Debbie Laskey's Blog: Leadership Lessons from #PostElectionSeries Featuring Dana Theus

As I announced in my commentary about the 2024 Presidential election, during November and December, I will feature a timely #PostElectionSeries with a number of inspiring women authors, leaders, and influencers.

Today, to continue the series, I've invited Dana Theus to provide commentary about the election, leadership, gender bias, misinformation, and more. But first, a brief introduction.

Dana Theus is an executive and career coach specializing in helping women unlock their highest potential to succeed and to shine. With her support, women aspiring to greater levels of leadership and entrepreneurship learn to retell the stories they must heal so that they can emerge into their full potential and find their authentically confident voice. Leveraging a 25+ year career on the front lines of business, Dana has worked for Fortune 50 companies, entrepreneurial tech startups, government/military agencies/non-profits, and she has taught graduate-level courses for several universities in the Washington, D.C. area. She writes on multiple leadership sites to bring an INPowered voice to leadership development.

QUESTION: In Lyn Chamberlin's article entitled, "When Brand Betrays Us," she wrote, "Branding is supposed to be about truth, or at least a piece of it. At its best, branding is storytelling, the kind that resonates, inspires, and speaks to who we are. But what happens when a brand warps into something sinister, built on lies, misinformation, and manipulation? What happens when a brand betrays not only our trust but our institutions?...Branding can empower, but it can also deceive. Trump's brand isn't just a lesson in how to build an indelible image. It's a cautionary tale — a reminder that without honesty and accountability, brand can become a weapon that betrays us all." What are your thoughts?

(Read the full article here:

https://lynchamberlin.substack.com/p/when-brand-betrays-us)

DANA THEUS: Lyn asks a powerful question: Have the tools of our trade (branding) betrayed us? She's right that Trump's brand is more powerful than facts and truth. I think we knew the first time around that this was the case. But more than just reminding us of the dark side of branding, we need to remember that branding is based on human psychology. A brand does not exist because we say it does and pay a lot of money in advertising, it exists in the mind of the audience. All human minds are able to be manipulated by brandings' core power: "repetition, narrative, and consistency," to tell a story. But if the story is out of alignment with what people want to believe, it won't be effective. Trump's branding victory is a reminder, not so much of branding's dark side, but of so many Americans' desperate need to believe what Trump is selling.

QUESTION: In Katie Rogers article in THE NEW YORK TIMES, she wrote, "The United States has been led by men for all of its 248 years, and that will continue for at least four more. On Wednesday, Vice President Kamala Harris became the latest woman to fail to break the gender barrier to the presidency, and the second to be defeated by Donald Trump...The United States lags behind several other nations — Britain, Germany, Israel, India, Canada, and, this year, Mexico — which have chosen women as leaders. Men do still run the world, numerically. Only about a third of the countries in the United Nations have ever had a woman head of the government. Just 13 of the body’s 193 member countries are currently led by women, according to the Pew Research Center." What were your thoughts about the election results?

(Read the full article here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/06/us/politics/harris-woman-president.html)

DANA THEUS: I do believe gender was a dominant factor in the election, though there were obviously many others. As indicated in my own article (highlights shared below), I believe that gender was the "last straw" for too many swing voters who might have talked themselves into voting for a more centrist and liberal man, but who just couldn't do it for a woman.

I have wondered for years why Americans cannot get over the bias against women in power that the other countries Katie lists have. My conclusion is that it's because our Presidential elections have turned into popularity contests, and when it comes to popularity, bias is a strong force. Biases against giving women power are unique among the biases against us because they hold us back from the kinds of authority and influence we need to make true change.

(Note from Debbie: Dana wrote a post-election article entitled "Women, Power, and Fear." She wrote, "Three times in twelve years, an old white man, now a convicted felon, has run for the highest office in the land. When he ran against another, more qualified old white guy, he lost. Both times he ran against vibrant, more qualified women, he won. Looking at the pattern, I don't think it's defensible to blame the female candidates or their campaigns. I truly worry that the majority of our nation — women and men alike — simply do not trust women enough to give us power."

(Read the full article here:

https://inpowerwomen.substack.com/p/women-power-and-fear)

QUESTION: Katherine Spinney wrote an article entitled, "Silence Is Not the Answer," during a national crisis, however, her words deserve attention now. She wrote, "Silence is not the answer. If fact, it is one of the most damaging plans of action you can take. Despite hopes for the contrary, silence during this time will not shield you or protect you and it will not go unnoticed. Your staff are watching, waiting, begging for you to speak up. This moment in time is going to determine not just how others view you as a leader, but how they view you as a human being. Your words and actions during this time will not just impact your legacy as a leader — they will define it...What is true for all of us is that we must speak up."

How should leaders address the election results?

(Read the full article here:

https://katherinespinney.com/silence-is-not-the-answer/)

DANA THEUS: Asking how leaders should react in the face of major political upheaval and division is a fraught question, but one that needs asking. There's a reason that religion and politics are typically left outside corporate conference rooms. And despite the truth of her advice, that leaders need to stand up for values and engage in constructive conversations relevant to employee and stakeholder needs, I don't advocate for leaders to turn their organizations into activist communities unless it’s very on-brand.

I agree that leaders must speak up for values and demonstrate what it looks like to host important conversations where not everyone agrees, but people are in many organizations for common purposes outside of political views. In this sense, many organizations are the last bastion of civil dialog across such divisive issues, and they are a place we get to remember what it's like to have common purpose. Organizations who serve customers from every political background can work to center their businesses and brands on values all customers have in common. When they're successful, the bring us together – and we need that.

QUESTION: In Barbara McQuade's article in TIME Magazine, she wrote, "The real danger when a leader traffics in half-truths and conflicting claims is that people don’t know what to believe." Instead of looking at leaders' actions, let's swap the perspective. How can employees keep their leaders honest?

(Read the full article here:

https://time.com/7173492/second-trump-term-misinformation-essay/)

DANA THEUS: In an organizational context, employees have more power than they often believe. Just look at the huge failure rate (consistently around 70 percent) of change management initiatives championed by leadership. Employees — especially middle management — are the core of corporate culture. That said, corporate culture tends to be shaped and changed by leader/executive action (or inaction). I do think employees, like all of us, bear the responsibility to speak up for what is important and truthful. However, some organizations, like some segments of society, are less interested in truth. In the context of organizations, employees can leave those who don't stand for values they respect. This is harder to do when it's your country. Yes, I think employees need to stand for the truth, but if the leaders above them don't respect that, it's in the employees' own interest to find employment elsewhere.

Debbie Laskey's Blog

Wednesday, November 20, 2024

Leadership Lessons from #PostElectionSeries Featuring Dana Theus

SHARE THIS: Employees — especially middle management — are the core of corporate culture. ~Dana Theus #PostElectionSeries #DebbieLaskeysBlog

No comments:

Post a Comment