Return-to-Office Mandates Reveal a Crisis of Trust

This article also appears in O'Dywer's PR.

In their New York Times opinion piece (The Secret Reason Bosses Want Everyone Back in the Office, Every Day of the Week, June 22, 2016), Adam Grant, Marissa Shandell, and Courtney Elliott offer a sharp explanation for why many bosses want employees back in the office full-time. Their argument centers on narcissism: some leaders who crave attention, status, and control may prefer workplaces where employees are physically present, visible, and available. The office becomes a source of validation. The boss walks through it and sees proof of authority.

 

Anyone who has worked for a status-conscious executive can recognize the pattern. Some leaders do not simply want work done. They want their importance affirmed, and a full office affirms it. Empty desks feel like rejection, and remote work can feel like a loss of relevance.

 

But narcissism may not tell the whole story. The push to return to the office also reveals a broader failure of leadership.

 

Remote and hybrid work require managers to do what good leaders should have been doing all along: set clear expectations, define success, communicate priorities, measure outcomes, and hold people accountable. When those disciplines are weak, the office becomes a substitute for management.

 

A leader who cannot articulate expectations may prefer a workplace where everyone stays within sight. A leader who cannot judge performance by results may rely on visible effort. A leader who has not learned to delegate may feel calmer when employees remain within reach. The office serves less as a place for collaboration and more as a tool for reassurance.

 

I learned this lesson the hard way. In the late 1990s, I led a successful department at a global PR agency. People wanted to join it. The team was engaged, the work was strong, and the business was highly profitable. I did not consider myself a micromanager, and by the usual definition, I was not. Yet my hands ended up being in nearly every project.

 

When senior management asked me to attend a leadership retreat run by the Center for Creative Leadership, I was initially offended. Why send me? No department seemed more energized, and none was delivering stronger financial results.

 

The experience changed my view. A team can be successful yet still be constrained by its leader. My close involvement had helped build the department, but it could also limit its growth. The business would only expand so far if every major decision, risk, or opportunity still passed too closely through me.

 

I became a champion of letting go. That did not mean abandoning standards or disappearing from the work. It meant trusting the people I had carefully chosen. It meant giving them more autonomy, more accountability, and more room to take risks, while making sure they knew I would back them up. The result was no less control in any meaningful sense. It had greater capacity, more initiative, and more opportunities for the team and the business.

 

That lesson applies directly to today’s office mandates. Trust is at the center of the debate. Remote work requires leaders to trust adults to act responsibly. Trust does not mean neglect. Employees who miss deadlines, avoid responsibility, or perform poorly should face consequences. But treating an entire workforce as suspect because some managers fear abuse is not leadership. It is anxiety turned into policy.

 

Anxiety also undermines delegation. Leaders who cannot trust employees outside their line of sight tend to hoard decisions, second-guess work, and create bottlenecks. They ask people to take ownership, then reclaim authority the moment work occurs outside their direct line of sight. A return-to-office mandate gives leaders a sense of control without requiring them to share power.

 

Presence can be valuable. Some conversations and brainstorming sessions work better face-to-face. Mentorship matters. New employees often learn by watching experienced colleagues navigate clients, meetings, setbacks, and internal politics. Creative work can benefit from time spent together in the same room.

 

Those are arguments for purposeful office use, not blanket mandates. A well-led company can decide which tasks benefit from proximity and which do not. A weaker company defaults to a rule.

 

The result is corporate theater. Desks are occupied, conference rooms are booked, and hallways are busy. Executives can walk through the office and feel reassured. But movement is not progress. A crowded office can still produce shallow work, weak decisions, and slow execution. A quiet home office can produce focus, judgment, and results.

 

Another motive deserves candor: real estate. Many companies signed costly long-term leases. Headquarters became monuments to ambition, status, and permanence. After the pandemic, empty floors made those choices look wasteful. Bringing workers back helps leaders justify the cost to themselves, their boards, and their shareholders.

 

That does not make office space worthless. It means office space should serve work, not the other way around. Leaders should ask which teams need shared days, which meetings require in-person attendance, how mentoring will be conducted, and what employees gain from commuting. “Because we have the space” is not a strategy. A lease is not a leadership strategy, and sunk costs should not dictate employee policy.

 

Grant and his co-authors are right to highlight narcissism among some executives. For some bosses, the office is a stage, and employees are the audience. But the deeper problem may be less theatrical and more pervasive. Many bosses want employees back because they have yet to learn to lead with trust, clarity, and results.

 

The office can support good leadership. It cannot replace it.

 

 

Predicting Change in the Age of Trump - We Need a T.H.E.M.E.

How long is too long to wait for change? If you’re at a red traffic light for more than a few minutes, you’re probably wondering if it’s broken and contemplating an isolated break with a societal norm.  

But what drives us to wait or to move on? I wrote about the change many predicted Donald Trump would make following his victory in the Republican primaries nearly five years ago. Surely, conventional wisdom dictated, he would pivot quickly from fiery agitator to energetic statesman. After waiting the duration of a campaign, a presidential term and then another campaign, I think it’s safe to say the wait is over. Change is not coming and it never will.

In 2016, a New York Times editorial (The Donald Trump Pygmalion Project) focused on Donald Trump’s behavior and how “Mr. [Paul] Manafort’s ambition is to turn this Eliza Doolittle into a candidate more acceptable to decent society, in time for the general election.” 

But too few were paying attention when Mr. Trump said, “I sort of don’t like toning it down.” That rare, honest admission should have been a clue. More questions needed to be asked; intentions should have been probed.

I love checklists and acronyms, and this looks like the perfect place for both. In politics, as in personal and business relationships, we need think about and evaluate others in terms of a THEME:

Transparent. Do we have a clear view into this person and his or her intent? Is what we see what we get?

Honest. Are rules, and the rule of law respected? Are we getting the facts, the truth or some belief, some wishful thinking? 

Empathic. Does this person really care about me, about others and the common good? What is this person’s motivation – is he concerned about helping others, greedy, or a narcissist?

Moral. What does this person value? Is there an understanding how his or her actions might affect others?

Ethical. What is the character of this person? Is this a principled person with a consciousness of his or her actions? 

This is the lens through which we need to view our leaders, colleagues, even friends and family members when it comes to gauging the probability of change. Of course, we need to remember that no one is perfect and giving the benefit of the doubt is generally better than immediately cutting off relationships. 

But when it comes to the current President, we already had years of answers to the questions in my THEME. We should have been able to avoid the mistake of the fabled frog. I’m referring to the story of the Scorpion and the Frog where the scorpion, unable to swim, asked a frog to ferry it across a river. The frog responded that it was afraid of being stung by the scorpion. The scorpion answered in logical terms: If I sting you, he said, then we’d both drown. Thinking the scorpion wouldn’t risk its own life, the frog allowed the creature on its back. Well, you guessed it. In mid-crossing, the predatory arachnid stung the frog. As they began sinking toward their deaths, the frog asked, “Why?” The scorpion replied, "I couldn't help it. It's who I am." The echo of 2016 Donald Trump is loud and clear.

The frog did ask, though. He questioned. Sadly, he believed the lie. He hoped and trusted when he should have been skeptical and suspicious.

Too few challenged Donald Trump and still don’t, even after all the facts were in plain view: the self-dealing, the hush money, the loyalty tests, the muzzling of scientists, and the targeting of the news media as “enemies of state.” The passivity of some and the enabling by others empowered an unabashed, unaccountable, downright lawless Administration. After hundreds of years of steady though non-linear progress, our country has actually devolved. Americans are worse off now than in decades past. Our people are sicker, more polarized, less trusted. The planet is unhealthier, more fragile, less stable.

It’s not too late to reverse course. The whole country won’t respond right away and some people never will. But what differentiates us as human beings is that we’re able to learn, adapt, and progress. Let’s do that.

Between posts, I invite you to follow me @pauoestreicher.

3 Things Organizations Must Consider Before Taking Sides

It’s almost impossible to escape politics these days. And by politics I mean the kind that’s become less civil and more polarizing. It surrounds us through 24/7 news coverage, social media channels, and… our co-workers.

A New York Times article, “Edelman, Public Relations Giant, Drops Client Over Border Detention Centers,” is another reminder of the growing advocacy of a long list of stakeholders — including employees, customers, clients, students, investors, and donors — and the expectation that sides or positions are taken on issues. When entering this realm, organizations must make calculations on whether or not an issue has relevance and really matters to them, and the value of taking a side or not.

There are hard choices to be made. So, as people find their voices (or blindly follow the herd) and leverage the tools of the digital world to amplify their message, organizations need to be prepared. It doesn’t matter if you’re in a business, university, charity, or political group. You may choose to proclaim neutrality but that, too, is often treated as just another position like right or left, for or against. It could even be seen as a weakness — the lack of will to take a stand and express the character of the organization. Expect to be challenged, no matter what.

The NYT piece — and what employees are telling us — underscores a few key points organizations must consider in an increasingly demanding environment:

1. Define your purpose and gain alignment. Organizations must ensure its stakeholders know the purpose — the mission — of the institution. People need context and a clear understanding of where the organization fits within its competitive set and where the employee fits within organization. All decisions need to support the objectives and culture of the institution.

2. Declare your values and limits. The article begs the age-old question: Are there people or organizations that do not deserve to be recognized or represented? In a legal situation, the answer is clear but in other sectors of business and society there are choices to be made. Organizations should declare their values, their operating principles, and enforce ethical standards. It’s not feasible to name every person, company or institution that might be off limits but you can define your beliefs and set up a structure to review and discuss critical decisions.

3. Keep up with the trends and act. Obviously, some issues are easier to address than others. The bigger the controversy — the bigger the ideological divide — the harder it may be for organizations to decide whether or not to take a side and which side they will take. Some organizations are first movers, others are fast followers, and some wait to evaluate the reactions of their stakeholders and step in when it’s deemed “safe.” And, of course, there are those who remain on the sidelines. Key audiences will see you as courageous or cautious, right or wrong. That’s where leadership and points 1 and 2 above come into play. There should be a process to monitor the issues landscape and discuss:

• Who might offended or flattered
• What business could be driven away or won
• Which employees might be alienated or attracted
• How it might all be communicated

Now, decide.

No one needs to tell you that we’re operating in a hot mess of division and high expectation. We need to be thinking and planning… all the time. Paraphrasing management guru Peter Drucker: If we’re not changing and innovating, we’re dying. And, while we can’t prepare for every scenario, we can take some basic steps to better listen, evaluate, and communicate.

Between posts, I invite you to follow me @pauloestreicher.

The Business of Apology

The Shunning of Paula Deen 

The Paula Deen saga has chewed up a huge amount of time in mainstream and social media, around the dinner table and at the proverbial water cooler. The issue, the person, the entanglements are all hard to resist – I'll admit to tweeting about her five times. (Six, when I finish this article and attempt to get some views.)

The Food Network, Smithfield Foods, Walmart, Target, Caesars Entertainment, QVC, Novo Nordisk, Sears, Kmart, J.C. Penney, and Random House have ended or suspended their ties with Ms. Deen. These actions are related to her admission in a lawsuit deposition that she used the N-word 30 years ago.

However, I believe it’s a more complicated issue. After all, her proclivities have been known for some time. In a 2012 NYT interview about slavery in the Old South, she stated, "They were like our family." Being bought and sold, held against your will, and forced to work are not consistent with the definition of family. This offers a striking example of a person devoid of empathy. Yet, despite this on the record, Deen’s empire grew.

I believe that Deen could have survived admitting to using the N-word if she had apologized in a coherent, timely, and authentic manner, and taken proactive steps, such as getting involved with an anti-discrimination project. Instead, there was chaos. A video apology, labeled a “statement,” was posted but removed hours later (though you can view the video here). In under a minute, there are four very noticeable splices, suggesting that her public relations team had to piece together several messages. One has to wonder what was cut! While she claims that “inappropriate, hurtful language is totally, totally unacceptable,” Deen spends more time pleading for forgiveness. It comes across as a self-centered, woe-is-me jumble.

A second apology video was posted, but it didn’t begin with any expression of remorse towards her fans, patrons, business partners, or the community. Instead, her words were directed at Matt Lauer for standing him up on the TODAY Show. She explained that her pain “has been tremendous.” Deen then proceeded to blame “the press” for an inaccurate portrayal of her and her family. In business, entertainment, or politics, those who are defeated, fired, or guilty often find a way to blame the media.

Video apology number three was directed again, incredibly, to Matt Lauer. Deen and/or her public relations counsel must have been terrified of making an enemy of him. She said, “I was physically in no shape to come in and talk with you. The last 48 hours have been very, very hard.” Sorry for your pain, Paula.

After five days of additional preparation, however, Paula Deen finally appeared on the TODAY show. When Lauer asked how she was doing, Deen missed the opportunity to launch into an explanation, if not an apology. Instead, her narcissism took over, and she responded, “I was overwhelmed. I was in a state of shock… There have been some very, very hurtful lies about me.”

Then Lauer pounced. “Are you here to stop the financial bleeding?” he asked. He knew, as did many others, that she was there to rescue her business interests. Deen attempted to stay positive and expressed her lifelong belief in equality. But Lauer brought the conversation back to the financial issues. Deen responded, “I want people to know who I am, and I’m so distressed that people I’ve never heard of are suddenly experts on who I am.” Without regard for how her words and actions made others feel, she continued, “And you know what distresses me the most, Matt? Their words are being given weight.”

Lauer pointed at that, in her lawsuit deposition, she was asked, “Was using the N-word in telling a joke hurtful?” Deen answered, “I don’t know. Most jokes are about Jewish people, rednecks and black folks… I didn’t make up the jokes. They usually target, though, a group… I can’t, myself, determine what offends another person.” That statement speaks loudly to her fundamental lack of insight and judgment.

But Deen did apologize during this 13-minute exchange and teared-up while she discussed her ethics by telling a story about her grandson. She should have stopped there. In what seemed to be a planned message point relating the New Testament idiom of “Let him who is without sin, cast the first stone,” Paula Deen had a sad and disturbing meltdown. She blurted, "Pick up that stone and throw it so hard... that it kills me."

Clearly, her performance on the TODAY show did more harm than good. Before the interview, two companies dropped her. After the show aired, it appeared her other business partners couldn’t distance themselves quickly enough. To be clear, I’m not congratulating these companies. They didn’t make their decisions out of a high-minded sense of ethics; they simply didn’t want to risk losing sales due to the fallout from this current controversy.

Remember, not only did Deen undermine her sweet, folksy brand with her slavery comment last year, but she also seemingly waited years to come out as a diabetic until she could sell more books and close an endorsement deal with the health care company and insulin maker Novo Nordisk. With all the evidence, she appears less "down home" and more like a calculating opportunist.

Looking back, Deen and her public relations counsel should have anticipated the potential public reaction to her racial slur, and taken more care in crafting a less selfish response. Looking ahead, she must decide whether to retreat, circle the wagons and speak only to her die-hard fan base, or overtly attempt to repair relationships and reengage with a wider audience. Paula, choose the latter and show us how you’ll do better.

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

Apologies – Beyond the Goldilocks Dilemma

This article first appeared in odwyerpr.com.

The Use, Misuse and Disuse of Sorry

The 19^th century fairytale Goldilocks and the Three Bears provides us with an important communication checklist: Is something too much, too little or just right? In our profession – especially in managing issues and crises – we attempt to match the response with the language and tone appropriate to the circumstances.

This applies to apologies, too. Does the situation deserve an apology? If so, will the apology be too weak, will it be viewed as over-apologizing, or will it be pitch-perfect and accepted as authentic?

As recognition of an apology’s importance has grown, the number and demand for apologies have exploded. However, I don’t believe it’s because we’ve become a more sensitive or civil society. More and more, apologies are being used to gain leverage. Did you perceive a slight? Demand an apology. Was there a missed milestone? Demand an apology. It’s a strategy of putting your adversary on the defensive.

It’s interesting to note that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has staked a claim on the strategy of making no apologies. Indeed, in his book “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness,” he makes the case that apologies have no place in American policy; he believes they’re a grave weakness.

In 2009, when newly inaugurated President Obama went overseas in an attempt to repair damaged relationships, former Governor Romney went on the Today Show and said, “Of course America makes mistakes but what we have done to sacrifice in terms of blood and treasure for the freedom of other people is beyond anything any other nation has done in the history of mankind. And so that, if you will, overshadows all the mistakes and it suggests that you don’t go around the world apologizing…”

Here, I see a gaping ethical hole. Yes, you can cash-in the good deeds and good will you’ve banked over time to give you the benefit of the doubt in an uncertain situation. But a previous record of good does not immunize any one or any organization or any government from accepting responsibility for a serious error or worse.

Beyond the issue of too hot, too cold or just right, there’s the issue of timing. While there’s fairly broad bipartisan agreement that Mr. Romney jumped the gun when he criticized the President for what he viewed as an apology in the face of violence directed at our brave representatives serving in our embassies in Egypt and Libya, there’s an opposite problem. In the past week, there have been some stunning examples of apologies coming too late. Twenty-three years after 96 soccer fans were crushed to death in what’s been called the Hillsborough Disaster, UK Prime Minister David Cameron apologized for government efforts to blame the victims.

Even more ill timed (and ill conceived) was the apology from the German drug firm Gruenenthal, makers of thalidomide. Fifty years after the drug was pulled from the market, CEO Harald Stock said, "We ask for forgiveness that for nearly 50 years we didn't find a way of reaching out to you from human being to human being. We ask that you regard our long silence as a sign of the shock that your fate caused in us." Thalidomide, you may recall, was a sedative given to pregnant women in the 1950s and 60s for morning sickness. Tragically, babies were born with very serious birth defects, including missing arms and legs.

The suspicion and anger caused by the half century delay was compounded by the claim that it was the result of the company’s own grief – a 50 year-long post-traumatic stress that somehow erased their ability to reach out to the right people with the right words. What an absurd and insulting attempt at rationalizing an egregious decision. It’s a reminder that poorly developed and executed communications can do more harm than good.

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me @pauloestreicher.

Redrawing the Boundaries Weakens Crisis Response

This article also appears in odwyerpr.com.

Why the Weiner Response is Failing

Unfortunately, we have another soon-to-be-classic example of what not to do in a crisis situation. When reports surfaced that lewd photos from Rep. Anthony Weiner’s Twitter account were sent to a Seattle woman, the congressman claimed his account was hacked. High profile hacking was in the news – Sony, Citi, RSA, Lockheed-Martin – so what better way to build a credible sounding story? Thus, the first crisis boundary was built.

That dike was breached quickly when questions arose: If such a violation occurred, then why didn’t he call the Capitol Police? Why couldn’t he say with “certitude” that the pictures were not of him? And, was conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart’s claim that he had more pictures really true?

So, the crisis boundary was pushed back and a second wall went up. Surely an admission would be the last stand. It would all be over when Rep. Weiner confirmed that he sent the photos, and that he was sorry, stupid and scared. Right?

Wrong. There were, indeed, additional photos (some pornographic) sent to more women, and there was a three-year history of “sexting.” And, now, more questions: Was government property used to carry on these activities? Was he conducting himself this way from his Capitol Hill office? What resources and who else might have been involved in covering up his carrying on?

Now he must push the boundary out yet again trying, in his way, to encircle where the next shoe might drop. He’s been calling colleagues directly to explain himself, beg forgiveness and to build some level of support. But, as the circle grows, the wall becomes harder to maintain, the perimeter more difficult to patrol and the imprint on all of his constituents more enduring.

Is he so different from some other high power, high profile politicians, entertainers or businessmen? No, but that’s hardly an excuse. We may be getting increasingly numb to these shenanigans but, for now, our sensibilities demand some sort of appropriate closure.

The bottom lines? He said he’d answer questions, then he wouldn’t, then he would again. He changed his story. He lied. He’s been behind the news, never ahead of it. And what is he left with? A shredded reputation. A seemingly endless supply of material for comedians. Calls for an ethics investigation by the House of Representatives. Demands for his resignation. Chances for his dream job – to be mayor of the City of New York – potentially dashed. Abandonment by friends and colleagues. A wife who has kept silent. The centerpiece of a new case study for the field of crisis communication.

Between blog posts, you can follow me @pauloestreicher.

Endorsements for Camelot, Inc.

Camelot, Inc. provides a most thoughtful framework for thinking through some of today's biggest business leadership challenges. It’s a thoroughly enjoyable read.

Brian T. Gladden, Senior Vice President and CFO, Dell Computer and former President, GE Plastics

The dos and don'ts in Camelot, Inc. highlight the enduring characteristics of protecting and building personal and corporate reputation. Oestreicher has found a compelling way to teach us as much what to do as what not to do.

John Doorley, Academic Director, graduate program in Public Relations and Corporate Communication, New York University and co-author of Reputation Management

Oestreicher’s book goes well beyond the depiction of King Arthur and his court. The complicated relationships between leader and managers, the balance between personal and work lives, and the conflict between idealism and pragmatism are as much a part of today’s business world as they were in medieval England.

Richard Edelman, President and CEO, Edelman

Camelot, Inc. is a remarkable ‘mining’ of lessons from the Arthurian legends. Oestreicher has found timeless prescriptions for achieving excellence in leadership.

L. Patrick Gage, Ph.D., enGage Biotech Consulting, former president, Genetics Institute and Wyeth Research

As a child, my introduction to human drama in literature was through the tales of King Arthur and the Knights of the Roundtable. Truly everything you need to know about human values is found in these tales. Paul Oestreicher recognizes that these tales hold timeless lessons for leaders as he brings the reader inside the Roundtable.

Greg Simon, Senior Vice President, Worldwide Policy, Pfizer and former chief domestic policy advisor to Vice President Al Gore

Camelot, Inc. gets to the heart of the mentoring role in growing and sustaining enterprises—both large and small. In our increasingly “virtual” business and social environment, Paul Oestreicher shows how critical mentoring is to passing along core values to the next generation of leaders.

Victor R. Budnick, Managing Director, Ironwood Capital and Lead Venture Mentor, Yale Enterprise Institute

You can see more information about the book and order at www.camelotinc.com.

Camelot, Inc.: Leadership and Management Insights from King Arthur and the Roundtable

An Excerpt from the Introduction

What lessons about management and leadership can an ancient king and court bring to us in the 21st century? Can the trials and tribulations of people so removed from us in time and custom truly be relevant in modern corporations, organizations, or governments?

If one thinks of texts and stories even more ancient than those of King Arthur, the answer is obvious. People continue to draw important meaning from the stone tablets, scrolls, and books of the past. Indeed, there are many for whom ancient ways and teachings enhance their well-being and guide their daily lives. The Roman emperor and philosopher Marcus Aurelius wrote (before the time of Arthur, in the second century), “If you have seen the present then you have seen everything—as it has been since the beginning, as it will be forever.”

So it is with the stories of King Arthur. Life’s lessons during the time of Camelot and the Round Table remain relevant because, at the core, they are about the human relationships that connect us, divide us, and drive us forward (or backward) in our various dealings—personal, business, or otherwise. Looking at the past, we can gain the accumulated wisdom from so many people, conflicts, and circumstances. Those enduring qualities and complexities of human nature, told and retold in story, song, and scripture, have given us guidance and assurance in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

In Camelot, Inc. we glean management and leadership insights from Arthur’s evolution from the awkward and out-of-place squire derisively called the Wart to impatient student to compassionate king to tired ruler. We’ll start at a time when Arthur found a mentor (rather, when the mentor found him) and observe how he learned, how he developed his leadership philosophy and his vehicle for communications, what it took to excel, how he created a vision and mission, and then how a failure to confront issues led to his decline.

It’s not just that these royal life-cycle transitions so closely track the rise and fall of modern managers and leaders. Arthur will help us to deal with some of today’s most pressing leadership issues: knowledge retention, developing coherent plans and proposals, building internal and external advocacy, communicating and negotiating, team building, maintaining ethical standards, innovating, ensuring flexibility, moving from vision to execution, and succession planning.

Much of what we hear and what we come to accept as fact or truth has been termed “conventional wisdom.” Here, we have Camelot Wisdom. Camelot, Inc. will not be a history lesson, but I will use history to illustrate the dos and don’ts critical to our success as learners and leaders.

Camelot, Inc., Praeger Publishers. Available February 15, 2011. Please visit www.camelotinc.com for more information.