit in the ‘fear’ camp. In doing so, I acknowledge nobody is one or the other, and instead it is characterised by a gentle leaning towards one or the other. I feel that people’s behaviours (particularly seemingly unusual behaviours) can most often be linked back to fears and insecurities.

With fear as our frame, we can start to see how virtue signalling might have emerged. I feel some people have adopted the behaviour as a means of preventing undue judgement or public criticism. A behaviour anchored in ‘double narrative logic’, i.e. the prevention of a criticism as opposed to the reinforcement of a positive action.

In my own observations this is most often seen when a new social movement emerges:

  • STEP 1: Most often linked with a contentious social event which pulls into debate the morality, ethics, and values associated with somebody’s decision. The event triggers a social response. The social response often forces public discussion (often devoid of context). The popular discussion then rapidly forces people to make a public choice: Do they sit in camp A or camp B?
  • STEP 2: What happens next is the dangerous step towards rationalisation, and it looks like this: If someone is leaning towards camp A they must then hate everyone in camp B. For someone to be in camp B, they must then hate everyone in camp A.
  • STEP 3: This realisation then triggers confirmation bias i.e. the collection of information/evidence that would prove camp A OR camp B are incorrect. Now, knowing that we are ‘right’ and they are ‘wrong’ (reinforced by all our aggregated evidence) we then choose to guilt the other group for siding with the wrong camp.

It is very rare that people consider there is a third group (camp C) characterised by ‘I don’t yet know’ or ‘it depends.’ This group might concede that situations of this nature are largely characterised by context, whereby the intricacies of each individual situation are relevant and applicable. They might also concede that they don’t have enough information to make an informed decision. Their discernment in this regard is the trigger which drags them above the public detection threshold.

What is interesting is the relationship between both camp A or B, in relation to camp C. In a weird twist, camp C becomes the ultimate enemy. They fall into the ‘if you aren’t with us, you are against us’ category. Someone saying I don’t know is immediately counter attacked with ‘well, you should know – you are part of the problem.’

When this occurs, a dangerous plot twist occurs for society. Not having an opinion is worse than picking the wrong side. At a societal level, it means we are encouraging people to throw context to the wind and pick sides prematurely to protect themselves. This is all overshadowed by an air of guilt and shame. It is a somewhat subtle mechanism of coercion prompted by an unhealthy social pressure.

History has no shortage of examples where this does not end well. Some of the worst examples of collective group behaviour (group think) have been prompted by this approach:

First They Came – Martin Niemöller

First they came for the Communists

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me

And there was no one left

To speak out for me

Moral high ground and social superiority

As far as I can surmise, this topic appears to be linked with moral superiority insofar that supporting specific societal initiatives allows certain individuals to lord pretentions over others. I have thought long and hard about whether this is a deliberate attempt at control or power, and I have concluded in the most part that I don’t think it is. Instead, I believe it is a learned behaviour of survival, contextually anchored in an environment which forces people’s hands.

They either pick a side and deal with either camp A or camp B, or they stall and risk having to simultaneously fight camp A AND camp B. Not an exciting prospect particularly when your heart might not be in the fight in the first place.

One of the sounder definitions of culture I have stumbled across is: ‘Our culture is comprised of the behaviours we reward.’ It is such a simple explanation for a complicated concept. If one must ask why we (as a collective) are doing something, then trace the reward system/structure, or the associated fears (reference my earlier observations).

This topic prompts us to ask some deeper questions:

  • Why is the moral high ground so valuable?
  • Why are we encouraging this behaviour?
  • What are the long-term implications?
  • What does it say about our society, which is purportedly founded on values and attributes such as inclusiveness, freedom of speech, and the pursuit of truth?
  • Whatever happened to ‘innocent until proven guilty’?
  • When did context become a dirty word?

In my observations, the trajectory does not bode well.

If we genuinely believe the message is worth sending, then we should subscribe to sending it correctly. Sending it correctly surely means:

  • Ensuring our message is based in reality.
  • Encouraging people to get behind a cause based on its value, not the fear associated with inaction.
  • Including the requisite context so that it may be seen as applicable and balanced in its delivery.

Societal implications

The societal implications of virtue signalling are significant in my estimation.

If our society’s motivations are driven in significant part by fears associated with saying the wrong thing, or not overtly supporting trending causes, then there must be a long-term price to pay.

  • If our behaviours are being forcibly shaped by others then surely our actions have less meaning?
  • Are we not encouraging people to do good deeds only for the purposes of social validation and acknowledgment?
  • Are we encouraging people to only be seen doing good things as opposed to actually doing them?
  • If our language is being shaped by others, then surely what we choose to say risks being interpreted as disingenuous or forced?
  • Once the lines become blurred, then who and what can we truly trust?

If taken to the end of its logical conclusion, it seems like a precursor to compelled or censored speech. In extreme cases history has shown the destruction caused by language of this nature, coupled with binary and low-resolution modes of thinking (good vs bad, right vs wrong, them vs us).

Spoiler alert, it leads to cliques, cults, and devastating conflicts.

The balance

We must be careful unpacking this topic.

We do not want to scare people away from positive action. The world needs people to ‘find a need, and fill a need.’ It requires people to be passionate about their causes. Virtue signalling although bad, would not be a touch on the damage caused if people were to subscribe en mass to other models such as anarchy or nihilism.

If we had to pick between people feeling the need to demonstrate virtue via signalling, vs feeling no need to demonstrate any virtue at all – I’ll pick the first the option. We all know people demonstrate vastly different behaviours when they are held to a code or framework vs handing the reigns over to an ideology akin to lord of the flies.

Nonetheless, we must be careful about the consequences of whatever path we choose. Everything has a price, and most things only work when they are implemented in suitable balance and with forethought understanding.

Moving Forward

Don’t be so quick to create unnecessary enemies.

The world is quite legitimately full of unending issues requiring attention. Issues which left unchecked will result in unnecessary and undue misery in our fellow citizens.

We do not need to add salt to the wounds by creating unnecessary conflict and tension in support of those social initiatives. Moreover, we must bite our own pride and pretentions and concede that what is a priority to us, is not necessarily a priority for others. This is something I have personally had to come to terms with over the years as I have advocated for veterans, disaffected youth, and the development of certain commercial business models supporting underrepresented groups within society. Just because someone does not see the same level of urgency as I do, does not make them my enemy.

Just because other people are not standing on street corners and social platforms advocating for a cause, does not mean they are positioned against it. This isn’t high school, this is real life. People are fighting their own battles. Their observations of the ills of society might sit in different proportionality and conclusions to our own. Moreover, they might be investing their time and effort into causes which they deem to be more impactful or important. In the worst case, they might not be supporting anyone other than themselves, which is still not reason enough to go head hunting them (in my opinion).

Our communication, is comprised of both intent and delivery. If a message is worth sending, then it is worth sending right. One could reasonably argue that ‘sending the message right’ might mean advocating for a cause without the unnecessary creation of enemies who would otherwise have gone about their business.

It might also mean doing the right thing even when nobody is watching.

—-

If you enjoyed this article, you might also enjoy other articles written at Eighth Mile’s blog.

/0 Comments/by
, ,

Supporting the Women in Defence Technology forum

David Neal discusses the power of narrative and its links with leadership, culture and relevancy.

Leadership and Communication – Where Both Intent and Delivery Matter

 

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

Podcast – Leadership is not about you – Candour Communication

Check out the full episode here: https://candour-communication-podcast.simplecast.com/episodes/david-neal

“EPISODE SUMMARY

We talk to David Neal about the nuances of good leadership. David Neal has a decade of experience in the Australian Army, with most of his experience in leadership roles. He is currently a Director at Eighth Mile Consulting.

EPISODE NOTES

1:39 – from enemies to best mates.

6:12 – there is nothing noble about being harmless.

7:06 – avoiding or engaging with conflict.

7:27 – what makes a leader?

8:50 – good leadership looks different in different contexts.

11:40 – the leadership style in the military.

12:59 – how values and beliefs impact team performance.

15:12 – navigating the conflicts that arise from having a diverse team.

15:35 – definition of leadership.

16:30 – diversity is contextual. What are you trying to achieve?

18:43 – are you trying to be right or correct?

20:36 – leaders represent people authentically in forums where they cannot represent themselves.

22:18 – trying to be right disengages people around you.

23:41 – it’s better to lose the battle and keep the relationship, especially with your kids.

25:07 – extreme ownership and admitting mistakes.

27:28 – where the name Eighth Mile Consulting came from.

29:18 – owning our mistakes turns our weakness into a strength.

31:39 – owning your faults increases your credibility and your ability to influence.

32:55 – steelman and strawman debating tactics.

36:01 – influence starts by listening, not speaking.

38:14 – it takes discipline to shut up and listen.

41:55 – I don’t have time to listen.

44:02 – why boundaries give more freedom.

52:14 – boundaries with children.

54:46 – just do what makes you happy is terrible advice.

56:46 – the standard you walk past is the standard you accept.

58:18 – sometimes leaders only have bad options to choose from.

1:00:14 – leadership is not about you.

1:02:44 – a leader’s reputation is their influence.

1:06:1 – making an unpopular decision that you believe will be best for the long term.

1:10:49 – reputation is based on your character but not fully in your own control.

1:12:57 – how to become more self-aware as leaders.

1:15:30 – everyone is a leader.

1:16:11 – how to create a safe space for people to speak up.

1:18:55 – empathy saved the world.

1:24:7 – our ego can be our greatest enemy.

1:26:12 – connect with David Neal.”

 

You can find more detailed show notes with links to references at: https://candourpodcast.com/david-neal/

/0 Comments/by
, ,

Eighth Mile makes the cut – LinkedIn Top 20 Voices

“Humbled to have been identified in LinkedIn ‘s top 20 voices in JobSearch and Careers.

My team and I will endeavour to continue supporting people in their career and personal development.

Congratulations to the other candidates. Learning your short stories and hearing your messaging makes it evident why you belong on the list.

Best wishes

Dave

#linkedin“

/0 Comments/by
, , , , ,

David Neal / Ben Horton – ‘The Eagle Standard Podcast’

“Being the leader…..and the new guy in an established team is a tough gig. David shares what he got wrong and what went well on Episode 57 of the #podcast.

I only got through half of the questions, so we will need to catch up for round 2. One of my favourites.

Thanks again to David Neal from The Eighth Mile Consulting, look forward to catching up again soon.

Podcast Link – https://lnkd.in/gs3ysgc6

Youtube Link – https://lnkd.in/gZcC_qYN
#leader #consulting #team”

/0 Comments/by
, , , ,

‘I am not a pessimist; I am a realist’

We have all heard someone say, “I am not a pessimist; I am a realist.” It is a phrase that has many different layers to it, and it is definitely a topic worth discussing.

There are many that would argue that the world is a terrible and chaotic place characterised by suffering, confusion, and destruction. In many ways they are right. It is not hard to find mediums depicting the destruction and degradation of our societies. If one were actively looking it would take them less than 10 seconds and would probably be as easy as turning on the news. These people often self-characterised as ‘realists’ would reasonably argue that there is no point in burying one’s head in the sand, and that we should deal in facts, however uncomfortable that might be.

On the other side of the coin there exists a group of people, often called ‘optimists’ who seemingly do not care about the impending doom approaching them, and it would appear to external observers that they are living in blissful ignorance. These people are often characterised as blasé and Laissez-Faire. Some look at these people and become frustrated at their lack of involvement or seriousness in the situations around them. They can even come across as non-committal or immature. What adds salt to a realist’s wounds is that these people often live up to 12-15 percent longer than our aforementioned group.

Friction occurs between these two groups because they are often speaking a different language. Conversations become disjointed as both parties are approaching the detail from different existential viewpoints. Add to the mix people’s ego and pride and we have the perfect concoction for an impassable roadblock.

Like most things in life, finding commonality requires a genuine willingness to listen and learn. It must also be nested alongside an admission that every interaction is an opportunity for growth.

You will find what you are looking for (“confirmation bias”)

Earlier we identified that it would not be difficult to find examples of the world in disrepair if someone were actively looking, and this is true. But what if we chose to actively look for the positive things as well? What if we accepted that the world is one of a balancing act between good and bad things simultaneously?

It is not difficult to find evil things. It is much harder to find positive and admirable things. But, does it have to be? Or is that a choice we make? Is it actually harder, or do we make it harder by releasing ourselves of our ownership of how we react to what happens around us that affects us?

“Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one’s prior beliefs or values.” – Wikipedia

We are all guilty of confirmation bias and it takes a significant amount of discipline and self-awareness to consider that our brains are often seeking to validate our already existing belief structures. This is not good when you are seeking to find commonality with others.

We must enter every discussion with an understanding that we likely have something to learn.

 

Take your leadership to the next level

Upgrade your leadership skills with our online courses.

Re-framing and empathy

We find commonality with others when we genuinely seek to learn their perspective. What we often find is that both parties are simultaneously right and wrong at the same time, and the distinguishing feature was context and perspective. For example, challenging questions to an optimist:

  1. What challenges do you think you might encounter which could slow your progress toward your goals?
  2. Have you encountered other challenges in the past that you had to overcome, and how did you do it?
  3. Do you have a set of tools in your tool kit to deal with those challenges, to help you overcome them?
  4. Who could you partner with to help you overcome your challenges?

Challenging questions to a realist:

  1. Do you know anyone else who has had this or a similar problem and has overcome it?
  2. Do you know if this has ever been done before?
  3. What do you think is different between the example that was successful, and your situation which you believe cannot be?
  4. Do you believe it is worth it for you to try to overcome this challenge?

It takes a level of discipline to pull yourself out of your own narrative and forcibly see the world through another lens. Your perceptions of other groups run a risky prospect of categorising everything they say as silly, irrelevant, or wrong.

One question we might all ask ourselves: Which is more likely?

Option 1: That they are completely wrong, and I am completely right.

OR

Option 2: We are both partially right and have different pieces of information drawn from different contexts and experiences.

If you are brave enough, you might ask the next question: Am I trying to be right or correct?

Nobody wins a binary argument

The wiser someone gets the more they realise that the world is a complex place. Problems are almost invariably multi-layered and faceted. The temptation is to assume that there is a right answer to every problem, wherein reality it can sometimes be the choice between two or more terrible options. Quite simply we must on occasion, pick the lesser of two evils.

There is a movie starring Harrison Ford from 1994 called “Clear & Present Danger”, in which Harrison Ford plays Jack Ryan (based on Tom Clancy’s series of books.) Jack Ryan is at earlier points in his career quite the do-gooder (and mostly stays that throughout), and in this book, and as reflected in the movie, comes up against Deputy Director CIA Ritter, who is quite the opposite. It’s very much a black-and-white set of characters, and when they finally clash, you have this great scene that details good vs. bad, positive vs. negative, black vs. white, or yin vs. yang…and it’s this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKsDjpKr2Mk

Ritter explains simply, “Grey. The world is grey, Jack.”

Moving Forward

It is incredibly easy in the short-term to discard people’s opinions by categorising them as a type (pessimist vs optimist), but it rarely bares fruit in the long-term. Moreover, it speaks to an unwillingness to learn new things due to the risks it might have on our existing belief structures.

What is incredibly important to note is that everyone is winging their way through life. In doing so we are all choosing the schema that we think will best support us at that time. What this means in practical terms is that some people are most likely protecting themselves by choosing to frame the world through a ‘realistic’ (or pessimistic) lens, whilst others are trying to find the positives in a world that can otherwise be quite confusing, depressing, and chaotic.

The moment we realise that our choices lead us through problem-solving and onto solutions, then we also realise that there is a choice to learn something from everyone. In doing so, we might end up one step closer to a more refined and balanced opinion.

The moment inevitably comes in our lives when we realize that we have it within our control to choose, if not the problems we face, then at least the tools we make to deal with them. It is then, at those times, that we truly start growing into our most refined and balanced selves. Particularly, when we use the right tools, make robust and informed choices, and begin directing our own path through the chaos of life.

I am not a pessimist; I am a realist- Co-authored: David Neal & David Reed

 

Want to achieve your full potential?

Reinvent Yourself Today!

/0 Comments/by