Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones...

But Names Don't Bother Me?

By Kwame S. Salter

Incident

“Once riding in old Baltimore,

Heart-filled, head-filled with glee;

I saw a Baltimorean

Keep looking straight at me.

Now I was eight and very small,

And he was no whit bigger,

And so I smiled, but he poked out

His tongue, and called me nigger

I saw the whole of Baltimore

From May until December;

Of all the things that happened there

That’s all that I remember”

By Countee Cullen

Countee Cullen was a leading voice of the prolific Harlem Renaissance period during the 1920's. His powerful poem, above, masterfully displays the confusion, hurt and bewilderment every black child experiences when first assaulted with the N-Word. Perhaps the most poignant line in the poem is… “And I smiled, but he poked out his tongue and called me nigger.” It is a sad commentary on American society that every black parent, still, must either prepare his/her child to expect this assault or be ready to explain to the child why they were assaulted in the first place. How this word gained such destructive power requires that we remember the ‘peculiar institution’ of American slavery. Although humankind has enslaved one another for thousands of years all over the planet, it was the insidious and dehumanizing character of American slavery that set it apart in history. 

In America, not only was the black slave considered chattel property by the owner but also was, naturally, to be considered inferior to all whites—even the poorest and most disenfranchised white person. American slavery both dehumanized and marginalized the enslaved African and forever defined the relationship between whites and blacks in this country. And one word, nigger, was used to remind both groups who was in charged and who was fully human. The word became both a command and a curse. For whites, the word became a vessel for succinctly communicating disdain, hatred and innate superiority over blacks. For blacks, the word felt like a sharp stick being used to pick open a festering wound. Ironically, like so many other ethnic groups, blacks began to use the word as either the ultimate put down with each other or, as some maintain, as a “term of endearment.”

   

Yet, I still cringe when I hear a Polish person refer to another Pole as a “polack”; an Italian casually labeling someone a “dago;”or a Mexican refer to another as a “wetback.” Back in the day when I was growing up, the worst thing one black could call another in a fit of anger was “a black nigger.” During the 70’s and 80’s a slight twist on the use of the word surfaced. Black men, among themselves, begin to refer to their best friends and running buddies as “my ace boon coon” or just simply, “my niggah.”  On the surface, this new usage seemed to drain the word of some of its invectiveness. Still, even with the sense of hatred and insult minimized, the concept of ownership persisted-e.g.,Bobo is “my niggah.” Today, rap artists, athletes and some movie actors use the term in public forums with such ease and frequency that some whites claim that they have become confused. They want to know why you can refer to yourselves with such a vile term; and when is it appropriate for them, as whites, to use the term in describing you? Well, that is a good question. 

Should today’s whites be given a pass if they end the word with ‘gah’ instead of ‘ger’?  My response is no. In fact, we as black people need to, effective immediately, stop using either form. I have heard the ‘context argument’. In other words, if the white person is using the term, like Riley Cooper, in a threatening and violent context should they be condemned and/or sanctioned. What if a black person uses the term in an identical context? Should they be punished?  My answer in both situations is yes. When used in a threatening and/or violent context, the term because material evidence of assault. The legal definition of assault is a “physical or verbal attack: a violent physical or verbal attack threat of bodily harm: an unlawful threat or attempt to do violence or harm to somebody else.” Given the legal definition, the use of the N-Word simply identifies the target of the intended assault.

 What if, as Paula Deen maintains, the term was used in a fit of anger because of an assault against her? Same answer from me, No! Why would you think to classify the assailant using a derogatory racial term?  Paula Deen is a southern woman and knows the how the N-Word has historically been used by her forefathers. She was not giving a description of the alleged assailant—but rather giving vent to a deep seeded sense that her superiority had been violated.  The Philadelphia Eagles’ Riley Cooper’s videotaped rant about “fighting all the niggers” was both racist and absurd. Outside of the security guard, why would his anger extend to “all the niggers?” He sounded like the old Massa who declared he was going to ‘whup all dem niggers’ because one of them stepped out of line. And, most recently, Richie Incognito of the Miami Dolphins, apparently, bullied his black teammate  and used the N-Word with impunity in the Dolphin's locker room and during actual games. His black teammates were fine with his behavior because they  had made him an "honorary brother!" Go figure. Now, if the NFL tries to reduce/contain this latest incident to a specific team's locker room, they are are being duplicitous. As Malcolm X once observed, "if your closet is dirty, your entire house is dirty."

  

Why, you might ask, is this topic  important enough to write about it in a Human Resources oriented blog? Well, for me, the challenge facing black people in all walks of American life is how are we really viewed—as individuals or as a racial monolith? Are we ever truly seen and/or evaluated as individuals and judged by the “content of our character?”Knowing the historical legacy of the word, how can we hope to compete on a level playing field? What images do you conjure up in your mind when you think of a nigger? At what point does the constant use of the word in the workplace reach the level of harassment? Or, is sexual harassment the only harassment that counts in the workplace?

Racial/gender epithets are dangerous shortcuts to thinking. Would you refer to your mother, wife and/or daughter as “bitches” just because you hear it used so easily on ‘Real Housewives of Wherever ‘or in a rap song? Would you say to wife you were using the B-word as a term of endearment? Try explaining to a high potential female employee that you and your team have had some bad experiences with ‘bitches’—and, thus would prefer not to work with one?  I don’t think so. Recruitment, hiring, assignment and promotional decisions are all influenced by racial myths, traditions and stereotypes. The casual use of the N-Word is more pernicious and damaging to how we are viewed and treated in society than we realize.  Wake Up Everybody!

A New Paradigm for Middle Management

The Real Role of Middle Management

“So much of what we call management consists in making it difficult for people to work.”

-Peter Drucker,

After years in the business of being managed and managing people, I have recently had an epiphany. Simply put, the idea of middle management is either a contrived and bogus concept put forth to justify another level of oversight and/or to keep the average ‘Joe or Josephine’ on task--believing that they are irresponsible big kids who need ‘adult supervision’. The fact of the matter is that middle management is misunderstood.

 Pure and simple, most so-called mid-level managers are ‘individual contributors’ or subject matter experts who, probably, deserve recognition for their contributions over time to the enterprise. Sadly, however, traditional career ladders are stuck on vertical. As a result, we tend to promote these stellar performers to their “level of incompetence” as articulated in the Peter Principle.

Many argue that mid-level managers are responsible for “organizing, directing and controlling” work. Yet, too frequently, these managers are the very reason that work is unorganized, chaotic and out of control. To avoid taking the fall for a work unit’s performance shortfalls, middle managers often introduce complexity, drama and politics into the workplace. Rarely have I seen a mid-level manager’s job description that emphasizes the importance of strategic goal setting, people development and performance management. Their role, simply put, is to deliver output --with little more than ‘lip service’ being paid to how important it is to the bottom line to bring about employee ownership, engagement and development.

While it may appear that I am suggesting the role of manager is not needed--nothing could be further from the truth. What I am advocating is that we ‘re-purpose’ the role of mid-level manager. We need a new type of mid-level manager. We need someone with high emotional intelligence or EQ, with the ability to connect to people and transfer knowledge--while spotting and developing talent. We need middle managers who recognize that they are responsible for both business results and people development. We need to acknowledge that the middle manager is the real human resources professional. We need to promote the ideals of real servant leadership and not the undercover mentality of a ‘snooper visor”.

Hence, the purpose of this short blog is to start the discussion around what middle managers should be doing.  As such, I want to put forth a new model for this role. I want to emphasize a role that taps into the manager’s deep experience along with his/her untapped potential to develop and create business leaders.

Exactly what is the role of middle management? Is “middle management’s” role to show people how to do the work correctly; to insure that the work is done correctly—or both?  And, let us assume that it is the former—i.e., show people how to work correctly.  Once that task is accomplished, what is left for the middle managers to do vis-à-vis the people doing the work? Historically, the record shows that what these middle managers have done after showing the worker how to correctly do the work is to interrupt the process of getting work done correctly. Both these tasks are necessary, but not sufficient to develop talent.

Development of talent should be the most important role of the middle manager. Development of talent involves honing and enhancing the technical skills of the employee, creating a climate of performance accountability and being responsible for sharing insights regarding how things get done within the larger organization. In other words, the middle manager should be a role model for how to work cross functionally in a cooperative and collaborative way. Unfortunately, too often, the middle manager is the “keeper of the gate” for their functional silo. In spite of the lofty statements printed on laminated cards and posted on bulletin boards, middle managers intuitively know that they will be held accountable for one thing—measurable  unit outcomes.  How they treat, grow and develop their direct reports is, often, of secondary concern.

Rarely does the middle manager want or get upward feedback from their direct reports. As I have been told and observed, most middle managers are ‘stuck up’. In other words, they are concerned only with what their superior wants them to deliver. And, usually, their superior only wants to “own the number and relentlessly charge to the quantifiable and stated objectives.”

Pity the middle manager who goes to his/her superior and says that “morale is low.” In fact, if they want to get the attention of the superior regarding employee engagement, they would say “productivity is low.” In the minds of too many middle managers, the people part of the equation is completely outsourced to the Human Resources function. Instead of giving struggling employees constructive feedback, they call in their HR hit man/woman. The HR hit man/woman, who by the way has not observed the employee’s performance, parrots what they have been told by the middle manager. Consequently, when the employee is placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP), he/she is told. “HR made me do it.” This failure to own up to the performance management part of their job is the critical disconnect between the manager and the employee.

For any organization to go from ‘Good to Great’, the middle manager must be viewed as the key variable. Now is time to move the manager from being ‘stuck up’ to becoming a bit more ‘stuck down’. Put another way, let them know and reward them for not being a custodian of talent—but, more importantly, becoming a developer of talent. The successful organization should re-calibrate for the middle manager what is really important for its survival and success—that is an engaged, empowered and developed workforce.

What 9/11 Means To Me!

“There will always be good men doing good things. And, there will always be evil men doing evil things. But, to get a good man to do an evil thing—for that you need religion”

--John Milton, Author of Paradise Lost

September 11, 2001 arrived with such premeditated violence and seismic force that it forever replaced December 7, 1941 as “the date that will live in infamy” for Americans. For us, to some extent, it must have been what the Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki felt on the day the dreaded atomic bomb fell on their cities. However, for us, 9/11 was a surprise—a vile and pernicious ‘sucker punch’. The difference between 9/11 and the dropping of the atomic bomb, obviously, was that in a ‘world at war’, death, destruction and carnage, unfortunately, become daily and expected events.

Yet, the scale of death, destruction and carnage the Japanese witnessed and experienced was unparallel—even in war. Like Edwin Starr, in his seminal R&B hit of the ‘70s asked, I constantly ask myself—“War! What is it good for?” How do we, as a species--the majority of us avowed God fearing and worshiping people--find ourselves acting like cavemen with lethal rocks?  As Gandhi observed, if we follow the principle of “an eye for an eye …it would make the whole world blind”. Alas, while our brains are pondering quantum physics in the limitless universe, our knuckles are still dragging the ground. And, we keep shuffling menacingly towards each other, while ducking and dodging the weapons of both individual and mass destruction that we claim will insure our safety and security. What’s our problem? As Joan Rivers would say, “Can we talk?” Let’s give it a try.

Immediately, I want to say that the purpose of this little treatise is not to make a blanket case against war—even though, there a very few instances where I think it is justified. My real purpose is to engage in the act of reflection. The best definition of Reflection, being the “process of one observing oneself”, comes from Peter Vail in his book, Managing as a Performing Art. So, let me begin reflecting. My first epiphany is that I think the majority of humans believe in a higher power—God, Allah, Jehovah, Vishnu, if you will. And, if that’s the case, why are we so locked into “heated agreement”? Why do we insist that others wear what we wear, say what we say, act like we do in their worship rituals? Why do we commit acts of inhumanity towards each other in the name of our God? Why do we commit evil acts in the name of The Most High? Has the devil infiltrated our holy ranks? Is this hatred we hurl at each other the way we are suppose to live? And, why does live spelled backwards spell evil? Should we focus more on living to love rather loving to live? I don’t know….I’m just saying—you know?

What I do know is that we should not make 9/11 a national Day of Hysteria. Nor should we turn it into a national Day of Hatred. What we should be doing is reflecting and reconciling with each other so that no future “Date in Infamy” comes about to dwarf and replace 9/11. On this day, let us all, on Earth, atone for the myriad of sins committed under hypnotic nationalistic and religious trances. Let us insure that ‘freedom of religion’ is practiced and revered in whatever manner a group chooses to worship God.

We’ve seen the awful destructive power of hate. We long to see the awesome constructive power of Love. Let’s make 9/11 the head corner stone of a universal covenant to advance humankind from the Stone Age to an enlightened Space Age. Let’s agree to grow up as a species.

BIBLE STUDY: LESSONS FOR LEADERS

BIBLE STUDY: LESSONS FOR LEADERS

“…And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”

By Kwame S. Salter

1 Corinthians 13 is often read and quoted at weddings and in sermons. For many, this biblical verse is sappy and preachy. Yet, upon closer examination it provides a powerful lesson for anyone who seeks to build a strong relationship with a person or group. The verse extols the power of love; ranks love above both faith and hope. Hard core business leaders wonder, like Tina Turner in her hit song, so plaintively asked, “What’s Love Got to Do with It?” What exactly in this thing called love that a business person can get his or her head around? Typically, love is defined as a “deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.”  OK, got it?

 For those of us in leadership positions, the question that still begs an answer is “what’s love got to do with it?” Well, part of the definition speaks to “a sense of underlying oneness.” It is this part of the definition that is operational in the following discussion. Leaders, to be effective, must create a sense of the team acting in concert—with a sense of underlying oneness. Therefore, in reading my explication of Corinthians 13, insert the phrase “underlying oneness” every time the word love shows up. So, let us get on to the explication of this powerful verse section by section.

  

 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

Think about the leader who is a smooth, articulate and poised speaker. The words are magic. He/she can explain or justify anything. Walking onstage or at the lectern, their words are mesmerizing, enchanting and, almost, musical. They hit all the right notes, say all the right things, and titillate the senses. For sheer entertainment value they are without peer. Unfortunately, after the sound and fury of their motivational speech dies down, what is left is a sense of emptiness—because their day to day actions are not in line with their pulsating rhetoric. The organization is adrift and leaderless when people need them most. Listening to them is like eating the proverbial Chinese dinner—you are hungry again 30 minutes later. You are hungry for follow through and substantive decision making. You are hungry for a sign or signal that they care about the ‘little people’ who keep the organization going day to day. They are good at building speeches, but not high performance teams.

  If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge,and if 

I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

How many times have we been blown away by the super smart leader who is able to explain the complexities we daily grapple with while displaying an unshakable confidence in his/her predictions and strategies? How many times have these geniuses failed because they sought our compliance and not our commitment? Sure, they know what to do, but they failed to realize that how it gets done goes beyond statistical modeling and personal IQ. How it gets done is in the hands of the people who they view as variables in their success equation. In reality, the people are the constants in their equation. And, if you look down on the people because you consider them intellectually inferior, you will fail. In spite of your high IQ and confidence, you will fail.  With apologies to William Arthur Ward who talked about teachers, I would say that: The mediocre leader tells; the good leader explains; the superior leader demonstrates; and, the great leader inspires. Without a committed team, you are nothing.

  Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud…it is not rude, it is not self seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

Building high performance teams requires patience, respect for each team member and modesty once the task is successfully achieved. Great leaders are approachable, even keeled and fair. These leaders make sure that there is enough credit to go around. They know when things go well that they should sit down and let the team take the bows. And, on the other hand, when things sputter and go awry, the leader must stand up and take the blame. These enlightened leaders don’t need to ‘hog’ the spotlight. Most importantly, these leaders do not keep an indelible list of everything you did wrong. Their objective is to “catch you doing something right” and reward you. They can critique your performance without diminishing you as a person. Uncontrollable temper outbursts are not part of their operating style. They want you to be successful because you will make them successful. Their philosophy can be reduced to three words, “Give, Get or Go.” In other words, give something to the collective effort, get something from your mistakes or go—but go with dignity.

  Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth…it always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

So much of the complexity that bogs down organizational effectiveness and efficiency is not in our technologies, processes or systems—but rather in us. Too often, the leader sets the wrong tone. Some leaders play individuals against one another, gossip about one employee to another employee or just outright lies about an employee’s competencies or strengths. As such, I would submit that close to 80% of the complexity that slows down a company’s march to meet its strategic objectives, comes from inauthentic relationships between people. We are encouraged to lie about forecasts, deliverables, and key performance indicators to please the bosses. Our turnaround time is often dependent on who is requesting help. Leaders who are not authentic create inauthentic organizations and counterproductive competition between and among employees. In fact, in many organizations work is defined more by so-called personality conflicts, mind games, political posturing and power plays. Leaders sometimes forget that the definition of work is “activity that leads to a result.”  Some of the behavior in today’s organizations mimic the popular and voyeuristic ‘reality shows’ that pockmark today’s television programming.

In summary, if leaders could truly grasp the concepts and teachings in 1 Corinthians 13, the workplace would become more civil and supportive—dare I say, more productive.

Flash Drive Diversity

Flash Drive Diversity

“Fish are the last to be aware of the presence of water”

Several years ago, I was attending a Black History month event sponsored by the Jesse Owens Foundation where Ken Burns, the brilliant and prolific producer of such films as Baseball, Jazz, Prohibition and Civil War was the keynote speaker.  Burns is a small, wiry and intense man with a palpable charm. His speaking style is simple and direct. Nothing he says seems outrageous or contrived. On this night, Burns talked about his documentary on Jazz. He spoke admiringly about Louis ‘Satchmo’ Armstrong or ‘Pops’ as he referred to him. Pops, according to Burns, contrary to popular opinion, was a proud and dignified Black man who demanded respect. Burns recalled that his standard reply to the question, “How’s it going?” was “White man still winning." He shared with the audience many of the unheralded and unknown protests and positions that Armstrong took to advance the cause of Black people in America.

 I was riveted by Mr. Burns’s storytelling and straightforward discussion of the many cultural contributions African Americans have made to this country. And, as Burns put it, recognition of these amazing contributions is celebrated every year in February—"the shortest and coldest month of the year."

While Black History month has lost a lot of its historical and educational value, it has gained in commercial appeal. Fortune 500 companies routinely recognize the month in their print, radio and television advertising. ESPN, the giant and ubiquitous sports network , sprinkles its broadcasts with references and vignettes of  Black sports firsts –from grainy old photographs of men in leather helmets to cloudy black and white film of Jackie Robinson  to faded color video of Hank Aaron. Schools have contests for kids delivering Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech and quizzes on Black scientists, inventors and entrepreneurs like Madam CJ Walker and her hair straightening concoction.

Most predictable are the many corporate entities that transform their corridors with black art exhibits and alter the menus in the employee cafeteria to include soul food—usually fried chicken, corn bread, down home macaroni & cheese along with some collard greens and, of course, the obligatory ‘red velvet cake’ for dessert. The corporate headquarters recognizes, at least for 28 or 29 days, that African Americans are an integral part of American society. Everybody is culturally sensitive for a month. Yet, this behavior is dissociative from the reality of how Blacks are actually viewed, treated and valued as part of the day to day business enterprise.

The best description I have every heard of how corporate America handles Black History month came from the brilliant and incisive  Dr. Samuel Betances, a lecturer, consultant and thought leader on diversity in the workplace. Dr. Betances is a bi-racial Puerto Rican who calls it like he sees it. During a Black History month lecture at my company, he told the audience how impressed he was with the pictures and posters that lined the corridors and were arranged on easels in our corporate headquarters--during February.

Betances went on to say that at close of business on the last day of February, the custodial staff would be busy taking the pictures off easels and posters off the wall. The building would quickly return to its normal ambiance. He added that he would be surprised if those pictures and posters were still up on March 1st.

He called the process of sprucing the building up for Black History month floppy disk diversity.  As I stated earlier, Betances shared this observation several years ago. Today, I would call it flash drive diversity.  Betances felt that how a building was artistically decorated or initially appointed represented the hard drive of the culture that built it. 

The dominant culture always defines the ambiance. Portraits of stately and mustached old white men abound. Beautiful oil paintings of dewy-eyed, youthful white girls in pastoral settings with handsome horses gently nibbling on verdant carpet of grass are prominent in conference rooms and on executive floors.  These images constitute the hard drive reality that contradicts the "value diversity" theme that Black History month was supposed to underscore and promote.

Betances felt that until you change the hard drive, all other inclusion celebrations, attempting to value diversity, were cosmetic, at best. It is easy to take a preloaded flash drive and put it into the USB port to do a diversity slideshow. What is challenging is to do an audit of the artwork and portraits that remain on the building’s hard drive—and make the hard drive more diverse. 

Understanding the impact of never seeing images of you is difficult for both people of color and others to see. It is difficult because we have become so used to mentally not seeing ourselves. Images of Jesus Christ are Nordic looking—despite the fact that he was from Africa or, if you will, the Middle East. Our minds play a trick on us, and we see-but really don't see-our  omission from reality. What non-people of color see is normal and logical. What they see looks like them. Yet what they see denies the very existence of others who work alongside, with and for them.