Is the Canadian media racist?

This New York Times article points out the importance of the media’s reporting on something like Canadian student Jack Greenwood’s alleged hate crime as a message to the public of the consequences of engaging in this kind of activity. Yes, there was alcohol; yes, he was young; but for what he did, these are not adequate excuses. 

It is amazing that The Globe and Mail  featured this article on protecting the names of individuals who conspired in the infamous bread price-fixing scandal, considering the fact that, other than this short piece in the National Post, Canadian media failed to report anything on Greenwood being charged with a hate crime and the subsequent plea bargain. His story should have been front and center in the Canadian media as a strong message against hate crimes. Giving Greenwood a pass on this is perplexing and disturbing.The Globe is fighting to report the naming of someone here; but giving Greenwood a pass sets a double standard.

In the plea bargain, it is interesting to note that Greenwood was contrite. In stark contrast, his lawyers say Greenwood was the victim and that he “never should have been charged”, which makes the whole plea bargain disingenuous. The concept of restorative justice is also given a slap in the face. Why did Greenwood not contradict him by saying, “those are my lawyer’s comments and feelings, not mine?” 

The young black man who was targeted, and his family, agreed to this lenient deal, showing a high degree of grace, class, and dignity.  In contrast to this, Greenwood, by not challenging his lawyer on those comments, showed a complete lack of grace, class, and dignity. 

The real story is the negligence of the Canadian media, for whatever reason, not reporting this. If this turning a blind eye was an attempt to give a young person a break, that doesn’t cut it.  We rightfully expect the media to report honestly and openly on issues and stories of this nature. My bet is that if the situations were reversed, where a black man targeted a white Canadian, that would have been reported on.

In the case of Bill Cosby, a similar dynamic is at play.The publicist likened Mr. Cosby’s case to that of the black boy who was lynched after he was wrongly accused of flirting with a white woman in 1955.This is akin to his lawyer’s claim that he was the victim. Bullies and abusers almost always claim to be the victim.

I know the Greenwood family well, and they are friends; but I do not agree with the blinkered media. As a member of the community, I have the responsibility to expose this, despite the likely damage to my relationship. 

But it should have been the media who addressed this story first! Living in a time when hate crimes are increasing at an alarming rate, people need to be made aware of when such crimes occur, under what circumstances, and what was done about them. To let someone off the hook, smacks of racism and the WASP effect.

Recently, the federal government has proposed legislation to promote and protect Canadian content. The media is asking the public to pony up to protect local and Canadian content; but by not covering a story like this begs the question why they are asking for this in the first place.

LEADERS ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR TOXIC CULTURES ????

This shocking New York Times article on workplace culture reveals that after several WNYC radio hosts were fired over harassment claims, the station commissioned an investigation into its own workplace culture. The investigation by the firm Proskauer Rose found a reluctance to report incidents of bullying and harassment but absolved the station's leadership. It is unbelievable and frankly unacceptable for senior management to be entirely let off the hook as they were. It’s unacceptable simply because of what the investigation did find - a culture of fear, which in my experience is systematic.

Given the importance to society that the media enjoys, it is imperative that they set and adhere to a high bar for rules of conduct. More importantly however, senior management needs to understand that these rules apply to them, too.

The Globe and Mail reports on yet another example of leadership claiming they were unaware of inappropriate behaviour. This time it is with the director of the Toronto Mendelssohn Choir, who allegedly was involved in sexual misconduct, causing him to resign. Such naivete will continue to cripple organizations.

In my book ‘From Bully to Bull’s-Eye: Move Your Organization Out of the Line of Fire’,I discuss the toxic nature of coverups as well as the ineptitude of leadership revealed by ‘being unaware’. If this form of bullying behaviour continues, the toxic culture it produces will remain, resulting in higher turnover and weaker employee engagement, with the end result being lower productivity and greater discontent.

Photo credit: publicdomainpictures.net

BOSSES CAUSE WORKPLACE STRESS FOR 75 PERCENT OF EMPLOYEES - HERE’S AN EXAMPLE

In yesterday’s post, I highlighted a study which showed that bosses cause workplace stress for 75 percent of workers. This story about the air marshal’s program illustrates what people go through largely because of those who manage them. 

The marshals view their jobs as critical to protecting planes and airports from terrorists. But the numerous complaints of alcohol abuse, sexual harassment and racist behavior describe an agency in chaos.

Another example of the importance of healthy employee engagement is described in this New York Times article by Kevin Rose, which further indicates that the tech industry is overlooking the obvious - bring back the human element in leadership.

Employees in every sector should leverage the supply demand equation by taking collective action to demand being treated with respect and dignity; and leadership that can be trusted.

Photo credit: pxhere.com

BRINGING BACK THE HUMAN ELEMENT

This perspective is consistent with what the Faas Foundation has been advocating in its initiative to create psychologically healthy, safe, fair and productive workplaces. In partnership with the Yale Centre for Emotional Intelligence and Mental Health America, we have found that for the majority of North American workers, dialogue between managers and supervisors is limited to the annual or semiannual performance review, or when things go south. 

A survey conducted by Harvard and Stanford Universities suggest that as many as 120,000 deaths occur annually as a direct result of unnecessary stress in the workplace. This is an alarming number, and given that the economic impact can be as high as $1.5 trillion, this should be a high priority to any business leader.

This article in APost explains how a toxic boss negatively impacts employees’ health, accounting for a whopping 75 percent of stress in the workplace! Unfortunately, employees haven’t had a lot of choice and have had to accept these circumstances because that’s just the way it is, and they can’t afford to quit. However, the whole landscape is changing, where attraction and retention of employees is the biggest issue for employers. 

In my recent blog, I discuss this dynamic in reference to both Facebook and McKesson. Thankfully, employees are starting to have a choice because there is a fight on for employees. Employers should start to consider and be very worried if 75% of their employees are in this kind of a bad situation. No amount of ping pong tables or other enticements will offset that toxic culture. Organizations will succeed or fail based on employee attraction, engagement, and retention.

In a period of time where employers are looking for magic bullets to protect their organizations from harassment and abuse exposures, as well as attracting and retaining employees in an increasingly tight labor market, they are still blind to the obvious, which is bringing back the human element into the equation and value the exchange between the employer and employee. 

Photo credit: commons.wikimedia.org

EMOTIONS ARE WHAT BUILD RELATIONSHIPS AND TRUST

Emotional intelligence is largely viewed in the business community as a soft skill to make people happy and be nice to each other. This perception is debunked in a recent book,‘ A LEADER’S GUIDE TO SOLVING CHALLENGES WITH EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE’, written by David R. Caruso (a good friend and an associate of mine at Yale) and Lisa T. Rees.

In the introduction they cite an IBM study of 1,500 CEO’s interviewed on the future of leadership development indicating, “Their number one concern and worry is that today’s leaders are ill equipped to lead in volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous conditions”. They also note the World Economic Forums position that “emotional intelligence is one of the 10 required skills for the future workforce”.

In a Mental Health America/Faas Foundation study called ‘MIND THE WORKPLACE’, we found that relationships and trust in most organizations are shockingly dismal. Consider these responses from over 20,000 workers:

. Only 17 percent feel that their company always or often appropriately deals with coworkers who are not doing their job.

. Only 28 percent feel that all people are held accountable for their work, regardless of their position in the company.

. Only 36 percent feel if things get hard, their supervisor will always or often support them.

. Only 34 percent trust their team or coworkers will always or often support their work activities.

. A whopping 77 percent feel that people are being unfairly recognized while others with better experience or skills don’t get recognized.

Given these statistics, it is small wonder that from the same study 71 percent always, often or sometimes speak poorly about their company to others.

Much of what is out there on emotional intelligence has a disproportionate focus on improving individual wellbeing, “self-care”, and promoting “relax and engage in positive emotions all of the time”. This in my view is why emotional intelligence is viewed as a soft skill.

In their book, Caruso and Rees make it clear that their goal is “not to have you be a happy, upbeat, cheery, positive person all of the time.” They “want you to engage with and grapple with the toughest leadership challenges and to succeed at those challenges.” Another goal is “not to keep a smile on your face...” but rather “give you the skills, focus and energy so you have the emotional resources to engage with the toughest leadership challenges.”

In the book, pragmatic emotional intelligence blueprints are provided for solving the tough leadership challenges they have identified, which are largely much in line with the ones highlighted in my book ‘From Bully to Bull’s Eye - Move Your Organization Out of the Line of Fire’. They are:

. Leading teams in strategic planning and visioning.

. Giving feedback to an underperforming employee

. Delivering disappointing news to a high achiever

. Laying off an unsatisfactory employee

. Retaining an under-utilized top-notch employee

. Dealing with a dissatisfied team

. Leading unproductive meetings

. Leading virtual teams

. Making an unpopular decision

. Dealing with a volatile boss

. Dealing with a disengaged boss

. Dealing with an unethical boss

. Working with an overreaching colleague

. Working with a volunteer board of directors

. Working with an unmotivated colleague

. Working with unsupportive colleagues

. Dealing with an unhappy client

. Presenting to a skeptical audience

. Responding to an angry email

. Dealing with a work bully

. Dealing with uncertainty and volatility

. Delivering unwelcome news

. Losing drive and passion for work

‘A LEADER’S GUIDE TO SOLVING CHALLENGES WITH EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE’ is a must read for everyone in a management and leadership position and become compulsory in B school and executive development curriculum.  

Andrew Faas is the author of ‘From Bully to Bull’s Eye - Move Your Organization Out of the Line of Fire’, and is a Public Voices Fellow at Yale University.

Photo credit: commons.wikimedia.com

 

THINKING IN TIME

The book ‘Thinking in Time’ is a must read for those who question, ‘Does history repeat itself?’ I have long held the view that what we are experiencing is frightening similar to the early thirties in Germany. Many mocked me for a review I did on Eric Larson’s book ‘In the Garden of Beasts’ making this comparison. “A madman’s manic certainties can overcome reason and outrage turn to a shrug. Then comes the fall.” Reason and outrage are the only things that can prevent history from repeating itself. 

Madeleine Albright has written a  new book, “Fascism: A Warning”, as discussed by Michelle Goldberg in her New York Times opinion,  warning about fascism both abroad and at home.

In this article, Roger Cohen explains just how a madman’s manic certainties can overwhelm reason, and how outrage can turn into a shrug. Then comes the fall. History appears to be repeating itself. Let’s learn from the lessons of the past before it’s too late.

Photo credit: Ground Floor Gallery

ANOTHER CULTURAL TIME BOMB EXPLODES

This story is yet another horrible example of ‘Growth at any Cost’ culture.

Because of simple demographics the one of biggest issues organizations are facing is the attraction and retention of employees. I refer you to my book, ’From Bully to Bull’s-Eye: Move Your Organization Out of the Line of Fire,’ where I focus on ‘Bullying and the Retention of Talent’ (Part 3, section ii, pp 175-181)  In 2016 McKesson was ranked the 26th most admired company in a LinkedIn survey.

There is no doubt that McKesson has worked hard at becoming an employer of choice by having progressive employment practices and benefits. If the allegations against McKesson are accurate, they will find that progressive employment practices and benefits are not a substitute for a prerequisite condition that employees should consider of their employers - trust.

Illustration: Dureall Ramsdell

ROBERT MUELLER IS NOT SAFE. OUR DEMOCRACY IS NOT SAFE.

Charles M. Blow, in his New York Times opinion piece, explains the pattern Trump has shown throughout his presidency to undermine our very democracy, not only by seeking to oust special counsel Robert Mueller, but also by attempts to obstruct justice. I have written about Trump being a classic bully, predictable in his behavior, despite being unpredictable in his specific actions.

Again in January, I warned that Trump’s dismantling of our democracy was gaining momentum. There is little doubt that the pressure is mounting against this beleaguered president. What exactly he will do, we do not know. That he will do something drastic is a sure bet!

Photo credit: pnging.com

A BASIC AND SERIOUS THREAT TO DEMOCRACY

In his usual misinformed way, the president calls The Washington Post, which is owned by Amazon’s chief executive, Jeff Bezos, “a lobbyist weapon,” among other things. However, “There isn’t anybody here who is paid by Amazon,” the editor, Martin Baron, said. You don’t have to like Amazon to fear Trump’s attack on it.

Last month, anchors at local news stations across the country made identical comments about media bias. The script came from their owner, Sinclair Broadcast Group.

The real problem with Sinclair’s ‘fake’ news script, as outlined in this Washington Post article by Eric Wemple is that it flies in the face of any semblance of responsible journalism, which undermines the First Amendment.

Helaine Olen further explains why Trump’s misguided support for Sinclair Broadcasting is so concerning. If left unbridled, as it now appears to be, the entire distribution of news will be unfairly slanted; and that is a basic and serious threat to democracy.

Photo credit: thebluediamondgallery.com

FACEBOOK’S CULTURE OF ‘GROWTH AT ANY COST’

This story provides insight into Facebook’s culture. The conditions necessary for an organization to succeed, and to withstand a crisis don’t appear to have been evident despite huge expenditures on glitzy and faddish human resource programs. These missing ingredients are trust, a sense of purpose, and a sense of efficacy. An example of how employees are helping leaders realign their thinking, through freedom of expression, is represented here as Google employees organize to fight cyberbullying inside the company.

The memo which defended Facebook’s growth at any cost, now disavowed by the executive who wrote it, is really at the root of Facebook’s problem. Based on the extensive research I have done for my books, it is also the root of the cultures that exist in most organizations. Organizational leadership should learn from this by asking, ‘Do we have a culture of growth at any cost?’

Unfortunately there are some grave misconceptions about workplace culture, as spelled out in this Harvard Business Review article. It would appear that Facebook’s COO, Sheryl Sandberg, remains out of touch with the company’s culture. She relies on the results of misguided surveys to measure employee engagement and fulfillment. The reality, as exposed by this article, paints a grim, yet more likely realistic picture of the organizations real culture. What happened at Facebook kind of blows the Glassdoor survey to smithereens. Clearly, groups like Bain and Glassdoor are looking at the wrong things in determining best places to work.

Photo credit: publicdomainpictures.net