I was talking to a friend this week about the current political goings on and he commented that you can easily spot a liberal or a conservative by the kind of language they use. His theory is that people who sprinkle their conversations with large helpings of “we”, “feelings”, “help”, “try”, and “care” are left leaning, while people who use “me”, “must”, “will”, and “win” lean in the other direction. Of course neither of us have any empirical evidence for this, however I thought it was an intriguing theory so I did some Goggling. It turns out that there has been quite a lot of work done on how politicians use language to frame and communicate their world views. According to George Lakoff, a Professor of Linguistics at UC Berkley, the liberal worldview is modeled on a nurturing parent family (remember Hillary’s book “It takes a Village?). It assumes that the world is basically good and can be made better. Nurturing involves empathy, and the responsibility to take care of oneself and others for whom we are responsible. On a larger scale, specific policies follow, such as governmental protection in form of a social safety net and government regulation, civil liberties and equal treatment (fairness and freedom), open government (from open communication), and the promotion of an economy that benefits all and functions to promote these values. According to Lakoff, the conservative worldview, on the other hand, is the strict father model. It assumes that the world is dangerous and difficult and that children are born bad and must be made good. The strict father is the moral authority who supports and defends the family, and teaches his kids right from wrong. In this wold view, the only way to do that is through fatherly discipline that by adulthood will become internal discipline. The good people are the disciplined people. Once grown, the self-reliant, disciplined children are on their own. Lakoff maintains that for the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones – those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant – and those who are on the way. Social programs, meanwhile, “spoil” people by giving them things they haven’t earned and keeping them dependent. So it seems to me that there there is something to my friends theory! If Lakoff is right the words and phrases you use will probably be driven by your view of the world. So the “nurturing” left leaing politician may use an abundance of “we” and”care” while their right leaning colleagues will use “I or me” and “win”. As an organizational psychologist I wonder if this theory might play out in organizations ? Do managers see their roles as being a “nurturing parent” or a “disciplinarian father”? Douglas McGregor identified theses opposing tendencies in the 1960s in his Theory “X” and Theory “Y” model of motivation. In theory Theory “X” managers think people are basically lazy and need to be pushed (authoritarian father?) while in Theory “Y” managers think that people are basically motivated and all they need is encouragement (nurturing parent?). It would be interesting to study if these tendencies play out in the words that managers use and the organizational cultures they create. I could not find anything on this topic in my Googling, so I offer it as a suggestion for as a great graduate student project.

Do you feel satisfied at work? The data shows that you have a less than a 50% chance! A Conference Board survey of the American workforce in 2007 showed a decline in job satisfaction among workers of all ages and across all income brackets. Only half of all Americans surveyed said they were satisfied with their jobs, and this was down from nearly 60% ten years before. Moreover, among the 50% who said they were content, a mere 14% said they are “very satisfied.” Unfortunately it seems likely that this will deteriorate further given our current economic woes. But I have to believe (maybe naively) that there are organizations out there that still consider that improving employee satisfaction is important! But how to achieve it? One idea that is gaining traction is put forward by Dr. Csikszentmihalyi, a professor at Claremont Graduate University. The Professor advocates creating a work environment that will encourage employee to enter their “Flow”. As he describes it, when people are in their “Flow” they are fully immersed in what they are doing. They have a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and expect success in what they are trying to do. They are, in fact, happy. According to the Professor, for the “Flow” to occur certain conditions apply. First there needs to be clear goals; second there needs to be immediate feedback; and third there needs to be a balance between the challenge and the individual’s skills. I believe the professor has a point! These conditions seem to apply to me when I have been totally engrossed in an activity. For example I was sailing my little sail boat recently on a very windy day and trying not to capsize. I was certainly engrossed in the process and it seems like I was experiencing “Flow” as described by the good professor! I used my sailing skills (balance of challenge and skill) to stay dry (achieve a clear goal) and I could see my progress (remaining dry). Thinking back on that experience it was challenging but enjoyable. Yes, I was “happy”. So how about organizations considering this simple three step model to improve employee satisfaction? – Step 1. Challenge people to develop and use their skills to meet appropriate challenges. Step 2. Give them clear goals to achieve, and Step 3. Tell them how they are doing. Maybe it’s not rocket science after all!

What a week it was! Many of us experienced a roller coaster ride in the pits of our stomachs about the security of our investments and maybe even our jobs. Let’s see if Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke can pull some rabbits out of the hat this week, however the most they are likely to be able to do in the short term is to stabilize the situation. In the longer terms there is likely to be an extended convalescence period with some considerable pain before our economy is back to full health. What are the implications for jobs and careers? Will hiring come to a grinding halt? Will Monster.com have to close its virtual doors due to lack of any activity? According to HRLadder.com (the job site for people earning $100K+) in a typical year, U.S. employers hire about 4 million people at the $100K+ level. In boom times, that can get as high as 4.5 million. In a recession, it drops to 3.2 million (or even lower given our current situation). So we may see a severe downward swing on the number of higher paying jobs available- but I guess the good news is that they are still out there, even if in lower quantities. Baby boomers are still going to retire and some niche businesses will still do well (despite the poor general economy). What is sure is that the job scene will be a “buyers” market and companies will be more choosey in their hiring practices. The “war for talent” may get downgraded to a “skirmish”, but people with hard to find skills are likely to still be in demand. All this means that job seekers need to be better prepared than ever before, and work every angle to present themselves in the best light to prospective employers. One concept that is gaining traction in this area is for job seekers to create their own “brand”, a sort of John or Jane Doe product or service that the job seeker is trying to sell to a would-be employer. Proponents of this approach recommend that job seekers should ask themselves: “what makes me stand out from the competition?” or “What is my unique selling proposition?” Working with a career coach can be very helpful in getting clarity and solid feedback (career coaching is available at Aspen OD by the way). And what about salaries? A year or two ago many of us thought that house prices were on an indefinite upward trajectory – but look at us now. The same thing may happen to salaries. Remember how you had to adjust your thinking about your net worth when house prices took a tumble? Further adjustments may be needed to your concept of what you are worth in the job market as the downturn bites into pay rates and bonuses. Is there a bright side to all this? I will let you know if I hear of one.

I asked a group of Baby Boomer and Gen X managers recently about their thoughts on Gen Y workers. Their responses were a little shocking: “all these Gen Yers want is instant gratification”, “they all have short attention spans”, “they are spoiled, disrespectful, and technology-dependent”. Can this really be true? As a baby boomer dad with two Gen Y kids just entering the workplace I was concerned that my bright and caring offspring may morph into some alter ego Gen Y Dr. Jekyll or Mr Hyde when at work. Then I remembered what Will Rogers once said “It isn’t what you don’t know that will hurt you, it is what you do know that isn’t true”. Research suggests that each generation has its own distinct attitudes, behaviors, expectations, habits, and motivational buttons, and it seems that these differences can lead to misunderstandings and even to inter-generational conflict. Could it be that my Boomer and Xer manager friends have fallen for the stereotyping trap and that, in reality, Gen Yers are fast-paced, multitasking, fun-seeking, and technology-savvy young people with a lot to offer us older folks? I hope this is the case as I would hate to think of my two bright and motivated Gen Y kids as characters form a Jekyll and Hyde movie.

The hullabaloo about the “lipstick on a pig” comment recently made me wonder if the Obama and McCain camps inhabit two entirely different universes. One side sees an innocent comment taken out of context, the other a highly charged and premeditated insult. Then I reminded myself – this is what I see all the time in my consulting work with organizations. There is a theory in psychology called constructivism which states that people create their own universe of reality and this universe provides a framework for their thinking and decision making. The reality that some people create for themselves, however, may (and often does) make others scratch their heads in wonder and disbelief. Dr. Clare Graves gave us a wonderful model called Spiral Dynamics that tries to explain how these different reality universes work in practice. In the model he used different color codes to identify seven or eight values systems (red values, blue, values, green values, etc). According to Graves, the color combination of your values system provides a framework for your thinking and may make it difficult (if not impossible) for you to see another person’s reality. I have used this model in my consulting to try and help people understand how differing values systems can cause conflict, dissention, and outright organizational warfare. Bearing in mind Graves’ color coding values system, the Obama / McCain controversy may boil down to this: was the pig wearing red or blue lipstick?