|
Here’s an example that illustrates the importance of identifying doable, effective responses to unfair situations. Kathleen, a vice president at a company I was researching for my book Tempered Radicals was a trusted adviser of the newly appointed CEO. She was attending a company-wide meeting that began with a film of the company's history. The film contained several clips of the past CEO and his wife. After the film, the CEO took the podium and began his remarks with some comments about his predecessor and his wife, including a humorous reference to the wife's "great legs."
Kathleen knew that the remarks had offended other women and jeopardized the CEO's standing in their eyes, but no one said anything at the meeting. Kathleen was the one woman who actually knew the man, and she was sure he had made a thoughtless comment, not meaning to portray women in a demeaning way.
The next day, after the dust had settled from the meeting, Kathleen stopped by the CEO's office and simply said, "Nice speech, but you have to lose the legs jokes." She had no desire to embarrass him or to escalate the issue beyond the immediate incident. She knew that she had to say something, but she decided to do so jokingly, so she could point to the problem and simultaneously ease the tension around it. To her, the best approach was quick, matter-or-fact, uncritical, and private. This felt like a constructive way to present her concerns while ensuring that the CEO would hear them and learn from them.
Delaying and Using Humor
To some, this kind of response may seem like a copout. It certainly was not radical or risky, nothing like standing up publicly at the meeting and asking the CEO to apologize. Yet if she had seen such an openly adversarial gesture as her only option, Kathleen probably would have done nothing. Delaying and using humor to talk to the man in the privacy of his office felt doable to her and allowed her to act.
Had Kathleen taken a more radical approach, she would certainly have posed a deeper challenge and possibly provoked broader learning by all the meeting participants—but it also could have backfired. Embarrassment and antagonism can cause people to retreat further into their position and block subsequent learning and change.
In the course of everyday interactions, people regularly face choices to remain silent or speak up. Delaying and using humor are two tactics you can use—without risking your career—that will make a positive difference in the workplace.
We can view encounters as micro-events in which larger cultural and political dynamics surface. They can reinforce existing arrangements and present opportunities to promote learning and change.
Factors to Consider Before Responding
Given the range of possible ways to respond in these encounters, how does one choose which one will be most effective? So many factors come into play—who you are, what point in your career you are at, who the offender is, how much you will accomplish by turning the encounter, and so on. It is important to be conscious of these different facets so that when faced with a heated interaction, you can make a clear choice among many options, rather than feel trapped into silence or react in anger.
How Hard Should You Push?
When choosing appropriate responses in encounters, the following factors are important to consider:
Timing: Is this a good time to take a risk and pose a challenge? Will others be receptive?
Stakes: How high are the stakes for the different parties involved in the encounter? Is this a fight worth picking?
Likelihood of success: How promising are the hoped-for results? Will people learn from the situation? Will they make desired changes in their behaviors?
Options: Are there better alternative responses to options that pose a significant risk? Are there responses that will enable you to take a stand without overly jeopardizing your credibility?
Consequences of failure: What are the worst possible outcomes of the different choices? How bad are they, and how likely are they to occur?
Personal association: Will this be seen as only "your issue?" Are you outside the interaction or the target of it? If you are the target, would a challenging response be more effective if you could locate a third party to intervene on your behalf?
Doability: Does a response feel doable? Is there a response that is not overwhelming, that you can implement more effectively?
About the Author
Debra E. Meyerson is the author of Rocking the Boat: How to Effect Change Without Making Trouble and Tempered Radicals: How People Use Difference to Inspire Change at Work, both published by Harvard Business School Press, and coauthor of the widely circulated "Modest Manifesto for Shattering the Glass Ceiling," Harvard Business Review, Jan. 2000. She is associate professor at Stanford’s School of Education and faculty at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business. She can be reached at
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
|
