Studies show that good looking people have an easier time at work.

I still laugh when I remember the Daily Show’s segment on John Roberts Supreme Court hearings, entitled, “Judge Cutie” (with the same logo as Judge Judy). And that wasn’t the only press coverage that included a reference to the fact that Roberts was good looking.

And here I thought that the only candidates for high office who were selected on the “babe” factor were John Edwards, Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin. Before you jump to the conclusion that this workplace blog has been hijacked by a political commentary, studies show that good looks don’t only resonate in Vice Presidents and Supreme Court Justices; they also carry a great deal of weight back at work.

According to an article in the USA Today (a newspaper, by the way, well known for its appearance) male CEO’s were, on average, 3 inches taller than the average man. Another study found that an increase in a woman’s body mass resulted in a decrease in her family income and job prestige. And finally more than 20% of very overweight employees have low morale, double the average for employees with healthy weights.

Will the tyranny of the pretty ever end? The good looking people called the shots in high school and it looks like they’re still calling ‘em all these years later.

I decided that rather than complaining and criticizing people who are good looking, I would interview a bunch of attractive people to get their take on this issue (it’s a tough job and I decided to make this sacrifice for you, dear reader). What I learned was fascinating. Every good looking person I talked to admitted that there were many times in their lives that they had stuff handed to them. But they also described times where their ideas weren’t taken seriously or where there was retribution simply because of their looks.

These conversations were a revelation to this average-looking blogster. I knew from personal experience that not-pretty people suffered because of their appearance. I was fascinated to discover that pretty people also experience rejection for—yes, you guessed it—their looks.

So I’m making a plea. Let’s all move past high school and start to judge people for the content of their character and for the quality of their ideas. People Magazine’s best looking people issue may be a fun read—but it’s an ugly way to do business.

NEWS FLASH: A recent Working Wounded column on the “battle of the sexes” generated the most negative mail that I’ve received in almost ten years.

I’ve gotten a lot of angry mail through the years—people who challenged my credentials, those who attacked my point of view and even some who really hated my photo. I thought I’d heard it all. That is until the “battle of the sexes” column ran a few weeks back.

The emails were angry. Really angry. You could tell it just by the subject lines: “My God, how could you get it so wrong” and “More female apologist crap.” And those were two of the printable ones.

I could argue in my own defense that the content for the column was based on a book written by a best-selling business guru—Tom Peters, the pioneering author of “Search For Excellence.” I could point out that although the tips in the article were provocative, they have been made in other publications. Finally I could say that men and women really do manage differently and that there is a value in exploring these differences.

But that isn’t the point of this blog. No, I would like to focus on one email that I received and what it says about where disagreements seem headed. So without further ado, here is the email in question:

“As a mental health therapist in private practice for over thirty years, I frequently deal with gender issues. Your column was one of the most biased collection of generalizations I have seen in some time. No doubt many males do not have it together but it appears from your writing that all women are positive in the work environment and men are just a negative. I asked my wife of 35 years for her reaction and she gave several examples opposite to each of the points you listed. I have written a letter to the editor…which carries your column in the Chicago area, asking that they consider dropping your column and considering one that gives a more balanced view of workplace issues.”

Criticism is a part of the life of a workplace columnist. A very big part. And I accept it. But I did find it fascinating that someone would read one column and decide that I should be fired. One strike and you’re out. Why should my column be dropped? According to this reader, because publications should provide a “more balanced” view. Is it balance he’s looking for or someone who is unbalanced and actually tips in his direction? (Ouch, and I was doing such a good job of not coming across as defensive up until that sentence.)

It’s fine for people to not like my stuff. Heck, sometimes I’m not even fond of it. But to take it to the point that you believe that the best way to handle a differing opinion is to fire the messenger, well that seems just a bit extreme to me. Especially when it comes from a seasoned mental health professional.

Diversity of ideas. A range of opinions. Seeing things from a different point of view. These are things that seem to be under attack today. Do I read things in the paper and on the web that make my blood boil? Yes. But as Voltaire famously said, “I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.”

About the Author: Bob Rosner is a best-selling author and award-winning journalist. For free job and work advice, check out the award-winning workplace911.com. If you have a question for Bob, contact him via bob@workplace911.com.

The pictures of people sitting on roof tops or being pulled out of their attics are permanently etched in all of our brains following Hurricane Katrina. And it raises a simple question, why didn’t people leave when the warnings were so clear of the dangers of the approaching storm?

Of course there are the obvious answers—many were poor and didn’t have a way to get out of town or a place to go once they did and many people had experience of surviving hurricanes and thought they’d weather this one.

These reasons make sense. But there is a bigger reason that I’ve not heard discussed; most of us are natural change resisters. Ask us to do something new and we’re ready to dig our heels in the ground and resist.

For example, as much as most of us complain about the status quo at work, we are often the first people who will be ready to fight when someone tries to change it. It’s sort of like that observation by Chico Marx, of the famous Marx Brothers comedy team, about his brother Harpo. Someone asked him if he loved his brother and Chico replied, “No but I’m used to him.” It’s how most of us are about the status quo at work, we don’t love it, but we’re used to it. And it’s usually tough to let go.

Which reminds me of a story that I heard from England. A man was caught by a police camera running a red light. He received in the mail a picture of his car running the light and a ticket from the police. He felt this was unfair, so he sent the police a picture of a check. The British police, according to an article in the newspaper, sent him a picture of a pair of handcuffs. The red light runner promptly sent in his check.

This story reminded me that no one should be surprised when people resist change. We should all come to expect it. We should give people a chance, like those British police did, to blow off some steam and to give the resisters compelling reasons to get with the program.

Resistance and resistors can often be won over. Let’s face it; we’ve all had to learn to accept spam, to pay part of our health care premiums, to survive cubicles and to accept that annoying button in the elevator that says “close door” but that never does. People can learn to accept change. Heck, they can learn to love it. But the people pushing the change have got to understand that how they approach people and what they approach people with to entice them to join the cause. This will have a huge impact on whether the change will be embraced or whether everyone will be drowning in a flood of problems.

About the Author: Bob Rosner is a best-selling author and award-winning journalist. For free job and work advice, check out the award-winning workplace911.com. If you have a question for Bob, contact him via bob@workplace911.com.

After fifteen years of writing Workplace911 and its predecessor Working Wounded I’ve concluded that there are a lot of myths about work. I thought it would be fun to tackle some of the bigger ones in this week’s blog. Check out my list below and send me some of your favorites.

It’s impossible to be overpaid when someone else signs the paycheck. Let me offer a short translation of this rule—as long as someone is willing to pay you a ridiculous amount of money to work for them, then you aren’t overpaid because they have established a market for your services. I disagree. Corporate salaries are absurd. Cost cutting, layoffs and a myriad of other organizational sacrifices should float more than just the boats of the CEO and a few top executives. I’m no Marxist, CEOs do deserve a big paycheck when they are successful. But this escalator only seems able to go up.

Greed is good. The biggest problem here is that when Oliver Stone came up with this mantra for his Gordon Gekko character in the movie Wall Street it was meant as parody. Yet I hear some variation of it whenever I talk to traders, salespeople, etc. Henry Ford, hardly a commie himself, once said that only a fool holds out for the last dollar. I think wretched excess is a terrible way to run a company.

The bigger the jerk, the better the boss. Probably my favorite quote on management came from President (and General) Dwight Eisenhower. He once said, “Hitting people over the head isn’t leadership, it’s assault.” Sure jerks do get your attention and possibly results over the short term. But most employees will flee at the first chance they get. There are just too many sane bosses out there to continue to slave away for a jerk.

You’ve got to be first to market. Microsoft seems to me to be the only company that consistently puts second-rate products on the market and lives to tell the tale. The rest of us have to pick our spots and often the first to market position can’t justify launching a crappy product. So it often pays to wait.

Innovation is the middle name of American corporations. Despite rising productivity, I believe that corporations in the U.S. are running on fumes. Don’t believe me? Listen to most people talk about the management of their companies. It’s not a pretty sight. I see far more innovation right now coming from abroad and from the not-for-profit sector and I think it’s time that corporations started walking their talk.

Corporations are drowning in regulation. Tyco, Enron, WorldCom, etc. left in their wake Sarbanes Oxley and a host of other regulations. Undoubtedly Lehman, Goldman Sacks, etc. will leave their mark too. There is a lot of talk now about how corporations are being held back by senseless regulations. I hate filling out government forms as much as the next guy, but these laws came into place because of abuse by corporations. And in order to maintain the trust of the average investor these regulations need to remain in effect, no matter how much whining you hear from big business.

The bottom line isn’t just the bottom line. If I’ve learned one thing as an observer of business and the founder of four corporations, it’s that there are many bottom lines for a business. In addition to economic there are also social and environmental considerations. The financials really only are a part of the picture. The sooner that corporations take a broader view of the bottom line, the sooner they’ll begin to fully reach their potential.

About the Author: Bob Rosner is a best-selling author and award-winning journalist. His web site, workplace911.com, contains a comprehensive archive of strategies for surviving today’s workplace. He is a fan of Workplace Fairness and can be reached via bob@workplace911.com.

Last week, I was watching George Carlin on HBO. I started thinking about his famous list of the seven things you can’t say on television. So this week I’m going to present the Workplace911 variation on Carlin’s list — a list of five taboo words for today’s workplace. 

The first taboo in today’s workplace is the word “felony.” Corporations don’t like prison records. However, ex-offenders don’t need to worry too much, because this will change for two reasons. First, the dramatic increase of executives who visit the big house. If these guys keep getting arrested, every head honcho is going to have a rap sheet, and they have to work somewhere.

OK, Martha Stewart hasn’t gone out and hired a bunch of her former prison bunk mates to work at her company. But she has been speaking out about ex-offenders as potential contributors to society. And over time this will have an impact. That leads to the second reason why some of the sting may come out of the word felony at work. Though there are 44 million Gen-Xers in the workforce, they are greatly outnumbered by the 76 million baby boomers who will start planning for retirement in the next couple of decades. We’ll have to run our economy while millions of workers worry more about weekends and Winnebagos than their work. Something’s got to give, and the modern workforce is going to have to get creative to find new workers. I predict that with more than two million incarcerated in the U.S. and a dwindling supply of workers, ex-offenders will become more common around the office.

The second taboo at work is not a word but an acronym: “TMI” — too much information. This can apply to all manner of information, but of particular note is the often uncomfortable revealing of personal medical situations. People don’t want to hear about your medical challenges, your itchy rash, your surgery or your prostate, etc. Yes, the practice of avoiding running your mouth and disclosing TMI rules at work today.  Find a therapist, a mate or a relative who really cares about the medical details of your life. But don’t share it with your coworkers, because hearing about those things makes them uneasy and can make work an uncomfortable place to be.

The third taboo at work revolves around the word “relationships.” Don’t go there. People don’t want to hear about your marital or relationship problems. Through the years I can’t believe how many people have shared intimate information about their relationships with me. Call me a prude, but I think pillow talk should be reserved for conversations that actually take place over pillows.

The fourth taboo is the word “why.” As in “Why did you…” “Why do we…” Most corporations don’t take kindly to being asked this simple question. Sure, there are bosses who can handle it. I just think that they are rarer than most people think. Sometimes it’s better to just bite your tongue and forge ahead with an assignment, even if you’re not totally sure about the outcome. People who constantly question the worth of a project or a boss’s decision often get tagged as malcontents. So be careful when you drag out the “W” word.

And finally, the fifth taboo — “bravado.” 

Most of us learn at a very early age that we are never to show weakness or vulnerability at work. Bravado is the way; do what you can and fake what you can’t. I personally believe that the lack of vulnerability weakens organizations because it prevents real connection and real interactions between people.

If I had a magic wand I’d hope that we could all do a much better job of being more vulnerable at work. Sure it’s tough, but isn’t it time that we all brought a bit more humanity to our jobs? And what better way is there to do this than being genuine and vulnerable with the people we work with? So stash that bravado and learn to show a softer side — it will humanize you in the eyes of your coworkers and probably encourage them to do the same.

My five taboo words at work — felony, TMI, relationships, why and bravado. I’d love to hear yours.

Bob Rosner is a best-selling author and award-winning journalist. For free job and work advice, check out the award-winning workplace911.com. If you have a question for Bob, contact him via bob@workplace911.com.

One of the most important innovations of all time—the tin can—was first patented in 1810 by a British merchant named Peter Durand.
 
What’s so important about the tin can? It dramatically extended the reach of the British fleet, providing its sailors access to well-preserved food which allowed them to go on much longer voyages.
 
Which leads to an important question—what year was the can opener first patented?
 
The answer is in the next paragraph, but I’m going to stall a bit for dramatic effect. I’d really like for you to guess before you look at the answer. Come on, it’ll be fun.
 
Ezra Warner, an American, got the patent in—drum roll please—1858. For almost fifty years, if you wanted to open a can, you had to hit it with a chisel and hammer and spew most of the contents on the wall or floor. Or you could try a hack-saw and get lots of little shards of metal in your food.
 
If you read most books and articles on innovation, it makes the process seem so logical, structured and orderly. Obstacles come up and they are overcome. The correct decisions are magnified and the mistakes minimized. So the entire process of innovation is sanitized, homogenized and glorified.
 
This is dangerous because it gives a false sense of security to organizations that they can actually “manage” a process of innovation. And nothing could be further from the truth. Like an unruly pet or teenager, innovation is often survived—not managed.
 
Take Viagra. It redefined the entire field of male enhancement products when it was first discovered and has generated huge profits. But the drug was discovered almost by accident when a certain side effect started to rise in male patients recovering from heart attacks.
 
The other problem with innovation is that we all spend a lot of time studying things that worked. I maintain that we can often learn far more from things that didn’t. For every Starbucks or 747, we can learn a valuable lesson or two. But we can learn even more from the New Cokes and the Enrons and the other colossal failures of our time. Unfortunately most of us tend to be success junkies and we don’t have the patience to sort through the tales of woe from a bunch of losers.
 
But there is something even more annoying about innovation. As interesting as it is to read about the innovations of others, the most valuable stories about innovation are from within your own organization. That’s right. If you really want to understand why innovation is such a struggle, do some digging to find the last few attempts at innovation in your organization.
 
If your experience is like mine, you’ll discover that your organization has its own immune system that seeks out innovation and kills it. Corporate policies, management and profit targets are just three of the villains.
 
However, if you are grounded in the reality of what, and who, has been successful in your organization, you’ll dramatically increase the odds of success as you embark on your voyage of innovation. Hopefully this article will help to provide sustenance for you to maintain a can-do attitude when the journey gets bumpy, as it undoubtedly will.

About the Author: Bob Rosner is a best-selling author and award-winning journalist. For free job and work advice, check out the award-winning workplace911.com. If you have a question for Bob, contact him via bob@workplace911.com.

LA Dodger outfielder Manny Ramirez missed almost a third of a season because he was found to have artificial testosterone and a female fertility drug in his system during drug testing. Unfortunately Manny isn’t the only person walking around with an artificially high level of testosterone in his system. In most of the workplaces I’ve seen, Manny wouldn’t crack the testosterone top ten. Heck, he’d probably also have more women hormones than most of the women at work, but we’ll cover that next week.

I can remember many conversations at work where former bosses would start to pull out the war metaphors—“This is a life and death struggle,” “We are in a battle for our very existence,” and “This is all out war.” The only problem was that it wasn’t actually war—it was computer software, TV news and corporate training videos.

This kind of talk not only cheapens warfare, it cheapens whatever work people are actually trying to get done during their 9-5 grind.

It’s also worth noting how it’s always the guys who have never been in battle who tend to use war metaphors. Except for the former military types who are consultants for big defense profiteers, most of the people who’ve actually been in battle seem more interested in forgetting it than spewing it out in every business meeting.

I think it all comes down to one thing, insecurity. Most guys are cardboard cut outs. They wouldn’t know a real emotional feeling if it snuck up behind them and bit them on the butt. I know, I used to be like that.

Okay, before you start dashing off that email to me, think about it guys. When was the last time you said “I don’t know” in a meeting? Or asked a person who reported to you for their advice on how to handle a difficult situation? Or admitted a mistake before there was any evidence that you’d made one? Most of the guys that I’ve met would rather drink Clorox than show any shred of vulnerability at work. Or at home. Or in a place other than work or home.

Why? There are many reasons. From trying to be a good provider, to wanting to be seen as tough, to being told when you were nine that big boys don’t cry. Wherever it comes from, men are almost raised to be emotionally non-existent or emotionally brittle.

[Before you get all worked up about the fact that I’m being harsh on men, please note in the title, this is only part 1. Next week is part 2, “The Trouble With Women at Work.”]

To me it all comes down to two concepts, control and vulnerability. Guys, when was the last time you gave up even the slightest bit of control? And I’m not just talking about at work. Heck, I’ve seen guys cut someone off on the highway rather than letting them merge into traffic. We’re built to compete 24 x 7. Even when competing is totally counter-productive.

Which leads to the real “kryptonite” of this story—vulnerability. If giving up a bit of control is anathema in most workplaces, vulnerability is the place to avoid at all costs. All costs. I know what you’re thinking, vulnerability is weakness and must always be avoided.

Maybe I’m the one drinking Clorox here, but I think vulnerability actually shows how strong you are. That you have the confidence to let down your guard. That you can really speak from the heart. That you are real; that to me is the ultimate strength.

Next week I’ll do my best to annoy the other half. Cheers.

About the Author: Bob Rosner is a best-selling author and award-winning journalist. For free job and work advice, check out the award-winning workplace911.com. If you have a question for Bob, contact him via bob@workplace911.com.

Just as it’s hard to blame the Democrats for anything that happened during the Bush Administration (if you look up the word “irrelevant” in the dictionary, don’t be surprised if you see the world “democrat” listed as a synonym—when all control was in the hands of the GOP).

It’s also hard to blame women for the mess that work has become.

Let’s face it; work is still a patriarchy. Okay, I know there are a few men out there who work in a women-managed department or company, but they’re the exception and certainly not the rule.

Work is a tree house and the boys are in charge. That said, although women might not be the major part of the problem most of us call work, they do have their issues. I’m not going to go all Oprah on you, but I do want to point out a major challenge facing many women at work.

I call it “divorced women’s syndrome” and I’ve had this conversation with at least thirty women. Going through a divorce a woman learns one thing; she can’t rely on anyone else. It’s her life, and her family, and the only person who will be there for her at the end of the day is herself.

Then she goes to work and an interesting thing happens—she relies only on herself. If this woman is approached for advice, mentoring or support by a colleague she will do whatever she can for them. But when it comes to her asking colleagues for advice, mentoring or support—NO WAY. As Bette Midler once said about Madonna, it’s all about lifting yourself up by your own bra straps (seriously, how many women have boot straps today?). Work, for many women, becomes a solitary activity.

Unfortunately, this runs against how the work really works. The workplace is built on favors and on give and take. You do favors for people and they return the favor back to you. The philosophy of not relying or depending on anyone else isolates her from lots of great resources, ideas and efficiencies.

I’m not saying that self-reliance is always bad thing. It gets many women through their divorce intact. I am saying that as important as this trait is to survive a divorce, it’s very dangerous to bring this to work as the defining aspect of your personality.

So if I had a magic wand I’d encourage women to be sure that they are making both deposits and withdrawals with the people they work with. To both give and get in the favor economy that sustains every business.

If I still haven’t sold you on the importance of giving AND receiving, here is a hypothetical. Imagine you have a friend who is going through a rough stretch. And you could be a big help to her during her struggles. How would you feel if you learned much later she never let you know that she needed a helping hand? You’d feel terrible, like you let her down. So how are your friends and work colleagues supposed to feel when you don’t reach out to them?

Here is a saying to adopt—L.Y.F.H.Y. Let your friends help you. The workplace is so much easier to handle when you tackle it with the support of your colleagues. You go girl!

QUOTE.

“No one should have to dance backward all their lives.” Jill Ruckelshaus

About the Author: Bob Rosner is a best-selling author and award-winning journalist. For free job and work advice, check out the award-winning workplace911.com. If you have a question for Bob, contact him via bob@workplace911.com.

Last week a friend stopped by who’d just been riffed by Microsoft (reduction in force, for the luckily uninitiated).
 
She spoke angrily about the HR woman who answered most of her questions wrong concerning her severance and departure from the company. Initially my friend was told there was no severance beyond six weeks and her layoff would leave her just short of the date where she’d be fully invested in her pension. Later she talked to a more senior HR staffer who reassured her that she would receive enough additional time to receive her pension.
 
Misinformation. It happens all the time. But I can think of few times more painful than when you are getting laid off to get bad information. In football the term for this would be piling on. And yet I hear from people all the time who have to go through an experience that would be difficult enough by itself, getting laid off, but then the salt water is poured in their wounds by insensitive or incompetent HR or management staff.
 
Let me lay a card or two on the table. I like the vast majority of Human Resources people I’ve met through the years. I’ve spoken at HR conferences, I’ve written for HR publications and I consider many HR people to be my friends. This shouldn’t be surprising because I like people with heart.
 
It pains me when people in HR forget that they need to be the bridge between the company and its people, rather than just serving as an agent for the company.
 
Let me explain. I once spoke at a HR conference. I began by asking if audience members grew up with an adult’s table and a children’s table at big family events like Thanksgiving. Most of the audience smiled and said they had.
 
I then asked a simple question, as an HR person, which table do you sit at where you work, the adult’s table or the children’s table? For the rest of the session, every person who spoke began by saying that they sat at the adult’s table and then they explained why. “I have a great relationship with the CEO and board.” “I attend executive staff meetings.” “I report directly to the CEO,” were typical responses.
 
Oh, there was one exception. At the very end of the session one HR director said that she preferred the children’s table because you could play with your food, there weren’t a bunch of annoying rules and meals were always fun.
 
The correct answer concerning which table is either “both” or “neither.” The most effective HR people must be able to mix it up at both the adult and children’s table, but they should never allow just one audience—executives or employees—to dominate their thinking. Because, to be effective, they need to be a bridge between both groups.
 
It is tough to have to fit in both in the rarefied air at the top of the corporation and in the trenches where the work really gets done. Let’s just give thanks that there are people out there who can.
 
QUOTE.

“The art of being wise is the art of knowing what to overlook.” William James

About the Author: Bob Rosner is a best-selling author and award-winning journalist. For free job and work advice, check out the award-winning workplace911.com. If you have a question for Bob, contact him via bob@workplace911.com.