Category: All Invantage Posts

  • You Might as Well Finally be Yourself–But it’s not as Easy as you Think

    You Might as Well Finally be Yourself–But it’s not as Easy as you Think

    When you’ve arrived at this stage of life I call “Starting Older”, you might as well finally be yourself.  While with a modicum of luck and good health there’s plenty of time left, it’s not infinite. So finally, now, you don’t want to waste it. Also, being someone else is exhausting, as is being what other people want you to be or who you think you’re supposed to be.  Chances are you’ve tried on those roles at some point in your life, if not during most of it.   It’s clear we all do our best, most creative and productive work with the greatest amount of energy and stamina when work is consonant with what psychoanalysts call the true self. But while the very clichéd advice to “be yourself” may sound self evident,  in practice it’s rather easy to be diverted to other peoples’ agendas despite your best intentions.

    As I pursue a new course as part of my own experience of “Starting Older” the challenge to stay true to myself has come up repeatedly and it has taken  conscious effort to stay the course.

    Shortly after I established the brand and web presence for my consulting business, Invantage Advising, a friend introduced me to a business coach she had worked with productively for some years who I’ll call Sara.  My friend who made the contact and I thought it was a peer-to-peer networking contact, but I quickly got the impression that Sara saw it as a business opportunity to try to sell me on her own services. Sara congratulated me on my new business venture and then said, forcefully “I’ll give you one piece of free advice!”  “OK” I said warily.  “Get rid of all the political stuff on your website.  Your target market is business people. Business people are Republicans.  You’ll lose clients.”   I was taken aback and stumbled through the rest of our conversation, which I was eager to end.

    I was very unsettled after the phone call and felt seriously derailed.  Sara’s and my conversation took place one month after Donald Trump was elected President.  I am a life-long Democrat and was appalled by the presidential campaign and Trump’s election.  I was proud of work I’d done in support of Hillary Clinton during the campaign and had posted four videos on my website from the SuperPac Correct the Record in which I’d been interviewed as an expert on a variety of subjects including Trump’s relationship to the truth and his treatment of women.  I also had written several blog posts I thought were valuable on the psychology of voters.  The Big Daddy Lie explored an unconscious psychological dynamic that attracted voters to Trump.  Everybody’s Mother: What Hillary Clinton and Other Women in Power Need to Know About the Unconscious was part of my ongoing work explaining the attitudes and prejudices  people have to women in powerful positions and how these biases need to be understood and managed.

    Following Sara’s advice would mean getting rid of all this work on my website.  I knew I didn’t want to do it.  I was proud of it, attached to it, and saw it as an important part of the portfolio I was building for my consulting business—I want to work with women in positions of leadership to help them avoid the pitfalls that make bias a threat to their success, and I was eager to work in political campaigns helping with messaging and understanding voter psychology. And most of all, it was mine. My creation.

    But, though I had no doubt that I didn’t want to follow Sara’s advice, I was thrown by the conviction and authority she’d evidenced in offering it. After all, she’d been working as a business coach for 15 years, so she might know what she was talking about. Mentally flailing around, I asked friends and informal advisors what they thought.  Their reactions were mixed and not that helpful.  “Yeah, I could see how that could be a problem” was the general consensus. Not what I wanted to hear.

    I stewed about it, reluctant to remove any of my political work from my website but newly anxious that its presence would mean I wouldn’t get the business I needed to make my consulting firm thrive.

    As I went back and forth in my mind, obsessively and indecisively,  I happened to get an invitation to an event from a progressive political group called, pointedly if not elegantly, Patriotic Millionaires.

    The group was founded in 2010 and describes itself this way:

    “The Patriotic Millionaires is a group of high-net worth Americans who are committed to building a more prosperous, stable and inclusive nation.”

    That reminded me.  Not all wealthy people and not all business people are Republicans. Not all Republicans would refuse to hire me because of my political views.  And, presumably I got the invitation because of the political work I had done.

    Most of all, I came to my senses.  The whole reason I had changed my career path at this time of my life was because  I wanted to do what I wanted to do, not what I felt I should do or could do or must do.  Not even what I had always succeeded and excelled at.  Just what I wanted to do.  And what I wanted to do was business consulting and politics and most of all to be exactly myself.

    I come from a long line of vocal liberals.  I grew up in Washington and have always loved the excitement and drama of politics.  I am also really interested in business, because business people are very smart and open to the kind of knowledge I have. They are interested in anything that produces results. And they are innovative and quick to act.

    The solution was clear.  Don’t give up business.  Don’t hide my political self. Don’t, for God’s sake, sabotage this wonderful opportunity to be who I am and see where that takes me.   See what happens and take the risk that there will be enough people with the means and resources to hire me who share my political values or at least aren’t so turned off by my opinions that they would dismiss me as a liberal and refuse to consider hiring me.

     

  • A New Tool for Evaluating the Highest Level of Leadership–Inspired by Donald Trump

    A New Tool for Evaluating the Highest Level of Leadership–Inspired by Donald Trump

    The 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution allows for the removal of the President by the Vice President and a majority of the cabinet if they determine that he is “unable to discharge the powers and duties” of his high office.  That phrase captured me.  How would the Vice President and the Cabinet determine ability or inability to discharge the duties of the Presidency whether the President is Donald Trump or anyone else?  The Constitution says no more than that brief phrase.  I set out to operationalize it, so that leaders and citizens could make a fair and objective determination of this President’s, or any other’s, ability to discharge his duties.  In the process, I developed a tool that could be useful beyond politics, to assess the core capacities for leadership of anyone being considered for a position of high responsibility.  Pathology isn’t the issue here.  It’s actually easier (and not that useful) to diagnose mental disorders and pathological traits.  But how do we codify mental strength, that is capacity and ability?

    “Duties of his office”–A listing of what the president does every day –meet foreign leaders, make announcements, sign laws, clearly wouldn’t be helpful.  Nor would generalizations such as set policy, promote his agenda, uphold the Constitution. I felt that specifying the qualities and defining attributes of the duties of the Presidency is the key to making the 25th Amendment usable. The duties of the President are those of someone with the  highest level of responsibility, whose every decision and action has critical impact and enormous consequences.

    “Unable to discharge” —The key word here is “unable”, which led me to search for a way to operationalize assessment of ability or inability.  I started the process of creating a tool for assessing ability or inability by reviewing the literature on executive functioning in psychology and ego functioning in psychoanalysis.  Both of these fields of thought define a wide range of capacities that are necessary for the highest level of cognitive, emotional and social functioning.  In my research, I stumbled upon a document that pulls it all together, the Army Field Manual on Leader Development 6-22.  This is a dense document which is quite extraordinary and based on sound psychological research and practice.  I distilled 5 traits from the field manual, added some analysis from my own background as a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, and came up with  an evaluation tool that could serve as a guide for the evaluation of anyone aspiring to a position of the highest leadership and responsibility.

    Here’s a concise version of the tool, published in the LA Times, June 16, 2017: Is Trump mentally fit to be president_ Let’s consult the U.S Army’s field manual on leadership.

  • A Greek Tragedy:  Listening Psychoanalytically to James Comey and Answering Two Agonizing Questions

    A Greek Tragedy: Listening Psychoanalytically to James Comey and Answering Two Agonizing Questions

     

    I was struck by the morality play that unfolded in James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, 2017.  Commentators focussed on the stunning depiction of Trump, by Comey, as the sort of person who couldn’t be trusted not to lie.  And his direct accusation of Trump of lying about his reasons for firing Comey, and defaming both the director and the Agency.  Trump, predictably called Comey a liar, and accused him of perjury.  He also celebrated what he saw as vindication from Comey of any wrong doing–that was not at all the case. 

    Listening to Comey, he struck me as a man who had grappled deeply with moral dilemmas, and had the courage to own the dire consequences of his decisions.  

     

     

    This is a blog post I wrote today for Huffington Post:

    source: time.com 6/8/17

    The manifest surface of James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence committee on June 8 was riveting and fascinating in itself—for example his describing immediate distrust of the President on January 6 as the kind of person who could be expected to lie. Comey revealed himself to be human, flawed, vulnerable, introspective and profoundly ethical.

    Listening just a bit beneath the surface, I found answers to two questions that have been plaguing me. I left the riveting viewing session with some sadness about what I’d learned but considerably greater peace of mind.
    First, why did Comey chose to speak out on October 28 about the new emails discovered on Anthony Weiner’s laptop in the Hillary Clinton case, breaking with the tradition of avoiding whenever possible interfering in an election? No previous explanation that I’ve heard from Comey or thrown around by commentators has satisfied me—certainly not the speculation that he as a Republican wanted Trump to win. I never felt that was his motivation.
    Second, why did Comey repeatedly reassure President Trump that he was not personally under investigation, when clearly so much is yet to be investigated and understood about the Trump campaign and Russia ties, Trump family business issues, emoluments, etc. etc. This just didn’t meet my common sense bar, and it didn’t seem legally essential for him to offer these reassurances to Trump.
    The answers to both questions were revealed yesterday, and they clearly lie in Comey’s bone deep allegiance to the mission and core values of the FBI. I wish he had done neither of things. I share the view of many that his October 28 statement had a significant negative effect, if not a defining impact, on the election outcome. He himself said in previous testimony (May 3, 2017) that “It makes me ‘mildly nauseous’ to think I may have affected election.”
    Nevertheless, both under angry questioning by Senator Feinstein on May 3, and again on June 8, Comey insisted he would not, even in retrospect, change his decision. Why not? It never made sense.
    I also share the impression of many that there are so many unanswered questions about Trump and Russia as well as other aspects of Trump’s behavior that it seemed just plain weird to repeatedly reassure the President that he wasn’t being personally investigated. We know, of course, that the precise Comey meant “at this moment at which I am saying this”. But we also know that Comey’s reassurance is being used enthusiastically by Trump and his team (either cunningly or naively) as a thoroughgoing exoneration of any wrongdoing, seemingly now and forever.

    Clinton Email Decision

    Here’s a chunk of the dialogue on June 8 between Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Burr and Comey about the fateful decision to write a letter (which Comey should have known would be immediately leaked) to Congress on October 28 about the newly discovered Anthony Weiner emails

    BURR: Director Comey, you have been criticized publicly for the decision to present your findings on the e-mail investigation directly to the American people. Have you learned anything since that time that would’ve changed what you said, or how you chose to inform the American people?

    COMEY: Honestly, no. I mean, it caused a whole lot of personal pain for me, but, as I look back, given what I knew at the time and even what I’ve learned since, I think it was the best way to try and protect the justice institution, including the FBI.

    BURR: Let me go back, if I can, very briefly, to the decision to publicly go out with your results on the e-mail.

    Was your decision influenced by the attorney general’s tarmac meeting with the former president, Bill Clinton?

    COMEY: Yes. In — in an ultimately conclusive way, that was the thing that capped it for me, that I had to do something separately to protect the credibility of the investigation, which meant both the FBI and the Justice Department.

    BURR: Were there other things that contributed to that that you can describe in an open session?

    COMEY: …Probably the only other consideration that I guess I can talk about in an open setting is, at one point, the attorney general had directed me not to call it an investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which confused me and concerned me.

    Bill Clinton’s tarmac meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Attorney General Lynch’s request that he call the Clinton email thing a matter” instead of an “investigation”.
    Comey’s motivation is clearly to protect the independence of the “justice institution”, the FBI. He had to “protect the credibility of the investigation, which meant both the FBI and the Justice Department.” The independence, credibility and integrity of the FBI are the paramount guiding values that led to his decision.
    Sadly, it was just those values that were questioned by progressives after his October 28 action. Instead of understanding he had to make what for him was an agonizing decision to protect the integrity of the FBI, many of us on the left thought that his action cast a shadow of partisanship over the FBI. Speaking out before the election about Clinton and not Trump made it look to Clinton supporters like the FBI was NOT independent. I think we were dead wrong, at least as far as his motivation was concerned. For Comey, not speaking out, or “concealing” as he called it, would have been betraying the agency’s core values. It speaks to me of a Greek tragedy, where a hero’s greatest strength leads inevitably to his destruction.

    Why Reassure Trump He Wasn’t Under Investigation?

    Presumably, Comey could have guessed that Trump and his allies would take this as a vindication and exoneration, now and forever. I for one didn’t believe Trump, not known as a truth teller, when he said in the Lester Holt interview (NBC News, May 11, 2017) that Comey had assured him 3 times that he wasn’t under investigation.

    HOLT: Let me ask you about your termination letter to Mr. Comey. You write, “I greatly appreciate you informing me on three separate occasions that I am not under investigation.”  Why did you put that in there?

    TRUMP: Because he told me that. I mean, he told me that.

    HOLT: He told you, you weren’t under investigation with…

    TRUMP: Yeah, and I…

    HOLT: …regard to the Russian investigation.

    I was startled to hear Trump’s claim confirmed by Director Comey yesterday. Why would he do that? Comey gives a very interesting window into his thinking with this answer:

    “I was speaking to him, and briefing him about some salacious and unverified material. It was in the context of that that he had a strong and defensive reaction about that not being true. And my reading of it was it was important for me to assure him we were not personally investigating him. And so the context then was actually narrower, focused on what I had just talked to him about.

    It was very important because it was, first, true. And second, I was worried very much about being in kind of a — kind of a J. Edgar Hoover-type situation. I didn’t want him thinking that I was briefing him on this to sort of hang it over him in some way. I was briefing him on it because we were — had been told by the media it was about to launch. We didn’t want to be keeping that from him. And if there was some — he needed to know this was being said. But I was very keen not to leave him with an impression that the bureau was trying to do something to him. And so that’s the context in which I said, “Sir, we’re not personally investigating you.”

    I’m old enough to get the J Edgar Hoover reference, and to have a visceral response and understanding. One of the formative and cautionary stories my mother told me in my childhood was about a couple of FBI agents coming to her door during the McCarthy Era and asking if her friend Myrtle was a member of the Communist Party. (My mother proudly but with obvious lingering terror refused to answer). I know what the FBI meant in the public mind in the 1950’s and 1960’s—an agency that would collect dirt on everyone it could and use it to threaten, blackmail or manipulate them when it suited director Hoover. Comey, as a deep believer in the integrity of the agency, didn’t want to have Trump get the impression that his FBI, Comey’s agency, was anything like the J Edgar FBI. He wanted Trump to know that today’s FBI would not use the salacious file to influence or manipulate Trump. I can’t know, but I suspect Trump missed the nuances of this reassurance altogether as well as its narrow “right now/counterintelligence” focus and took it, as he has affirmed in so many tweets, as proof that he has never done anything wrong with respect to Russia or anything else.
    So the answers to the two troubling questions come down to Comey’s pride in and allegiance to the values of the FBI. Its motto is Fidelity-Bravery-Integrity.
    The FBI’s stated core values are
    • Rigorous obedience to the Constitution of the United States;
    • Respect for the dignity of all those we protect;
    • Compassion;
    • Fairness;
    • Uncompromising personal integrity and institutional integrity;
    • Accountability by accepting responsibility for our actions and decisions and the consequences of our actions and decisions;
    • Leadership, both personal and professional; and
    • Diversity.
    As much as I hate and mourn the political impact of his decisions, if I were James Comey, I believe I would have made the same decisions. I find myself admiring him as a great man whose integrity and profound sense of ethics helped lead us to a very dark time but who will also help bring us back to a time of national integrity, bravery and fidelity to our core national values.
    Reference
    https://www.fbi.gov/about/mission
    Click here to read the piece on 

     

  • Interview in TheLadders.com:  How to Beat the Sunday Blues

    Interview in TheLadders.com: How to Beat the Sunday Blues

     

    Author Debbie Carlson tackled the subject of why so many people experience the blues on Sunday nights in her story: How to Beat the Sunday-Night Blues which appeared in the “Off Hours” section of The Ladders on June 2, 2017.  She gave me a chance to explain that though the phenomenon is both normal and common, “its cause may be very individualized. The thing about psychoanalysis, we look at the individual person. Each individual has their own pathway.”

    For one person the problem might be that any  transition is difficult–it’s just the way you’re wired.  For another, a specific anxiety about what you’ll be leaving behind Monday morning may be the problem–for example, a Mom conflicted about being away from her small children. In the interview, I recommended some self-reflection as a starting point to see what your particular issue is.

    Sometimes, the answer goes back to childhood.  What did Sunday’s represent when you were young?  The only time you weren’t lonely because your whole family came together for dinner at your grandmothers?  The last time you saw your Dad for two weeks because your parents were divorced and that was the visitation schedule?  Was school (which back-to-work-Mondays echoes in adulthood) a place of safety, or a source of shame and bullying?

    These early stories can cast a silent shadow on how we experience parallel events in our adult lives. Becoming aware of them can loosen their hold. So that back to work on Monday is just that, not a replay of losses or painful experiences you had as an 8 year old.

    A feeling of  consistent ongoing dread about going back to work on Monday is a different story and suggests you need to take a close look at whether your job is right for you.  Or is your workplace environment a hostile or unsettling one?  If these are the answers you come up with, awareness and strategies wont be enough; serious, thoughtful action is required.

    In the article, I suggested that people give themselves time on Sunday nights to organize the transition back to the work week, acknowledging that it is not a small thing.  You need to make time to allow the transition to occur.

    “Don’t catapult from an incredibly busy weekend and get home at 11 o’clock at night on a Sunday and get up at 7. Give yourself time late afternoon to refocus the weekend. Take care of business around the house so that you’re not leaving chaos behind you.”

    My colleague Bruce Levin was also interviewed for The Ladders story, and both of us independently came up with the same prescription–take advantage of the great TV series that tend to be featured on Sunday nights!  It’s probably no coincidence that there tends to be an abundance of great shows airing on Sundays.  We need them. Remember how sad and frustrated you felt when Downton Abbey ended?  Or when you watched the finale of Season 2 of Billions?  It’s not just the loss of the show and the characters, but the loss of your current means for coping with the Monday night blues.

     

    Read the full story on www.theladders.com here.

     

     

  • A Primer on Power for Women Leaders

    A Primer on Power for Women Leaders

     

     

    Power has a bad rap. It’s okay to talk about how to be a good leader, but most of us are quite uncomfortable talking about how to use power.  More often for women than men, the squirmy feeling evoked by the idea of using power can be close to agonizing.

    Power is usually tagged as negative, manipulative or Machiavellian.[1]   The exercise of power is actually morally neutral—it can be used for good or ill.  Absolute power is of course undesirable—we all need the checks and balances that being part of various intersecting human communities provide.

    But, to be a successful leader you have to be comfortable with the exercise of power. Achieving this comfort is a crucial developmental step for every leader. In my own experience as a woman leader, in working with and mentoring other women in or assuming leadership positions, I have observed that most women leaders, even the most competent and brilliant, usually need some help with this leap.

    So what is power, if we separate it from its negative associations of control, domination and oppression?

    According to the Oxford dictionary, power is 1 The ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way. 2 The capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events.[2]

    A leader possesses power because she has, by virtue of her position and personal strengths, the resources and capacity to act and to direct the behavior of others. Competence, luck, popularity or a host of other factors may have contributed to gaining that position. Many women express being surprised to find themselves in leadership positions, and typically have given no thought to the exercise of power.  But once in a position of leadership, however you got there, however surprised you may be to be there, you need to appreciate the ways you can and should exercise the power inherent in the position.  That’s your job.  That’s what you were elected or hired to do, and you can’t shy away from it without betraying out those who are counting on you.

    Women leaders face complex internal and external psychological challenges that male leaders don’t have to worry about.  It’s not fair, but it’s real and it’s better to acknowledge these challenges and learn how to deal with them than to get stuck on the unfairness of it all.  Essentially, women leaders are in a double bind.  Effective leaders of any gender score highly on a cluster of traits psychologists call “agency”.  Effective leadership in fact requires that a leader possesses these traits.  Agency includes things like being independent, assertive, dominant, controlling, forceful and self-confident. Leaders high in agency makes decisions easily.  Yet even today, women are generally perceived to be and expected to be high in another cluster of traits psychologists call “communality”:  kindness, niceness, interpersonally sensitive, helpful affectionate etc.[3]

    Interestingly, the current movement in management to promote hiring practices that acknowledge the value of “soft skills”– interpersonal sensitivity and the ability to collaborate– in hiring may lead to more female hires, but may also trap women in middle management jobs, because to wield power, to be at the top, the agency cluster of traits is required.[4]

    Some researchers believe the tendency for women to show communal traits is typical of the female brain, tied to the XX chromosome.[5]  Others would argue vehemently that are the product of socialization and stereotyping.  Many would say this is unfair, prejudiced and sexist.  Unfortunately for the women leader, determined to use the power of her position to accomplish her goals, none of this matters.

    I remember when I took over the presidency of a national professional association.  I had worked out my agenda well in advance of taking office.  I had a bunch of specific goals, I knew where I wanted to go and I believed I knew what had to be done. I had a forthright, let’s get it done style, and was impatient with those who disagreed with me. I was not especially interested in their opinions unless I saw them as helping me create the changes I knew I wanted.  Not surprisingly, this bothered a number of my colleagues enormously.  I remember being told by one former friend that he was shocked – it was like I had become a different person.  A subset of mostly male colleagues criticized me publicly for being secretive and withholding, and viewed my presidency as one long betrayal.  I thought it was because I wasn’t that interested in their advice or their hurt feelings. It’s true, I wasn’t.  I learned I am not a consensus builder.  I am too impatient and eager to get things accomplished to kick ideas around in repeated discussions.  I liked working with one or two close allies who saw things the way I did and wanted to move the organization along.  In retrospect, I might have been a more effective leader if I had made an effort to be a bit more “communal”—read tactful and patient– but at the time I simply wanted to act, not attend to interpersonal nuance.

    Women leaders need to learn to “thread the needle”.  They must be high in “agency” traits.  They will be viewed more unfavorably than equivalent male colleagues exhibiting the exact same behaviors.  The men will be seen as reliable, confident and masterful, while the woman may often be seen as bitchy and cold.

    Powerful women have to strike a very fine balance.  They must be authoritative, self confident and powerful.  Although one option is to accept that they’ll be calling you a bitch behind your back, another, more exciting option is to develop a style that is very powerful but disarmingly warm and respectful. Senator Elizabeth Warren and Meryl Streep are two women who brilliantly present themselves in this manner. So too does the Statue of Liberty.

     

     

     

    [1] See, for example, The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene.  (NY: Penguin Books, 2000).

     

    [2] (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/power)

     

    [3] See “Role Incongruity Theory of Prejudice Toward Female Leaders”, Alice H. Eagly and Steven J. Karau, Psychological Review, 2002, Vol 109 No 3: 573-598 and “Feminized Management and Backlash Toward Agentic Women Leaders” The hidden costs to women of kindler, gentler image of middle mangers”.  Laurie A. Rudman and Peter Glick. J. of Personality and Social Psychology. 1999, Vol 77, No 5:1004-1010

    [4] Rudman and Glick, ibid.

    [5] See “The Female and Extreme-Female Brain”, John Cookson.  January 4, 2017. Big Think. http://bigthink.com/women-and-power/the-female-and-extreme-female-brain

    Prudence Gourguechon MD

    copyright 2017