Two professors from UC Davis Chris Knittel and Victor Stango concluded that the Tiger Wood’s scandal cost the companies that endorse him $12 billion in shareholder value or 2.3%. http://www.physorg.com/news181305893.html Those companies that are sports-related seemed to fare the worst.  It logically follows that since Tiger has decided to leave golf indefinitely the value of his association would be diminished.  After all, Nike did not pay him for his family life.  They paid him because of his ability as a golfer, which still remains beyond reproach.  Since he has given up his craft, it logically follows those companies associated would be impacted.

This factoid is interesting to me as the new buzzword in leadership development is “authenticity.”  Leading authentically seems to be the new way to creating lasting shareholder value, and when one betrays this principle the ensuing response can be punishing.  It appears this sentiment speaks to the majority of public opinion in the offices I frequent.  Water cooler talk is against Tiger since the pictures of his smashed Escalade were released to the press.  No one is mentioning his talent as a golfer.  Rather, they are betrayed, angered, sometimes hurt by his duplicity.

The new immediacy and transparency today’s workplace dictates leaves little choice or so it seems but to be authentic.  If you are one way privately and another publicly, it seems like a ticking clock until your time runs out and who you really are is known by all.  The good news for most of us is we are not famous, and if we are few are as famous as Tiger Woods.  Unless you own one of the stocks impacted by Tiger’s transgressions, this should come as good news.  It seems like the tide has turned to allow people to simply be.

The explosion of media attention surrounding Tiger Woods gives us an opportunity to consider the choices success offers, and if not handled correctly how these choices can lead to one’s derailment.  This is usually spoken about from the point-of-view of what successful women have to “give-up” in order to attain their success, but what about the choices men face?

The inherited conversations regarding women and success assume a scarcity rather than an abundance mentality.  For successful women, the conversation is an either/or conversation.  Either you have one thing or another—a successful career or a happy marriage—but rarely both.  That would imply you have it all, and rarely is it possible for women to “have it all.”

I assert men struggle with having it all too, but the context is not either/or.  The conversation for men is one that assumes abundance not scarcity.  It is not only possible; it is probable for men to have it all.  While the press is mostly focused on Tiger’s bevy of beauties, there is an opportunity to turn the gender conversation around and consider how abundance can be a limiting factor rather than a contributing factor to men having it all. No one had it all more than Tiger.  What is not talked about and illustrated in steroids with the Tiger drama is the price men pay for this abundance when the abundance causes them to lose perspective.  The abundance blears their view on what is most important to them until the threat of loss is imminent or they lose what is most dear to them.

Men are inclined to measure success vertically, and if we apply this metric system to Tiger Woods he is at the top of the pyramid.  Undoubtedly his fame and fortune is intoxication to those who want or wish for more, and as the tabloids are reporting his ability to “just say no” not winning another major seems to be his greatest challenge.  For a man who has taken discipline to a new art form on the golf course, this is his moment of truth.

It seems Tiger is willing to face his demons, and announced his decision to “take a break” in order to focus on his wife and family and “being a better person.”

Let’s hope this is not just a PR move.  By Tiger declaring other aspects of his life are paramount to golf at the present time, he sends a message about the importance of prioritizing  all the variables that comprise a successful life not just those in the vertical application of one’s craft.

There are many company cultures that require the subjugation of one’s personal life to the professional life.  This is true for both men and for women.  Employees who aspire to success in these cultures must choose what their priority is.  It may be true it is easier for men to balance all the variables that comprise these priorities, but it does not mean we are better off because of it.

Tiger Wood’s iconic status mean all eyes are upon him for better or for worse.  His ability to publicly sort himself out could be one of the most important roles he will play in his life.   He may be a force-of-nature as an athlete, but he has domestic issues he must attend meaning he is not perfect.  If Tiger Woods is not perfect, hopefully this grants the rest of us some space.

Since the media assault will not cease, let’s take this opportunity to reflect rather than gloat at Tiger’s expense.  His lack of perfection allows a reality check for all of us of our own shortcomings, but especially for men about the choices of success.  The fact of the matter is there are always trade-offs, either/or conversations along the way no matter who we are or what we do.  Let’s have that be the lesson learned from Tiger’s missteps.

My posting about hidden bias and its impact on who should be invited to what meeting sparked me to seek research on the topic.  I was struck by a story on the radio earlier in the week about decision making.  The NPR story was talking about the role of the subconscious in people’s decision-making ability.  I stumbled upon several online assessments which uncover what is buried in our subconscious, and the result that has on our actions.

The consistent theme across the various sites is no matter how much we think we are committed to egalitarianism or a meritocracy our “mental residue” as one site names it prohibits us from consistent actions.  No matter what our intentions are, our behaviors diverge.  This may explain why we eat when we are not hungry.

Psychologists at Harvard, the University of Virginia and the University of Washington created “Project Implicit” to develop Hidden Bias Tests — called Implicit Association Tests, or IATs, in the academic world — to measure unconscious bias. The website Teaching Tolerance (A project from the Southern Poverty Law Center) http://www.tolerance.org/hidden_bias/index.html  offers a variety of resources including an IAT. 

These tests whether you believe in them wholeheartedly or not are useful to discover the values of the dominant culture within an organization.  In many cultures there are tacit values informing people’s behavior–sales or marketing engineer or research.  If you do not possess the traits of the dominant culture there may be hidden bias for or against.  The use of a third-party instrument neutralizes the initial charge often associated with this type of inquiry.  I encourage you to take the test yourself, and be open to the results.  Even if you do not think it tells the whole story, it may illuminate things worthy of consideration.

Despite what we may think, far too often we are prone to include people in projects, meetings, discussions, and events who think like we do, act like we do, and even look like we do.  Don’t get me wrong, there may be someone who makes the cut who doesn’t share our taste in fashion, but dig under the personality hood for a moment to discover the thinking and the acting of a kindred spirit.

I make this point because there the literature is filled with articles talking about our hidden bias.  Most leaders I work with today don’t even refute the premise which was not the case a decade ago.  What is disheartening is not the admission of this bias, but the impact on systems thinking regarding the issues of our day.  I was at a recent community event on the West side of Chicago where I live.  The event was an inter-active panel discussion about food policy or lack thereof for neighborhoods like the one I live.  Over the past 50 years we have become accustomed to thinking out food comes from a supermarket rather than from the ground.  The recent economic crisis has brought the notion of sustainability to a new level as people confront the impact of scarce resources beyond money.

What struck me about the discussion was the hidden bias at work.  The panel while diverse in race, gender, and role, all shared a similar perspective about the issue.  The audience also diverse in race, gender, and role although not as much exhibited a similar convergent thinking.  I left wondering where were those who disagree with the hypothesis presented by the organizers.

Perhaps the greatest lesson of the recent credit meltdown was the interconnectivity of humankind.  When in the past did a mortgage servicer in Sioux Falls impact a sovereign debt investor in Dubai?  What we have not been able to get past is what this interconnectivity means to us in terms of our ability to find an elegant solution for all.  I am not asking human beings to stop acting like human beings.  There is comfort in being with those who have shared interests.  However, we must open the door to all views, and learn how to authentically engage with those who think differently.  This sounds like a platitude espoused from an ivory tower above our heads.  I prefer to think of it as a pragmatic suggestion necessary if we are to determine root causes for the most significant problems we confront. 

On the mundane level simply ask yourself who else needs to be in the room the next time you discuss a contentious topic.  You may find the list longer than you originally thought.

The rise of Susan Boyle to celebrity status should be a wake-up call for all of us. What gifts are we holding on to that need to be given away? I have an expression which takes on added significance with each birthday “Are you burning daylight wisely?” It is a way to ensure I am not wasting life’s precious moments hanging on to something, regretting something, and what Susan Boyle illustrated not pursuing something important to me. I chose Burning Daylight as my twitter name because I want to remind myself of the clock ticking on my own mortality. I hope in me being present to life not being a dress rehearsal so will you be present.

Susan Boyle’s performance was not a dress rehearsal. Maybe it took her four decades to debut, but now she is the star of her own movie. It was worth it to see her touch the ever so stereotypical sardonic British Pierce. If this is not proof anything is possible what is? She was instantly dismissed by the cynical panel because of her appearance, but her raw talent proceeded to break open the possibility that anything is possible. I don’t usually share these stories (as my team told me “you are not the balloons and streamers type”), but her voice gave new meaning to how I burn daylight.

This is the first in what will be a weekly post on this topic. I invite you to share your stories of how you are making the most of brief time you have here in this incarnation. Daylight burns no matter what.

What are you doing with your remaining light?

A friend of mine, Dave Cullen had several dreams come true this week including taping the Oprah show.  He is on a media tour as Cullen is the author of the book Columbine, and he is considered a leading authority on the tragic event which occurred ten years ago April 20.

I was fortunate to obtain an early draft of the book last year as Cullen was editing the final copy.  The book is compelling, a real page turner on many levels.  It moves and disturbs you simultaneously.  Cullen brilliantly weaves a series of story lines together to create a holistic view.  Cullen’s writing does not comfort as much as it explains the logic behind otherwise illogical, unfathomable behavior.  The question Cullen raises in his depiction of the killers is illogical to whom?  Random acts of violence are illogical to you and me, but to a psychopath (a clinical diagnosis of Eric Harris) that is another story.

As then President Bill Clinton said, “The tragedy has pierced the hearts of all Americans.”  While Columbine was not the first school shooting in history, it was the most profound.  Partially because it happened in real time.  People around the world watched the events live as the unfolded on television.  These images altered the perception of student and school safety, and changed the way educators lead.

As Cullen talks about during his media blitz, no one is immune to random acts of violence.  We live with risk regardless of our address.  However, Columbine illustrated the need to listen and observe to those directly in our purview.  To say you can prepare for a tragedy like Columbine is inauthentic and insulting.  However, educational leaders have recognized the importance of training teachers and administrators to understand the logic behind student behavior.

There is a hypothesis I took on during my diversity and inclusion work for a large, global bank there is always a logic behind someone’s behavior.  People for the most part don’t intentionally want to drive you crazy although sometimes that is the unintended consequence.  They are simply doing the best they can with the data they have.

This may seem like a huge leap from the events at Columbine, but the importance of seeing and understanding another has taken a focal point in many developmental programs for educators.  I don’t mean to be glib.  This is certainly not the case across the board, but Columbine created greater awareness of the significance of listening particularly to those not being heard.  Peter Senge’s opening chapter of his seminal book on management The Fifth Discpline is “I See You.”  Senge talks about how language brings another into existence in a south African tribe.  The greeting for hello translated literally means I see you, and without that language it is if the person is not there.

The economic uncertainty combined with the stacking of work to those who remain can leave people with an experience of not being heard.  Each of us has a choice when working with others.  We can choose to be curious about the logic behind another’s behavior, or we can choose to not see them.  There is no certainty either way.  Taking time to reflect on tragedies like Columbine is never easy.  The extent to which it allows us to access parts of ourselves and share those parts with others makes something possible not possible without the reflection.  The choice is ours to make.

After I encouraged those of you not currently on a social networking site to promptly do so, I received an e mail from a friend of mine with the subject line reading “scary”.

He was referring to Keith Ferrazi (Never Eat Alone) quoting Dan Schawbel , author of the just-published Me 2.0: Build a Powerful Brand to Achieve Career Success about the number of hiring managers who play Big Brother during the hiring process. According to Schawbel, “One in five hiring managers uses social networks for background checks”.

Like Obama’s view (as compared to Clinton’s) on inhaling “isn’t that the point”, I take the position being found is what you want.  After all, to Google is now a verb. Living out loud inverts the power pyramid so you have a way to be found by those who you want to find you i.e. potential employers. With this power comes responsibility. Responsibility to not post naked pictures of you and your posse while in Daytona Beach on Facebook no matter how great your tan lines. Even if you have won more medals than any other athlete, hiring managers don’t like their employee to be photographed holding a bong at a fraternity party.

While I am sure the statistic is more or less in line with how many employers actually screen these sites as part of due diligence, you can not live your life looking in the rear-view mirror as you drive.  Don’t misinterpret me.  I am not an idealist.  I am a pragmatist.  Like any power there is a white hat and a black hat of those who hold it, and so it goes with the power of the virtual space.

Fearing a potential employer will discover something about you has become the hackneyed parable of the digital age. It does not mean it isn’t a real issue to manage. You may find it useful to heed some cautionary advice about the need to be careful what you post on Facebook, but to live in constant fear such that your self-expression is denied is not a fun way to live either.  Ask those people who did hard time after Tiananmen Square what life without a first amendment is like. Ferrazi in his newsletter goes on to discuss the appeal of authenticity as a branding tool. Worrying about what you say to whom is anything but authentic.

The current economic climate fuels these superstitions like gasoline to matches as smart, eager twenty somethings leave the comfort of college only to find a hostile job market awaiting them. There is a permanent record in cyberspace true, but most using these sites know that. There are new and insidious ways your cyber-fingerprints can be used against you, but poor judgment is poor judgment.  The internet does not replace thinking.  The discussion rarely goes there, and as a result it adds to the growing cottage industry of ways to protect you from the embarrassment of a bonehead move.

Rather than fear the ramifications of what could be used against you, a better strategy is to use social media for broadcasting your own message.  This is Ferrazi’s advice too, and he is a master networker. On another level, this becomes the digital age’s version of growing up.  It may require a shift in thinking from social to professional, but since the barriers to entry are virtually nonexistent there is no cost to shifting what sites you use or how you use them.

Earlier this year the expression “loose lips sink ships” took on a digital meaning when a Ketchum VP declared Memphis was not his kind of town.

Prior to meeting with executives at Fed Ex (headquartered in Memphis) the VP tweeted his true confession that he “would die if he had to live there”. A Fed Ex employee picked up the tweet, and sent news of this transgression to a wide array of senior leaders at the company defending not only his city, but also the company. For more on this check out Peter Shankman’s blog http://shankman.com/be-careful-what-you-post/.

Talk about your Facebook photo album at your bricks and mortar water cooler, and be prepared for the fire hose of opinion for or against social networking and its tools. Interpretation is in the eye of the beholder, and ironically the Ketchum story is used by both sides as evidence to embolden their position.

For those who remember when the length of one’s hair was a symbol not only of what generation you hailed, but also how progressive your thinking, participation on social networking sites has the same power to instantly divide.  Compliance officers are not known for their comfort with transparency or privacy, and a nightmare come true for them is exemplified by the Ketchum incident.

They should lose sleep at night.  After all it is what they get paid to do. The rest of us should sleep soundly knowing we are helping move our organizations and ourselves to an informed viewpoint about the ways and means of web 2.0 collaboration.

For better or for worse the vows of the digital age are written.  We all agree to uphold these vows knowingly or unknowingly whether we are online or not. Even if you don’t tweet someone who does who is standing next to you as you make an off-hand comment may unleash the full force of connectivity in less than a New York minute.  What do you do?

Opting out entirely is one solution, but there is no guarantee you won’t be found anyway.  Turning back the hands on this clock is harder to do than you think. Unless you are willing to unplug altogether (more on this later as I have friends who have done so) choosing how you engage is a better strategy.  The first step to a powerful choice is educating you on how to be a “good” digital citizen.

As they used to say when I was making my living on a trading floor “the trend is your friend”.  This refers to market motion up, down or sideways, but in motion nevertheless. To wish the market move a different direction than it is moving, is futile.  It has a mind of its own. True, the mind may be nothing more than the sum of all those participating, but the market acts alone.  The same is true of the trend of participation in the digital space.

Facebook users now exceed 200 million, and the bulk of these users are over 35.  For better or for worse these numbers will impact how you and I live and work.  Better to be cause in the matter of this impact than at the effect.  How to be cause in a way that works for you and your organization begins with playing with the tools yourself. If you are not currently on at least one social networking site, get yourself on one today. However, be careful what you say. You never know who is listening.

I was raised to respect my elders, and it pains me greatly to go against my proper upbringing; however, I cannot sit idly and show respect for Daniel Schorr and his commentary on Twitter and new social media when he clearly knows nothing about either.

Mr. Schorr (a sign of my proper upbringing) was introduced to Twitter http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101265831&ps=cprs by Weekend Edition host Scott Simon and senior strategist for social media Andy Carvin.

I would caution Mr. Simon and Mr. Carvin to conduct future science experiments of this sort. Introducing a 91 year-old to Twitter on the air shows the holes in not only Mr. Schorr’s understanding of new social media, but also NPR’s and other traditional media outlet’s understanding. I am not certain what the point of the interview was, but I think it was an attempt to illustrate the virtues and challenges of using Twitter across the generations. For those of us who are happy the old world order is crumbling, it came across as a lame attempt at coaxing the aging and resistant into the new social media water.

Mr. Simon calls him “relentlessly contemporary”, but I could not disagree more vehemently.  He comes off as a dinosaur, an anachronism talking about the five miles he walked to and from school each day as he waxes poetically but erroneously about Twitter and its impact.

While excruciating I encourage you to listen to the roughly 15 minutes of pain as Mr. Schorr establishes a Twitter account with the help of his friends. The real agony began when Mr. Schorr began pontificating about what was missing in new media the presence of which would make a difference compared to what old media offered. Given his struggle signing up for Twitter I doubt he has much experience in this realm, and hence little business commenting at all.

What really infuriated me (and showed just how much he and NPR are out of touch with the young folks today) is when he talked about the loss of editing as an art form. According to Mr. Schorr with the ability for ANYONE to self-publish the editing function is lost allowing an erosion of the quality of news and information available.

This statement shows he is missing the very transformative quality of new media. He is right about the easy entrance to publishing, but the model works because it is publishing first and then filtering. The nature of an open community does not mean editing is gone—quite the contrary. If you open yourself to the never never land of the internet you are standing naked to your core. By hitting send you are saying yes to scrutiny far beyond the red pen of a brilliant managing editor at a Washington bureau.

While I am happy NPR and the other major media outlets are venturing into social media, I wish they would understand the aesthetics of the community better. You don’t have to show deference for those who have gone before us in all that you do. It would have been far more interesting to hear from a Millennial or my Net Gen godson about how they use Twitter. Their experience would have at least been authentic as they actually use the tool. Wouldn’t you rather hear from someone with experience than hearing what the tool does not do from someone who had yet to Tweet?

I was recently at the Learning 2008 Conference in Orlando, Florida.   I delivered a breakout session on the topic of social networks to a group of about 60 people.  Afterwards I was approached by Derrick Davis of the Gallup Corporation.  We had a fascinating conversation about the influence generational difference has on employee engagement.  Derrick through Gallup is about to release a report discussing the similarities between Generation Y and Traditionalists.  My Boomer friends may be the most caught off-guard when they read Derrick’s report.  Listen to what Derrick has to say.  No doubt you will find it interesting.