Category: Opinions

How ‘The Slap’ could affect the brand reputation of the various players

There is an adage in marketing that no publicity is bad. Even negative publicity helps to keep the brand salient. At least for those in the entertainment business.  Many a marketing and PR guru will publicly disagree but privately nod at it. We know that bans and controversies sell more tickets, more books and get more eyeballs. So, you could argue that all this hullaballoo is really all good for Will Smith, Chris Rock, Jada Pinkett, The Academy Awards and Pfizer (yes, the pharma people, we will come to that in a bit).

In these modern times, the adage may need a little nuancing. We are in an era where it is no longer enough to keep your personal beliefs personal. What you stand for and believe in impacts your personal brand a lot more than it did before the days of social media and hyperconnectivity. Particularly if you are a celebrity.  Think Meryl Streep and her calling out of Trump’s mocking of a disabled reporter. More recently Neil Young and his row with Spotify on vaccine misinformation caused an exodus from the platform and I suspect people started hearing his music again. The Slap though would have different outcomes for the different actors. The consequences will be felt long after the headlines have moved on.

The Slapper

Will Smith is possibly the biggest ‘Black’ movie star currently. His appeal though, is wider than that. He is seen as a modern family man, practicing an open marriage but also a role model parent for many. Will Smith has played the role of a sensitive person with aplomb. Simultaneously, he has been a man of action. It is the composite and an amalgamation of the opposites that lies at the core of Will’s brand identity. It is probably why he has a wide appeal.

This act of reacting violently in front of a global audience to a joke (albeit in poor taste) about his wife plays out very strongly to one side of him – the emotional, action oriented avenging hero, out to protect his wife. It had immediate appeal with a part of his audience. However, it does destroy the sense of balance of opposites that is so central to his brand. His subsequent apologies have done nothing to change that. It has also taken away from the remarkable achievement of winning the Oscar. Will Smith’s brand standing has eroded, and he will continue to wear The Slap as an albatross around his neck.

Over the longer term, The Slap could strengthen some deeply held negative beliefs about race.

The Slapped

Chris Rock is to Will Smith what Arshad Warsi is to Akshay Kumar. Will is the mega star and Chris a minor one. Chris is the intelligent, wisecracking, funny, fast speaking guy. ‘Black’ is very much a part of his core identity. He has a career as a stand up and draws large crowds for his acts. Getting away by insulting the audience is a core ingredient of a stand-up comedy act. The audience expects him to be outrageous at times.

In this case, getting slapped makes him a victim rather than an offender. His actions are not incongruous with Chris the brand. His apology is also par for the course for comedians. Chris will probably draw bigger audiences and can wear The Slap as a badge. His brand standing has possibly received a boost, bigger than what being an Oscar MC got him.

Over the longer term, political correctness will draw even more rigid lines around what is acceptable.

The Subject of The Slap

Jada Pinkett Smith is an actor, musician, producer, entrepreneur, wife and independent woman, all in one. She is admired for her multifaceted talent and for being so much more than just an actor or wife of a mega star. Jada is seen as a person with a voice and agency. She does not come across as a person who needs defending. Though some questions have been raised since the video of her reacting to the incident have been going around.

Jada has maintained her poise and her statements have been unreproachable. Jada could have but has not played victim. Her actions have been largely in consonance with her brand image. Her brand standing has probably gone up and she emerges as a winner.

Where The Slap was delivered

The Academy has been working to respond to criticism of their values for a few years now. They have often been accused of being racist, big money less art, and big banner centric. The Academy has also reflected, through the cinema that wins, the mood of the US (sometimes the world). The award ceremonies have always defined standards in presentation and content. It is a global institution and a market driver.

This year’s Oscars were supposed to reflect how the Academy is more aligned to a world that respects and recognizes diversity and inclusion. Never has there been such a combination of winners – an LGBT actress, woman director, actor with disability, black actor. This was going to help strengthen the brand. That message has got lost. Instead, even though eyeballs have gone up what is remembered is The Slap and the awkward handling of it. The lack of a firm, value based response, has stripped some more gloss off the Academy. They have weathered worse before and may well escape without too much damage. However, the ride to change has slowed down.

The Gob Smacked

They happened to sponsor the awards. They also happen to be a pharma giant. Pfizer were the right company at the right time the last 2 years, with their high quality Covid vaccine. They have been much sought after by the world and the stock market.

Conspiracy theories, which always surface with events like The Slap, are spinning around the world at warp speed about how this is a gimmick by Pfizer. Apparently to launch their alopecia drug! If this were marketing, it would be the strategy of some who were using something (and not Pfizer’s drugs) when they thought of it.  We know how fake news flies and finds believers. This must be a scenario that no one at Pfizer would have thought of when they were sponsoring the awards! Yesterday’s world hero’s crisis teams are currently scrambling, working at damage control. Pfizer is a current loser in brand standings.

In the long term, organisations will think even harder about what can go wrong before committing money to the arts. Brand reputations are fragile things, needs great care to build and even more to maintain.

What do Indian students in Ukraine, stray cows, the Great Resignation and hotels in Jharkhand have in common?

Ukraine, is winning the media and sympathy war hands down. Except possibly in Russia, Eretria, North Korea and Syria. But the harassment of Indian students within Ukraine strikes a jarring note  and is probably an unintended consequence of the war fervour. ‘Save Ukrainian lives’ seems to have also translated into lack of care for African and South Asian students at the border and is raising questions about Ukrainian and European racism.

The banning of cow slaughter in certain states has resulted in a massive stray cow problem. Farmers and cattle herders have lost some income and looking after milch cows is economically unviable. This problem is now resulting in stray cattle now destroying farms. Negatively impacting farmer income is an unintended consequence.

As organisations responded to the pandemic and WFH has become the norm, the return is proving problematic in unexpected ways. The isolation and loss that people experienced has got many to question what is important in their lives. Many are also enjoying the lower cost of working from a small town home or simply not commuting daily. Going back to a physical office, metro living and that to at the same salary is no longer attractive. An unintended consequence of the opening up and revival of the economy, has been upward pressure on salaries and mass resignations.

When Bihar imposed total prohibition with very strict rules, anecdotal evidence says that hotels mushroomed in the border areas with Jharkhand. Those from Bihar, looking for a tipple, simply cross over, enjoy a night of revelry and cross back in the morning. Growth of the hotel industry in Jharkhand is an unintended consequence of the Bihar government’s policy of prohibition. Anecdotal evidence also points to increase in excise collections in the neighbouring state of West Bengal. Alcohol sales are well beyond what the state is known to consume on its own.

“The law of unintended consequences, is credited to Robert Merton (“The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action,” 1936). Tellingly he identifies ignorance, error, and the deliberate turning away of eyes from any unintended consequence, as the key causes.

The antidote to that is adopting a scenario based and ‘whole system’ approach to policy  and action. As we map out and think through various possibilities, we are able to visualise many more of the potentially unintended consequences and factor them in. Of course there may still be stray problems. After all, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Have a favourite Unintended Consequence? Please share with the other readers.

Synopsis

Unfounded optimism, lack of caution & social distancing norms, and a bizarre sense of invincibility have deepened the ongoing Covid crisis. At a time like this, following the Stockdale Paradox may well prove to be the best strategy.

By Avik Chanda & Sanjeev Roy

15th May 2021

For over two decades now, psychologists such as Daniel Goleman and others, have been telling us that empathy is a crucial workplace competency. But empathy and its association with words like feelings and emotions continues to make people uncomfortable.

Empathy means being able to 1) understand the other person’s thoughts, motives, worries, etc. 2) understand their experience and feelings in a given situation.

Photo credit: pressfoto via Freepik

Author Brene Brown defines empathy as connecting with people so we know we’re not alone when we’re in a struggle. She says empathy is a way to connect to the emotion another person is experiencing; and it doesn’t require that we have experienced the same situation they are going through.

In this article, we’ll look at  some myths about empathy that we have encountered in our work with leadership. These myths are why many continue to give empathy a theoretical nod but often a practical pass. We will address ways in which empathy can be practiced at the workplace. 

Myth #1: Empathy means being “emotional” at the cost of logic and reason.

Empathy is often seen as giving into emotions and losing objectivity or rationality.This is what makes many in the workplace uncomfortable with “being empathetic”.

The truth is that empathy is akin to an internal, navigational tool. It helps us to better understand those who we must work and interact with on a regular basis. Practicing empathy means making efforts to understand the other person’s experience and point of view; the way they think about what’s going on. 

Photo credit: pressfoto via Freepik

This makes empathy an important relationship management tool, whether it be with business partners or internal team members; it allows you to connect before you can “correct” or “work to find a solution”. Empathy allows us to understand the other person’s perspective and reach a mutually agreeable decision.

If a colleague were to share that ‘I am hesitant to state a different point of view because I might be ridiculed’, responses that may get a real connection going would involve acknowledging the person’s fears. If necessary, asking what caused such fears to take hold. And finally, if the need still persists, proceed to solutioning together. Sometimes, the acknowledgement may be enough. That is how one translates empathy into action.

This leads us to our myth #2, that empathy equals agreeing.

Myth #2: Empathy means agreeing to everything the other person has to say/demands.

Coming back to the idea that empathy is really a navigational tool that allows us to be on the same page as the other person. 

Whilst being empathetic means acknowledging the other person’s feelings and experience as being valid, you can be empathetic to someone and still disagree with them. The deep listening and connection are what allow you to remain firm.

A colleague or team member, who is continuously missing deliverables for some time may share how they are feeling overworked or struggling with something. Empathy in action would mean listening to them, acknowledging their feelings but stating that the tasks have to be performed. Asking the person to think of solutions and then helping them along as appropriate may be more useful.

Myth #3: Empathy is time-consuming and delays work

One that we hear very often is that empathy needs time and we just don’t have it… In the midst of our daily hustles, empathy often gets pushed to the back burner as we try to “just get work done”. However, short term effort in empathizing with others can lead to huge long term benefit and save both time and effort in the long run. 

In any parent-child or mentor mentee relationship, this is quite relevant. The more you “connect” and stuff up the “connection box”, the easier it is to set boundaries, provide guidance, help learning. Investing in connection strengthens the relationship that over time then is the foundation for crossing tougher bridges much faster! 

The more we see empathy as a critical business competency, the more aligned we are in the language we use to talk about it. 

Photo credit: pressfoto via Freepik

Myth #4: Empathy is a personality trait and not a skill.

The common belief is that you either are empathetic or not. It is believed, though inaccurately, that “it is what it is” and can’t be changed or improved.

However, as psychologist Jamil Zaki has portrayed through extensive research and interventions, empathy is a learnable skill. It is like a muscle that gets stronger and stronger over time through conscious efforts and training activities and experiential interventions such as perspective-taking, coaching, etc.

Learning to be a better listener, mastering the art of framing responses mindfully, taking time to respond, resisting the need to put everything in a positive light and so on are all learnable.

Empathy has always been an important leadership competency and the pandemic has brought it into sharp focus.

At Bullzi, we have created some very specific interventions to help leaders develop their empathy muscle. We have run multiple editions of our Connected Leadership Lab and Leading WIth Empathy. 

This article written by the Bullzi team is the second in the series Preparing Leaders For The Post-Covid Era that addresses key challenges and needs for leaders in a changed, post-Covid19 work landscape. Read the others here:  Chronic Stress In The C-Suite

The job of the C-suite has always been tough but the pandemic has exasperated the situation further. Amidst a highly demanding work environment, combined with fear and uncertainty regarding their and their family & friends’ health as well as a sense of loss of ”normalcy”, it seems, leaders in the c-suite haven’t really cracked the code on how to operate in this new, distanced world. 

The c-suite is being called upon to show the way to their organizations out of the pandemic-induced challenges, double down on motivation, and reinforce the sense of purpose and connection within the organization, besides adjusting their own leadership approach for a technologically-driven, distanced work environment. All of this is leading to chronic stress in the c-suite. 

What impact is it having on individuals and on the organisations they lead? We attempt to answer in this article.

Unacknowledged stress in leadership

This Elemental article takes a deep dive into the topic of pandemic-induced long-term stress. It brings forth key insights on what chronic stress can do to a person’s mental well-being in the long term; it highlights how prolonged stress results in a higher chance of leading to mental disorders such as depression or PTSD, etc. 

The impact is likely, to a lesser or higher level, depending on the proximity of one’s experience with the pandemic. Loss of family/friends, business continuity stress, anxiety about the future, isolation…all of these are likely to contribute to higher anxiety and stress in any person.

The article also attempts to explain the impact of a loss of social connection and  sense of “normalcy” on how effectively we can deal with chronic stress and the unusual emotions we are experiencing right now: why, for example, we no longer enjoy or are excited about doing some of the things we absolutely loved pre-Covid. 

What we are experiencing right now is a form of collective grief or stress – even for those who haven’t personally experienced loss of loved ones or loss of job – there is a sense of gloom they might be experiencing due to the sheer difficulty and uncertainty of what’s going on all around us.

Since the beginning of 2020, we at Bullzi have been tracking leadership and organisation ‘state of being’ through our own surveys and desk research. We have also run new age psychometrics (with our partner organisation NUVAH) that specifically track resilience, anxiety and state of being. At each stage we have found that leadership stress trends higher than average stress, yet it is not acknowledged. 

Chronic stress and resilience

While an appropriate level of stress can often be helpful to get the thinking fluids flowing, prolonged stress can be detrimental for any individual’s long term well-being and will also, at some point, interfere with their work needs.

Over the past 3 months we have invited over thirty five C-suite members to take part in a psychometric (from our partners NUVAH) that measures resilience. While overall resilience scores are in the positive zone, scores on stress and sense of being in control are generally in the orange and red zones.

The relationship between stress and resilience is a peculiar one – while ordinarily, both stress and resilience co-exist and in a way, effectively dealing with some stress does contribute to building personal resilience; long-term stress lowers our ability to adapt to and address demanding situations. 

Leadership resilience and its cascading effects

When it happens to leaders in the c-suite, this lowered resilience also has an impact on the organization’s overall performance and long-term resilience. Resilient Leaders boost organizational resilience and culture and vice versa.

While there are many factors such as strong  core values, relevant mission and customer value proposition, agile and adaptable structures and processes that help the organization build its resilience; if the organization is the vehicle, leaders are akin to the drivers responsible for direction and action in this regard. And thus, leaders need to be ready for the next battle – whenever that may be. This goes beyond the ability to plan and make the right business decisions; it requires  the ability to have clarity and the right outlook to deal with adverse events. Resilience is not an end result, but rather a process of adaptation and growth in a complex and risky operating landscape. 

On the other hand, a culture of resilience within the organization also helps individuals build a resilient outlook in their personal lives. It’s a reinforcing loop. When the organization has clearly defined processes and approaches to build a culture of resilience, it makes it easier for the individual leaders in the organization to deal with uncertainty and complexity. But it is the leaders who have to lead the way in terms of defining an organization-wide culture of resilience.

Organizations must ask themselves, whether this is a virtuous cycle or a vicious one.

When individuals’ well-being, besides financial outcomes, is treated as a priority…when the organization helps its people be better prepared to deal with the stress associated with complex or unpredictable situations…when safe spaces are created for individuals to acknowledge and reflect on setbacks, work through challenges and draw out  learnings for the future…when an “always on” work environment is discouraged, the leaders are better able to cope with highly demanding needs at the workplace.

On the other hand, when an organization prides itself in constantly operating in a “fire fighting mode”…when the next crisis is always just around the corner…when focus on personal well-being and mental health is labelled “selfish”, the leaders will soon find themselves spiralling down the rabbithole of difficult situations, leading to more stress and therefore, more challenges and so on.  

Leaders in the c-suite are increasingly called upon to advance the mental well-being agenda but can they really do so without putting it in practice for themselves?

This article written by the Bullzi team is first in the series Preparing Leaders For The Post-Covid Era that addresses key challenges and needs for leaders in a changed, post-Covid19 work landscape. Look out for the others in the coming weeks.

Say:Do

Every quarter, companies that do not meet their stated projections, see their share prices go south immediately.

When politicians do not deliver, they are shown the door.

People speak disparagingly about colleagues, associates, friends and family who say a lot but do very little. As they do about service providers who fail to deliver on promises.

At the heart of any relationship lies trust. And a major factor in building trust is the faith that the other will do what they have said they will.

1 or <1, The ideal Say:Do ratio

So do individuals and organisations have to deliver all the time on their commitments?

Let’s unpack this a little more.

1. Intent – When you say what does it mean to you? Is it a commitment, a wish or just words? The degree of effort that will go into do is directly related to intent. Will you really run every day or just think it’s a good thing to do or saying it for effect?

When an organisation says ‘belief in diversity’ is one of its values, is it the ‘correct thing to say’ or does it believe in it enough to lose money to live this value?

2. Setting Expectations – ‘Delivery within 24 hours or your money back’ is an absolute commitment. ‘We will try and give you a sea-facing room, subject to availability’ sets the expectation totally differently. Seasoned professionals will tell you that a key to a great customer experience is to under commit and over deliver. Your Say:Do ratio will be <1.

P V Sindhu said ‘This time the colour of the medal will be different’, before she started her world championship campaign. It would have been great, if she had got gold but she did get silver, which was better than the bronze she had won so far. Which brings me to the next point.

3. Stretch or New – Sometimes we state we will do something that is audacious or out of the ordinary. It is important that the stakeholders understand that this is indeed so. Stamping out corruption from our society within 10 years would be an audacious goal where people are likely to cut you some slack. If you had a Say:Do at 100:70, it would be fine. People will understand that you would not even have got there if you did not have the Intent.

On the other hand, ‘we will put15 lacs in your account within 5 years from black money recovered’ may be something where the expectation will be 1:1.

Elon Musk has ventured into never before territory. He is not meeting his sales projections. His investors have not lost faith as yet. They are only watching if he is doing things right and keeping the faith. They may all lose money. Sometimes there are risks associated with venturing into new, unexplored areas and again what is important is the Intent and the Effort.

4. Effort – There are those who wonder how can something like demonetisation, which is an abject failure economically, yield electoral returns? Even if all the data were able to conclusively prove that it was a disastrous decision, my belief is it will still be seen as a positive effort in the commitment to eradicate black money. It is much the same for an Elon Musk or Flipkart.

It will be much the same if you, with two left feet, say you want to win ‘best dancer’ in this year’s Christmas party. Did you try to learn; is there a semblance of two different feet?

How you can use Say:Do to make changes

In my work as a Coach to organisation leaders, I use a method that is part of the Marshall Goldsmith Stakeholder Centered Coaching process. Once a leader identifies an area of behavioral change, we ask them to share it with their key stakeholders. “I am going to be a better listener. Watch me!”

These are usually successful people who need to get better at something. By making them commit we are asking them to make sure their Say:Do ratio is 1 or <1. Research has established that this method has significantly higher chance of success than when it is not shared with stakeholders.

You could use the same principle for something where your intent is 100%. Try sharing your ‘say’ with your key stakeholders and ask them to give you feedback on your ‘do’.

Footnote

In a recent Mood of the Nation Survey by India Today there is a very interesting paradox that many have commented on.

63% respondents have rated the current PM’s performance as good or outstanding. This is down 6% since the last survey but still overwhelmingly good.

On a question about style of functioning, the second highest rating (23%) was for ‘All talk, no action’. The Say:Do ratio is tending towards the negative zone. I am sure this has not gone unnoticed.

Photo credits – Shutterstock, Lifehacker and other sites on the internet

How to turn friends into enemies

Sindhu and Puja were both self-motivated, bright marketing people handling two different sets of customers in a large bank. They respected each other’s work and enjoyed a mildly friendly relationship. Their conflict started when they both presented very different ideas to their boss and given the limited resources, one’s idea was given the money. That may have been all right but others in the team started to play it out as ‘victory’ for one. Suddenly there was a tussle that developed for shared resources like research as well and soon Sindhu and Puja turned adversarial.

Pluto Ghosh and Rusty Verma

The Ghoshs and the Vermas had a troubled year as neighbours. It started with the smell of fried fish from one’s kitchen wafting into the vegetarian existence of the other. This was quickly followed by the reverie of one being broken by the bhajans playing at 5:30 a.m. from the other’s house every Tuesday. They had stopped talking to each other and cast baleful looks whenever on family member met another in the elevator. Including Pluto Ghosh and Rusty Verma, the canine members of the two families. 

When you put a group of people together for a length of time they will make friends, agree on things and disagree as well. All these are natural. Disagreements and conflicts are therefore built into the fabric of human, in fact animal, existence. Conflict is neither good nor bad, just a fact of life and often necessary.

It is about how we resolve those conflicts that creates a stronger unit – family, neighborhood, company, country, and the world.

The Role of Festivals in Conflict Resolution

The wise ones who created the norms for society realized the need for a space and time that would allow people to let go of the old enmity and give resolution a chance.

People greet and ceremoniously hug each other in various cultures to signal warmth, allowing the other into their space and a willingness to accept the other. There is often an exchange of sweets and gifts as well.

A festival gives warring parties the license to meet the adversary as a person and not the enemy because the norms dictate it and make it ok. It allows for a start. Once the initial barrier is crossed, it often becomes easier to set up the next level conversations to discuss and address the problem.

There may be a lesson here for organisations as well – to create a narrative about a space that allows people to meet greet, discuss and resolve.

So this Diwali, what have you decided to do? Who are you going to hug and melt your differences away with? With whom are you going to let go of the enmity and hatred? It is a time to do all of that and brighten up your life. Step up, embrace, share a box of sweets or just a warm smile.

May the light shine on you and your loved ones. Happy Diwali!

Picture sources – rediff.com, hindustantimes.com and others from the Internet