Are You Too Sensitive As A Leader?
Posted by Mitch Mitchell on Aug 29, 2012
Lately it seems that almost anything you see on TV or in a commercial eventually ends up with somebody that's the leader of some group deciding that it's improper and that it needs to be boycotted, or at least protested. The latest thing involves a group called One Million Moms and their decision to come out against a Skittles commercial that has a woman kissing a walrus, saying that the commercial promotes bestiality.
As funny as this seems to someone like me, its become the norm. So many people are getting offended by the littlest things, and usually it's the leaders of certain groups that get everybody else riled up by finding a way of making something that was supposed to be funny into a critical issue. It leads me to ask the question "our leaders becoming too sensitive?"
When it comes to things like this I would probably say no. Maybe I'm a skeptic, but I tend to believe that these leaders aren't as offended as they lead us to believe. I think that leaders of groups like this look to find something to rally the troops around to keep everybody's spirit into what those groups are actually about. I mean, sometimes some of the complaints are really so outrageous that it just seems unbelievable that the leaders aren't laughing internally because they've been able to get others to believe they're actually serious about what they're saying.
I have seen this same scenario play out often in business offices. Leadership will either see something happen, or be told something is happening, and suddenly it's a national crisis that must be immediately addressed. These are the kinds of leaders that workers hate having to deal with because in a way it points to management being unstable. After all, people aren't stupid, and if they see management overreacting to minor things all the time it becomes hard for them to take those managers seriously.
In my way of thinking, the only time there were ever any emergencies in the office is when someone's life was in danger. Even if the computers went down I never panicked, though some other people might have. The way I saw it, we could only work with what we had, and if things weren't going right then we did something else until things were working well again. There was always a way to work around the problem, so there was no need to get everybody riled up.
When managers can maintain calm, and pretty much stay even keeled and steady even in the face of perceived disasters, employees will trust them more. And when employees trust, they work better.
I saw your post related to this topic on Facebook. I doubt that commercial is too offensive, but I guess it depends much on observers point. I think leadership is all about balance of different parties in one equation. I must admit that until 4-5 years ago, I was taking everything too personal, there was a period of time, that I completely shut some of my senses which was totally wrong and just recently have discovered that there can be leverage and some things may pass and others just can not, but everything should be entered in discussion.
Carl, I sometimes think that those of us who work on our own and thus have to market for ourselves sometimes have those periods where we take everything personal because it’s our livelihood. Luckily, when I’m talking to people in person or on the phone I don’t manifest that.
Probably one of the main reason I am working from home, as many times in the past I took things too personally and top managers or bosses didn’t really want to hear or learn from others.
I think that people today take something like that commercial and twist it for their own benefit. Kissing a walrus, a dolphin, a dog doesn’t mean anything but the love of the animal.
This is a fine example of taking leadership to the negative degree. True leadership is taking a problem and offering an answer. It is really as simple as that.
Yes, there are always two sides to the coin, but whatever happened to compromise? A leader has to respect both sides of an argument and acknowledge it. Then and only then, come up with a solution.
Great article!
Donna
Thanks Donna. In this case it was just funny; I mean, where would anyone be able to find themselves a walrus in any ol’ place and start kissing on it? And of course the walrus has human characteristics; just silliness coming from that organization. Leadership is supposed to be a positive force, not like what this represented.
Some leaders just can’t spell “anthropomorphic” and wouldn’t know humor if it bit ’em on the butt. So naturally, they feel confused and threatened and since their minds are already so preoccupied with telling everyone else what they can and cannot do in the bedroom, the walrus is seen as the NEXT BIG THREAT. DefCon X…XX. 😉
Great stuff in both comments Holly. You’re right, this preoccupation with what others may or may not do in the privacy of their homes has gotten way out of proportion to what’s important. And this frenzy created by leaders looking for something to do to keep themselves relevant undermines credibility as much as screaming “wolf” all day long. It’s a horrible way to lead others.
It’s all propaganda, in a way. Keep people’s emotions running at a high pitch so they can’t slow down long enough to THINK.
Keep people in fear of something (even walruses) so they can’t calm down long enough to realize how silly it is.
When emotional people are fearful, they easily turn into a herd or a mob.