Issues management basics : Its all about the mindshare !

Have you ever wondered how certain groups of people take over the debate about an issue, dominate it so much that any alternative discourse doesnt even seem possible.

Think of the Middle East peace process, the two-state solution for example. Or the debate about immigration that seems to have hogged the limelight in the US, in the context of the current economic climate. Everyone i speak with ( barring a few enlightened individuals) agree that it is "ok" for the US to be a bit "protectionist" about jobs, since it is about providing jobs for "our own" people.

I see this trend in the Middle East too. During my stay there in 2008-09, the wave of "Emiritization" was dominant, and I still read comments by former colleagues on Facebook that there arent enough "good" jobs for the locals. Well...

This brings us to the issue I was thinking about : that of mind-share.

How much of the mental space in the "publics" mind has been captured by one line of thinking ? Is this an easy thing to do ? Well, that again depends on the issue ? Is it important to be aware of it ?

Absolutely !

Sometimes, one group of people dominate a discourse and it becomes a part of our collective mind-share, to such a large extent that we forget that this may be false.

As a consumer of information or news, it does help to step back, just for a minute and ask the question : how much of your mind-share is being occupied by this line of thinking/ organization ?

When there is too much noise, it would perhaps help to whisper !

Insight of the week : When there is too much noise, perhaps it would help to whisper- rather than shout.

Counter-intuitive ? Well, this one is common-sensical.

With a cluttered market ( think of the corporate world, the political arena or even your own personal life)- With so many people competing for your time, attention and money, who do you really listen to ? The one who is shouting at the top of his/her voice, or someone who is thoughtful, close to you and who is not "hard-selling" you ?

Whispering has never been as important as today's hyper-connected world.

Get close to someone, get their attention and tell them what you want to - with sincerity and clarity.

And chances are - they will listen.

Good luck and have a great week ahead.

Managing your professional image - Harvard Business article

I dont usually re-post articles here, but this is a pretty well written article. Courtesy HBR.

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/4860.html

Creating a Positive Professional Image

Q&A with: Laura Morgan Roberts
Published: June 20, 2005
Author: Mallory Stark


Executive Summary:
In today’s diverse workplace, your actions and motives are constantly under scrutiny. Time to manage your own professional image before others do it for you. An interview with professor Laura Morgan Roberts.

As HBS professor Laura Morgan Roberts sees it, if you aren't managing your own professional image, others are.

"People are constantly observing your behavior and forming theories about your competence, character, and commitment, which are rapidly disseminated throughout your workplace," she says. "It is only wise to add your voice in framing others' theories about who you are and what you can accomplish."

There are plenty of books telling you how to "dress for success" and control your body language. But keeping on top of your personal traits is only part of the story of managing your professional image, says Roberts. You also belong to a social identity group—African American male, working mother—that brings its own stereotyping from the people you work with, especially in today's diverse workplaces. You can put on a suit and cut your hair to improve your appearance, but how do you manage something like skin color?

Roberts will present her research, called "Changing Faces: Professional Image Construction in Diverse Organizational Settings," in the October issue of the Academy of Management Review.

She discusses her research in this interview.

Mallory Stark: What is a professional image?

Laura Morgan Roberts: Your professional image is the set of qualities and characteristics that represent perceptions of your competence and character as judged by your key constituents (i.e., clients, superiors, subordinates, colleagues).

Q: What is the difference between "desired professional image" and "perceived professional image?"

A: It is important to distinguish between the image you want others to have of you and the image that you think people currently have of you.

Most people want to be described as technically competent, socially skilled, of strong character and integrity, and committed to your work, your team, and your company. Research shows that the most favorably regarded traits are trustworthiness, caring, humility, and capability.

Ask yourself the question: What do I want my key constituents to say about me when I'm not in the room? This description is your desired professional image. Likewise, you might ask yourself the question: What am I concerned that my key constituents might say about me when I'm not in the room? The answer to this question represents your undesired professional image.

You can never know exactly what all of your key constituents think about you, or how they would describe you when you aren't in the room. You can, however, draw inferences about your current professional image based on your interactions with key constituents. People often give you direct feedback about your persona that tells you what they think about your level of competence, character, and commitment. Other times, you may receive indirect signals about your image, through job assignments or referrals and recommendations. Taken together, these direct and indirect signals shape your perceived professional image, your best guess of how you think your key constituents perceive you.

Q: How do stereotypes affect perceived professional image?

A: In the increasingly diverse, twenty-first century workplace, people face a number of complex challenges to creating a positive professional image. They often experience a significant incongruence between their desired professional image and their perceived professional image. In short, they are not perceived in the manner they desire; instead, their undesired professional image may be more closely aligned with how their key constituents actually perceive them.

What lies at the source of this incongruence? Three types of identity threats—predicaments, devaluation, and illegitimacy—compromise key constituents' perceptions of technical competence, social competence, character, and commitment. All professionals will experience a "predicament" or event that reflects poorly on their competence, character, or commitment at some point in time, due to mistakes they have made in the past that have become public knowledge, or competency gaps (e.g., shortcomings or limitations in skill set or style).

Members of negatively stereotyped identity groups may experience an additional form of identity threat known as "devaluation." Identity devaluation occurs when negative attributions about your social identity group(s) undermine key constituents' perceptions of your competence, character, or commitment. For example, African American men are stereotyped as being less intelligent and more likely to engage in criminal behavior than Caucasian men. Asian Americans are stereotyped as technically competent, but lacking in the social skills required to lead effectively. Working mothers are stereotyped as being less committed to their profession and less loyal to their employing organizations. All of these stereotypes pose obstacles for creating a positive professional image.

Members of negatively stereotyped identity groups may experience an additional form of identity threat known as "devaluation."
Even positive stereotypes can pose a challenge for creating a positive professional image if someone is perceived as being unable to live up to favorable expectations of their social identity group(s). For example, clients may question the qualifications of a freshly minted MBA who is representing a prominent strategic consulting firm. Similarly, female medical students and residents are often mistaken for nurses or orderlies and challenged by patients who do not believe they are legitimate physicians.

Q: What is impression management and what are its potential benefits?

A: Despite the added complexity of managing stereotypes while also demonstrating competence, character, and commitment, there is promising news for creating your professional image! Impression management strategies enable you to explain predicaments, counter devaluation, and demonstrate legitimacy. People manage impressions through their non-verbal behavior (appearance, demeanor), verbal cues (vocal pitch, tone, and rate of speech, grammar and diction, disclosures), and demonstrative acts (citizenship, job performance).

My research suggests that, in addition to using these traditional impression management strategies, people also use social identity-based impression management (SIM) to create a positive professional image. SIM refers to the process of strategically presenting yourself in a manner that communicates the meaning and significance you associate with your social identities. There are two overarching SIM strategies: positive distinctiveness and social recategorization.

Positive distinctiveness means using verbal and non-verbal cues to claim aspects of your identity that are personally and/or socially valued, in an attempt to create a new, more positive meaning for that identity. Positive distinctiveness usually involves attempts to educate others about the positive qualities of your identity group, advocate on behalf of members of your identity group, and incorporate your background and identity-related experiences into your workplace interactions and innovation.

Social recategorization means using verbal and non-verbal cues to suppress other aspects of your identity that are personally and/or socially devalued, in an attempt to distance yourself from negative stereotypes associated with that group. Social recategorization involves minimization and avoidance strategies, such as physically and mentally conforming to the dominant workplace culture while being careful not to draw attention to identity group differences and one's unique cultural background.

Rather than adopting one strategy wholesale, most people use a variety of strategies for managing impressions of their social identities. In some situations, they choose to draw attention to a social identity, if they think it will benefit them personally or professionally. Even members of devalued social identity groups, such as African American professionals, will draw attention to their race if it creates mutual understanding with colleagues, generates high-quality connections with clients, or enhances their experience of authenticity and fulfillment in their work. In other situations, these same individuals may choose to minimize their race in order to draw attention to an alternate identity, such as gender, profession, or religion, if they feel their race inhibits their ability to connect with colleagues or clients.

Successful impression management can generate a number of important personal and organizational benefits, including career advancement, client satisfaction, better work relationships (trust, intimacy, avoiding offense), group cohesiveness, a more pleasant organizational climate, and a more fulfilling work experience. However, when unsuccessfully employed, impression management attempts can lead to feelings of deception, delusion, preoccupation, distraction, futility, and manipulation.

Q: How do authenticity and credibility influence the positive outcomes of impression management attempts?

A: In order to create a positive professional image, impression management must effectively accomplish two tasks: build credibility and maintain authenticity. When you present yourself in a manner that is both true to self and valued and believed by others, impression management can yield a host of favorable outcomes for you, your team, and your organization. On the other hand, when you present yourself in an inauthentic and non-credible manner, you are likely to undermine your health, relationships, and performance.

Most people use a variety of strategies for managing impressions of their social identities.
Most often, people attempt to build credibility and maintain authenticity simultaneously, but they must negotiate the tension that can arise between the two. Your "true self," or authentic self-portrayal, will not always be consistent with your key constituents' expectations for professional competence and character. Building credibility can involve being who others want you to be, gaining social approval and professional benefits, and leveraging your strengths. If you suppress or contradict your personal values or identity characteristics for the sake of meeting societal expectations for professionalism, you might receive certain professional benefits, but you might compromise other psychological, relational, and organizational outcomes.

Q: What are the steps individuals should take to manage their professional image?

A: First, you must realize that if you aren't managing your own professional image, someone else is. People are constantly observing your behavior and forming theories about your competence, character, and commitment, which are rapidly disseminated throughout your workplace. It is only wise to add your voice in framing others' theories about who you are and what you can accomplish.

Be the author of your own identity. Take a strategic, proactive approach to managing your image:

Identify your ideal state.

What are the core competencies and character traits you want people to associate with you?
Which of your social identities do you want to emphasize and incorporate into your workplace interactions, and which would you rather minimize?
Assess your current image, culture, and audience.

What are the expectations for professionalism?
How do others currently perceive you?
Conduct a cost-benefit analysis for image change.

Do you care about others' perceptions of you?
Are you capable of changing your image?
Are the benefits worth the costs? (Cognitive, psychological, emotional, physical effort)
Use strategic self-presentation to manage impressions and change your image.

Employ appropriate traditional and social identity-based impression management strategies.
Pay attention to the balancing act—build credibility while maintaining authenticity.
Manage the effort you invest in the process.

Monitoring others' perceptions of you
Monitoring your own behavior
Strategic self-disclosure
Preoccupation with proving worth and legitimacy

About the author
Mallory Stark is a career information librarian at Baker Library.

Self-branding : The single most important question you need to ask youself

When it comes to branding your own self ( such a necessity in the current job market), the single most important question you need to answer is : Who the hell are you ?

While there are many of us, who are rather modest about our selves, there is a case to be made to be immodest, to position oneself well and reap the rewards that come from being noticed. Infact, one of my favourite sayings in Hindi ( popular in Mumbai, the financial and commercial hub of India is): " Jo Dikhta hai, wo bikta hai" - meaning, What is visible is sold faster. There is some truth to this statement, even as it applies to us as professionals.

This statement just about sums up everything that you need to do to establish yourself as a credible professional/ artist/ writer. I believe that if one seeks to answer this rather basic question thoroughly, with an in-depth look at the talents, dreams, aspirations, skills, experience that one has; this can be a ticket to the dream job or assignment.

How do i know this ? Well, partly from experience ( honestly, I am no super-achiever), but i do believe i have accomplished a tiny bit of what i wanted to do in life both professionally and personally, and also by observing others. I have made a few career transitions and apart from being lucky, i believe, i did do a few things right.

It is more by reading, observing those who have done very well for themselves that i notice some traits and habits which we can use too,to brand our own work and position ourselves uniquely, to break through the clutter.

So, how does one answer this rather important question ?

Here are a few ways to clarify who you are and to differentiate yourself from all the millions of people out there :

1. Bring what you love : I borrowed this from a documentary title of the Grammy award winning Grot Singer Youssou Ndour, a Senegalese singer. He has made a name for himself by focusing on what he has : his heritage as a Grot singer. He took this age-old traditional singing tradition to the world, packaged it well and is now respected as one of the most original singers Senegal has produced in a long time. Focusing on our own unique skills, traits, heritage may be a good way to answer this question too.

2. Be passionate about what you know, and know it well : There is something to be said about specialisation, though i hate the word. But in today's day and age, it makes sense to focus on one or two narrow pursuits and be on top of what is happening in the field. Nothing replaces depth and expertise. This will instantly win you credibility. Expertise has value.

3. Be credible : It helps to have credibility in your field, and be known as the "go-to" person for any problems or advise that others may want.

4. Showcase your strengths to the best of your ability : There is no point focusing on one's weaknesses, though one should admit them. I am a terrible editor, and i know it. Though, i write (fairly) well. This is something i am aware of, and admit when needed. It helps to be aware of what it is that one brings to the table.

5. Get third party endorsement : It helps if others talk well of you. References, letters of recommendation, Awards are all good ways of establishing one's credibility.

In sum, I believe that everyone today is short of attention. And this includes not only your friends, family, employers but also anyone who you come in contact with. With split-second decision time, people can make decisions which work in your favour or against you.

Given this scenario, branding one self and positioning of one's work clearly is not only recommended, but has become an absolute necessity.

Public Relations need not be a dirty word

I recently watched a documentary by John Pilger about wars and propaganda " The wars you dont see", where the veteran journalist made a very strong ( and valid) case for tackling and reading through mis-information and lying that goes on in the build-up and execution of a war. He mentioned and quoted Edward Bernays, considered one of the founders of modern PR as we know it.

While i totally agree with Pilger and his journalistic philosophy - what i came away ( and also notice among many people) is a derision of the profession and a subconscious lack of belief in what "publicists" say or do. In the cases that he has mentioned in the documentary ( WWII and Gulf war) propaganda was definitely used to built public opinion and manipulate people. Clearly not a good thing.

I remember reading a survey a number of years ago, which pointed out that Ad men are among the least trusted among professionals, only after lawyers and politicians. Not a good thing if one is looking to build credibility, isnt it ?

But looking at it practically, just as lawyers can use their skills both to defend a corrupt Wall-street type and at the same type use it to pursue justice for the impoverished and socially marginalised, the same can be said about PR and propaganda too.

The image attached is from the Civil rights movement era and demonstrates the power of the spoken word as well as stunning visual images used by the activists during that time to drive home a message - of equality and social justice.

Very valid and relevant messaging, even from a PR perspective.

I would say that in today's day and age, with the challenges that we face - socially, economically as well as politically, it is high time that social activists, civil rights professionals ( and even journalsits) learnt a few tricks of the trade so they could further the cause of the poor, marginalised, oppressed and dis-advantaged.

It is like using the devil's trick on the devil himself. But in this case, PR is no devil. It is a tool, much like the writers pen or the surgeon's scalpel. You cant blame the tool for what it is used.

Something to remember, before we start pointing fingers at a profession that has obvious social uses.

De-constructing India-bashing

This post is a response to an article by Anand Giridharadas in the NY Times on 1 July 2011 titled "In Fight for Better India, Best to Look Within", an attempt at a provocative essay, which fails miserably. A dear friend was offended at this article, and I thought about this for a while before writing my own take on this important issue : that of India-bashing.

Well, for starters, it is not new. There have been as many India haters as there have been Indophiles. Among India-bashers, VS Naipaul, Khushwant Singh come to mind. And these are contemporary writers, who have written some deep, insightful stuff,though i dont agree with most of Naipaul's analysis.

Khushwant Singh, the veteran journalist and writer does it with style, class as well as good humor, which seems to be lacking in Giridhar's writing, which comes across as pompous, grand and obviously flaky.

Going back to Giridaradas's article, his opening is not only offensive, but also racist and bigoted. Sample this : " I have entered India from the sky five times over the past year. Those flights started in airports where norms, rules and authority carry weight — Hong Kong; Doha, Qatar; Newark, New Jersey; Frankfurt. But in waiting to board, I have come to a troubling realization: Airport workers around the world have learned the hard way that my people — Indians, resident and diasporic — cannot be boarded the way other humans are".

I am always suspect of anyone who uses hyperbole to draw attention. It is as if his/her ideas are not strong enough to make a case - and one has to rely on exaggeration and show of bravado or intellect to draw attention ? How else would he expect to enter India ? On an Elephant, if not on an Airplane ?

He further offers us more "insights" with such inane examples such as :" A heart-rending example involves ambulances. Several times in the past few years, I have been in traffic in a major Indian city and suddenly heard an ambulance behind. To watch it forge fitfully ahead is to observe thousands of drivers make the choice to ignore it. Some people genuinely cannot pull over. But many can. Mostly, they don’t. Not a small number of Indians must die each year thanks to that collective refusal to be bothered".

I am reminded of a comment by Joan Robinson, who taught Amartya Sen at Cambridge, who told him once:"whenever you make any generalization about India, the opposite is equally true".

For sure, this is his personal observation of a few people - and i can counter this with a few dozen examples from my 26 years in India, when the exact opposite has happened, when total strangers have risked their lives to save other strangers. My friends who have personally tended to wounded and hurt passengers - again total strangers, not to mention giving way to ambulances.

This is not to say that he is making up this issue or at worst imagining an India which does not exist.

Nor is my gripe with his American roots or NRI flaunting of "insights" that come from spending a summer consulting with a firm in Delhi and "understanding" the deep existential angst that only the author understands.

There are far too many journalists who fall into this trap of trying to de-construct India in a few months / years and offer the world solutions, as they seem fit.

Implicit is the assumption that there are no intelligent and sentient beings in India and we needed an American born person of Indian origin to return and civilise us.

I wonder if Giridhardas has even read anything about India. Is he familiar with Nehru, Tagore, Premchand ? Has he seen any Satyajit Ray films ? Has he worked with any non-profits or civil society workers who grapple with these issues on a daily basis ?

Does he even read newspapers ? Times of India, Economic Times, The Hindu ??

My educated guess is no. He hasn't really bothered to do his homework. His un-inspiring talk on Jon Stewart's Daily Show is a case in point . He makes a fool of himself when he says that the real challenge to the US is not from India or China's economy, but from their "cultures". Really ??
">

This guy needs some lessons in Macro-economy before he is allowed to open his mouth.

I wonder how the NY Times and other media allow such inane observations to pass off as "analysis".

Again, it may be because from a western perspective, he is credible because he is one of "them", who is diagnosing the problem from the "inside" ( being an Indian and American at the same time).

I believe this smacks not only of racism, but also bigotry and lazy journalism.

And it is about time someone protests this non-sense and tells Mr Giridharadas that he would be better off spending a few more years and perhaps tempering his own ego before he goes off on trips on Airplanes and landing in his country of origin - analysing problems to which he offers no solutions.


The more such people speak for India, the more he loses his credibility among the "real" Indians, those who struggle with the daily challenge of de-constructing India. Their fear and suspicion of the 2nd or 3rd generation Indians would be validated - who in many cases are rightly called ABCDs : American Born confused Desis.

He would do well by reading a bit before he writes more nonsense. Khushwant Singh may be a good teacher to follow. The grand old man of Indian writing has style, grace and humility. Something sorely lacking in this arrogant young punk from Ohio.

He would also do well to remember what Nirad Chaudhury said about India, that even "Exceptions in India run into millions".

Communications as an ongoing process – in the grant seeking process

A few weeks ago, I attended a workshop at the Foundation centre, (http://foundationcenter.org/newyork/) in New York city on Grant seeking basics. While the session was about broader aspects of seeking a grant, preparing for it and the modalities of how to do it effectively; what stuck with me was the notion of communications as an ongoing activity in the entire process.

The instructor mentioned that from her experience, the ones who successfully received grants were ones who had formed some form of a network with the foundation or grant-making body and had already prepped them about the work that they seek to do, and also had laid the foundation of this- in some shape or form.

This not only strengthened their case, but also made sure that their top of mind recall remained high.

Simple, isnt it ? Well, yes and no. Most of us are aware of this basic fact, but when either seeking a grant, applying to one or even servicing one, we tend to forget this fact. I am no veteran of grant-seeking, but i do see parallels from the world of client-servicing, which i am very familiar with. As a former Public Relations consultant, i am all too familiar with the process of acquiring a new client, nurturing them and sustaining this relationship.

It can be tedious, painful and at times nerve-racking. But all in all, if there is one thing that can help smoothen this it has got to be Communication.

Ongoing, consistent, clear, honest and transparent communication with all stake-holders ensures that you not only remain on the top of their minds, but also that your work is clearly recognised and valued for what it is. That was my biggest take-away from that talk.