Equal pay is one thing, but what about other biases?

Good news ladies, the day will come when you will earn as much as men. Of course, depending on where you live, it may not happen within your lifetime.

Last week, a new report released from the Institute for Women’s Policy Research predicted when women will achieve equal pay based on the state in which they live. Residents of Florida top the list reaching this distinction by 2038 followed closely by California and Maryland in 2042. But, women in Wyoming will have the longest wait until 2106. I’m luckier than most – as a resident of Minnesota I could see equal pay by 2054. Unfortunately, this will be after my professional career ends assuming I retire in my 60s.

Recently, the call for equal pay has gone beyond the walls of small businesses and corporate America to the entertainment industry. In the week following Oscar night, the speech that got the most attention was delivered by Patricia Arquette with her plea for equal pay. Certainly, gender bias hits all industries but it can be a little hard to relate to people earning millions of dollars. In 2013, the average pay for American men and women was reported as approximately $36,700 versus $44,700 or an average of 82.5 cents for every dollar a man earns.

When I look back on my career I do recognize bias. The ideas that weren’t considered until pitched by male colleagues. The male coworkers who soared into leadership roles based on potential versus my female colleagues and I who were asked to prove we could do the job before getting promoted. Or simply the fact that I worked in a department comprised of 75% women being led by a management team of 75% men.

But, I also recognize that gender bias is only the beginning. We all experience bias and use bias without even realizing it.

We naturally gravitate toward people who are like ourselves. This is how we pick friends and mates. So, it would only be natural that we use this instinct to choose employees as well. But, friendships are based on subjective reasoning and a workplace is supposed to be objective. Equal employment opportunity affirmative action laws and regulations were created in an effort to abolish bias and protect people’s rights in the workplace. This includes a multitude of differences including gender, race, age, religion and sexual orientation among others. Since equal pay is still being discussed one could argue its effectiveness in the workplace. But, there are also a number of differences that aren’t protected and may be the reason for not getting a job.

A smart job applicant knows that they are judged within the first two minutes of an interview. There are studies that say tall men get promoted faster and petite women have more advantages in the workplace. But, I don’t foresee legal protection for short men or large women. Just think of the number of factors that could be judged in an interview – appearance, social class, background, etc. The fact is that the list of unconscious bias is large and there is no way to track it or prove it much less protect it by law. Yet, this bias can have a great effect on someone’s career.

Recently, I was asked to do a taped video screening for a job and it was an uncomfortable experience. I didn’t fear the camera. After all, I started my career in broadcasting. I didn’t fear my word choices. As a PR professional, I get paid to write key messages. Instead, I recognized the opportunity for bias. A recruiter could unconsciously make an assumption about me based on what they saw and heard. Yes, the same could be said of a face-to-face interview; but, the two-way conversation that happens during a live interview provides an opportunity to create a connection and perhaps change a first impression. A one-sided taped response doesn’t provide the same opportunity. As a result, I was never more conscious of my appearance, expression and clothing choices.

What if the person viewing the tape doesn’t like redheads?

I realize that bias against redheads may be a little unrealistic. But unfortunately, appearance also plays its part in gender bias. Last year, an Australian news anchor wore the same suit on air for a year and no one noticed. He did this in response to his female co-anchor’s experience of being scrutinized and ridiculed for her clothing choices. “I’m judged on my interviews … on how I do my job, basically,” he said. “Women are judged much more harshly and keenly for what they do, what they say and what they wear.”

And that brings us back to the Oscars. This year, the #askhermore campaign was a part of the red carpet as much as the celebrities that walked it. This movement grew from the realization that men are asked more relevant questions about their acting roles and careers than women who are often only asked what they are wearing. Call it bias or the power of the fashion industry but the next week almost every news source was still talking about what the women were wearing.

I applaud Patricia Arquette’s eloquent speech and I support equal pay and opportunities for women. But, as long as we have free choice I believe we will always experience some form of bias, both men and women alike.

When 1+1=3 Everyone Wins

This was originally published in the December 2014 inTEgro newsletter produced by Al Watts, a veteran consultant, senior team coach and meeting facilitator who I met as a select participant in the RBC Wealth Management 2014 leadership development program. Following our work together he asked me to be his December guest columnist to share my insights about professionalism, committing to excellence, synergy and what happens when they come together.

conta.cc/1wHhnFS 

Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far they can go.

T.S. Eliot

I’ve heard it said that the best personal relationships happen not when 1+1=2 but when 1+1=3. When the combination of two individuals transcends the basic and becomes better than either imagined. I believe the same is true in a professional relationship between a business and its employees.

Just as in a relationship, using a checklist of requirements for suitable candidates doesn’t guarantee success. Likewise, a job description that looks good on paper may result in the wrong culture fit for an employee. Companies, industries and new techniques can be learned, skills can be honed, but it is the personality, drive and enthusiasm of both a candidate and an employer that can move the relationship from ordinary to extraordinary.

After all, doing your job does not mean just doing your job.

Stephen Covey writes that “synergy is what happens when one plus one equals ten or a hundred or even a thousand! It’s the profound result when two or more respectful human beings determine to go beyond their preconceived ideas to meet a great challenge.”

Getting through a To Do List may meet the expectations of a job but it doesn’t bring the most value to either a company or its shareholders. It is when a person is pushed or allowed to go beyond what is expected that the magic happens.

The rewritten paragraph that moves a speech from effective to quotable.

The collaboration that moves a project from accomplishing goals to achieving unexpected outcomes.

The voice of dissent that moves a discussion from logical, linear thinking to creative, lateral thinking.

I have always been a person who wonders if there might be a better way to do something that hasn’t been considered or discovered yet. When I was young, asking “why” sometimes got me into trouble with teachers or my parents. In certain circumstances, you just have to do things the established way. But, sometimes, not asking “why” can be detrimental, too. Not taking the risk or allowing risk limits the possibilities and prevents the magic.

I have had some powerful moments in my career when magic happened. Each of these projects had a different scope and different outcomes. But they had one thing in common – a leader and company that encouraged thinking beyond the expected results.

Just as often, however, I found situations when a new way of thinking wasn’t expected or supported. When doing it like it has always been done is enough. I often wonder why this happens. Is it a fear of taking a risk? Is it a feeling of having too much work or too little time to think beyond the basic? Or, is it the standard of mediocrity reinforced by a society that rewards individuals simply for making an effort rather than achieving greatness.

I don’t know the answer. But I do know that in my professional life I want 1+1 to equal 3. I want to thrive in an environment that encourages me to think beyond what is being asked of me. I want an employer who looks for someone who can offer more than the ability to place a checkmark next to a task on an ever-increasing To Do list. And, I want to have the courage and confidence to always expect more of myself.

When 1+1=3, both employers and employees win.

When ABCs turn into LOLs or worse

Today the written word is more powerful than ever. Although physical newspapers and magazines are being threatened by online versions the written word is still alive and well on the internet and people’s phones. We spend more time typing emails, texting, tweeting and writing Facebook posts than talking to people. Why then if words are so popular in the modern age does it seem people have forgotten how to write?

Does the need to communicate quickly outweigh the need to communicate correctly?

The number of LOLs that show up in so many texts and tweets nowadays is troubling but not incorrect for the medium in which they are used. Rather, I’m talking about things we learned in grammar school – the difference between common words like “your” versus “you’re,” using correct punctuation and not ending a sentence with a preposition. As a professional communicator (and proud junior high school and college spelling bee champion) I am especially sensitive to this disturbing trend.

Many years ago I joined the communications department of a large corporation and was shocked to read emails sent by one of the directors that included many misspellings, punctuation mistakes, and fragmented and run-on sentences. Before I even met this person I had formed an opinion about their professionalism and aptitude for their job. Later I realized the communications they wrote for publication were professional, it was their personal emails that were sloppy. Nevertheless, it was hard to get past that first impression.

A decade later we have things like spell check and auto correct. But that just creates new problems.

Recently, a friend sent me a text that both alarmed and confused me. Somehow the auto correct on her phone changed the name of a popular restaurant, Benihana, to the word “genitals.” Seconds later there was a follow-up text explaining the auto correct error. In this case, she quickly realized what had happened and sent an immediate explanation. But it made me wonder how many of these auto corrections go unnoticed and cause miscommunication and anxiety for people.

Still, even correctly spelled words can cause a problem.

As a public relations specialist I am well aware of the dangerous and humorous misspelling that can happen with my professional title. It’s a mistake that spell check won’t correct and one that I am careful to proofread on my own. One person who applied for a position on my team wasn’t as cautious – in her cover letter she described herself as a “pubic" relations professional. Needless to say she didn’t get an interview.

As I watch students texting and tweeting their way through life I have to hope that the schools are doing their best to prepare them for a world with a greater emphasis on the written word. This isn’t always the case.  I remember one college professor who was so disturbed by the poor quality of writing in the essay section of the midterm exam that he decided to take action – he got rid of the essay portion and made the final exam 100 percent multiple choice. As a student who aced the essay section it wasn't the solution I wanted or expected. Nor did it help these students become better writers.

Until we learn to communicate correctly and proofread our own work we will continue to see “Auto Incorrect” segments on Ellen and funny headlines on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. It’s good for entertainment but a bad trend for society.

PR Professionals Can Learn From the Kardashians

It seems everywhere I look lately I’m seeing Kardashians.

Kim’s divorce has dominated magazine covers while her brother Rob has taken a twirl on the dance floor every week on Dancing With the Stars.

Everyone has their own opinion about the family. My Facebook wall was flooded with comments by friends who had negative things to say about Kim’s upcoming divorce. But when I see Kardashians in the headlines I’m not thinking about the salacious stories – I’m thinking about what I can learn from them.

Kim Kardashian is truly an internet celebrity. Her brand sprung out of a sex tape leaked on the internet and her frequent outings with celebrities. The advent of the reality show, Keeping Up With the Kardashians, elevated her celebrity to the extreme and gave her lucrative endorsement opportunities.  And the rest of the family – Kris, Kourtney, Khloe, Rob, Kendall and Kylie – rode her coat tails into “celebreality” status. Even the stepfather Bruce Jenner who had already achieved his own true celebrity status as an Olympic athlete has enjoyed new recognition from the Millennium generation.

Say what you will about the family but they are the true definition of making something out of nothing. Something we PR professionals try to do every day.

Recently I read an article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune about “Legoman,” an 8-foot tall, 100-pound, fiberglass statue, that washed ashore in Siesta Key Beach in Sarasota, Florida. Originally thought to be a publicity stunt by Legoland authorities now believe it is the work of a Dutch artist pointing to similar stunts in other countries.

When asked about it a Legoland spokesperson denied responsibility but added: “I wish we could say we did it. It was a brilliant guerrilla PR stunt.”

I have to agree.

It is a PR person’s dream for one of their ideas to make headlines or become viral. But it can also backfire. I’m reminded of a stunt years ago when flashing neon signs were planted along roadways of a major city to tease an upcoming product launch. I’m sure the PR person behind this stunt couldn’t hide fast enough when the authorities were called by frightened motorists who thought the devices were bombs.

Promoting a business in the way of the Kardashians may not be easy or even appropriate for most brands. But as a PR professional I have to recognize that they seem to be doing something right.

Mr. Kutcher, are you reading my blog?

I read a Reuter’s article titled “KutcherPleads for Media Honesty Amid Cheating Reports.” The article discussed a video that Ashton Kutcher taped and released on social media regarding his alleged affair.

In the article Kutcher claims: “The threshold to have literature printed and distributed -- the cost structure went down to zero dollars. Thereby, there is no gatekeeper of the truth. We are our own editors, and we are our own publishers. We are our own printers. Thereby people can bastardize the truth in any way, shape or form they want and spread that around the world.”

Hmm…that sounds familiar. In my last blog I noted that “More and more people are getting their ‘news’ off of the internet from armchair journalists who practice the First Amendment but aren’t held accountable to any standards.”

Mr. Kutcher, are you reading my blog?

It seems that Kutcher and I are on the same wavelength. And yet we are both actively using the internet as a place to air our own opinions.

Kutcher is an avid user of social media who made news in 2009 during a race to beat CNN to one million Twitter followers. He and his wife, Demi Moore, use Twitter and other social media devices regularly to communicate to fans and each other. Today Kutcher boasts over 8 million followers while Moore has over 4 million.

So is it hypocritical that he would use social media to air a message that essentially condemns people like him who use the internet to communicate to the masses? Is it hypocritical that I would use a blog to air my own opinions about the misuse of social media?

Maybe if you are looking at it from a narrow point of view.

But perhaps it is because we are users of social media that we care how it is used and abused. We utilize the accessibility of the medium but also believe in taking some responsibility as online authors. Like anything else in this world it comes down to the intent of the user.

A level of responsibility isn’t just limited to the internet it is necessary for many forms of technology we enjoy today. Most parents will tell you that they are thankful for cell phones and texting capabilities to contact and keep tabs on their children but also worry about the misuse of these same tools. They want their children to have access to the internet for research but keep a keen eye on the sites visited and worry about the potential for cyberbullying.

Say what you will about Kutcher and the spotlight he has put on himself by building his celebrity through the social media. But he isn’t wrong. Technology, internet and the social media are powerful tools; we need to take responsibility to be our own editors when we use it.

 So I thank you Mr. Kutcher for rallying behind my message. And thanks for reading my blog!

Are armchair journalists the new media?

Last week I coached some PTA members who were being interviewed by their local newspaper. The issue was that an abundance of cease-and-desist letters were issued by the school banning parents from entering school property for weak reasons such as asking questions during school board meetings. This week the article was published. It was fair and balanced and the PTA members were quoted well.  

But that wasn’t the end of the story. After the article was published a storm erupted online. Other parents who didn’t agree with the PTA members used the comments section of the online article to air their grievances. Over the course of the next week a form of cyberbullying erupted when these women not only commented on the article but discussed other concerns that weren’t the focus of the article and then took the opportunity to make personal comments. At one point the reporter had to enter the online discussion reminding the women of the focus of his story and asking them to take personal comments and attacks off line.

Is this what it has come to? Grown adults making personal attacks through a newspaper comment section? When conducting media training I remind people that a reporter isn’t out to get them; the reporters are doing their job to try and tell an objective, fact-based story. It is up to the person being interviewed to be prepared with key messages as a way to provide concise, quotable information and have their point of view represented in the article. 

This is what I told the PTA members. But I didn’t tell them to beware the public – the school board members who have a personal vendetta, a computer and no filter. As a former Journalism student I considered the fact that a professional reporter is expected to write a fair and objective story but the people who comment aren’t held to the same requirements. They can tell one side of the story, provide unsubstantiated “facts” and provide subjective opinions.

I have many friends who are newspaper reporters and are concerned about the future of their industry. I am concerned, too. More and more people are getting their “news” off of the internet from armchair journalists who practice the First Amendment but aren’t held accountable to any standards.

As a regular internet user and reader myself I value the ability to get news online but fear the day when real reporters are replaced by people with an opinion and a computer. A blog is a biased, opinion piece not an objective article of fact. It is the difference between an online encyclopedia  and Wikipedia – one has facts and the other has “facts” written by anyone who wants to make an entry on a topic.

As for the PTA members, I reminded them that although the internet has a broad reach there is only a small group that actively reads or participates in the online comments. Nevertheless this will probably be the last time they agree to help a reporter with a story. They don’t fear the media they fear the public. This is bad news for reporters who rely on sources to tell their story. And this is bad news for a media relations professional like myself who spends her time convincing busy executives and professionals to do media interviews.