Speaking up

Note to Staff: As the CEO of a company, one choice I make, nearly every day, is when do I speak up or speak out, and when do I keep quiet and let others follow the paths and actions they think best, or take the lead in putting out messages to staff, to clients or others. I am not a fan of micro-managing, but neither am I a fan of chaos, where people might be pulling in different directions. We must all pull together. And while this note is not about specific client related issues, after yesterday, once again I feel the need to speak to you. Forgive me if you feel I am being intrusive into your personal life.

Over the past few weeks we have seen abhorrent actions and one tragic event after another unfold across our nation or influenced by our nation’s current actions/policy on a  global basis. Perhaps this should have been expected in the run up to an election that many view as the most consequential in recent times, and I am worried that more stupidity might be foisted upon us before that election. Children, some extremely young, are still held in detention camps, separated from their parents. Any psychologist worth their salt can describe to you the lasting damage this will have on these children and I simply can’t describe to you how abhorrent I find this. Children, some younger than 5 are appearing before immigration judges, without representation,  to “plead their case” to determine whether they should be allowed to stay in this country. A 5-year old, of course, has absolutely no clue what is going on.  Last Wednesday, in Kentucky, a gunman tried to enter a black church and when thwarted, went to a Kroger supermarket and killed two, a likely hate crime. Pipe bombs were sent to outspoken critics of the current incumbent of the White House or those who practice journalism, a foundational bedrock which makes our democracy possible. In the Saudi embassy in Turkey, a journalist, who was viewed as a threat to the rulers of Saudi Arabia, was dismembered while alive and the audio recordings seem to indicate that he lived for 7 minutes while various parts of his body where cut off. In Yemen, a proxy war between Iran and Saudi is being fought, with USA supplied weapons. A few weeks ago, one USA missile killed a bus load of school children and today it is estimated that up to 13 million people are about to starve to death. Yesterday, in Pittsburgh, 11 people where killed while simply celebrating their faith. The list of tragedies can go on and on and they are in fact connected. They are connected or rather I should say enabled by the words and actions that are coming from this current administration. While we have seen tragic events before, events triggered by hate, racism, xenophobia, misogyny, the lust for power and wealth, and purposely fanned fears aimed at dividing us, we have never before seen the leadership of the USA openly promote such viewpoints (of course there have been racist presidents before). This current president as well as his enablers within the White House, within congress and within the judiciary have put this nation on a terribly dangerous path, one that serves their personal interests, or their personal beliefs, but not the interests of the nation itself or the principles upon which this nation was founded.

 

There are two phrases that I simply can’t get out of my head the last couple of days. One is “it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness” and the other is “a million candles burning for the help that never came”. I am unsure about the origins of the first, but the second is a line from a Leonard Cohen song. And while these two phrases might seem somewhat contradictory, the first suggesting a course of action, while the second suggests the hopelessness of that action, I am not about to give up for there is simply too much at stake. Last night at a memorial service that thousands attended in Pittsburgh for the slain congregants, a chant was taken up. It was one word, “Vote”.  It is not too late, light a candle, Vote.

OrgVitality Acquires Employee Survey Practice from The Metrus Group

PLEASANTVILLE, N.Y., Oct. 22, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — OrgVitality, LLC today announced the acquisition of The Metrus Group’s employee survey practice. Effective immediately, OrgVitality will assume all of The Metrus Group’s existing survey work.

OrgVitality is a global management consulting firm founded by leading industrial/organizational (I/O) psychologists and technologists. The company is well-known for its science-driven approach to employee surveys, informed by the latest industrial organizational research and powered by cutting-edge technology. The Metrus Group is a New Jersey-based consulting firm that offers strategic employee surveys, talent management solutions, strategy design and execution and talent analytics. The acquisition leverages OrgVitality’s significant bespoke technology expertise, data-driven approach and proven track record of delivering high-touch business solutions.

“We are thrilled to welcome The Metrus Group’s Survey practice to the OrgVitality family,” said OrgVitality CEO Jeffrey Saltzman. “We have known the principals of The Metrus Group for years and greatly respect the thoughtful work they have done in this field. Not surprisingly, there is substantial alignment in our respective philosophies.”

Addressing the requirements of multinational workforces, driving transparency and data integrity and staying abreast of rapidly emerging regulations such as GDPR are continually increasing the role of technology in the employee survey business.  “We firmly believe that the most effective HR initiatives are grounded in science, customized to a client’s specific strategy and supported by a powerful technology platform that uses the latest advances in coding, machine learning, and artificial intelligence,” observed Saltzman.

“OrgVitality and The Metrus Group possess a shared vision and passion surrounding the work we do. It’s with great confidence that we entrust our survey practice in their care,” commented William Schiemann, CEO of The Metrus Group. “Our clients can trust that Valeria and I, along with Jerry Seibert, will remain involved with their projects, while enabling them to capitalize on the impressive resources that OrgVitality adds.” He noted that The Metrus Group will continue its consulting work in strategy, talent management and talent lifecycle.

Warranting a seamless transition for clients of The Metrus Group is a top priority for OrgVitality. Executive team members from the company will meet with all Metrus Group clients individually to better understand their business requirements and ensure continuity of high-quality services while migrating them to OrgVitality’s technology platform.

Saltzman concluded, “Companies generate competitive advantages through differentiation. What better place to start than a comprehensive understanding of how your workforce can support the fulfillment of short- and long-term business goals.”

OrgVitality was founded in 2009 and has offices in the United States, Israel and India. Financial terms of the agreement are not available.

Consent

Way back in 1959, John French and Bertram Raven, Social Psychologists, in some ground-breaking research, identified five bases of power used by leaders to exercise authority and control people. There was Legitimate power, which they identified as position power which a CEO, President, or other leader in a specific position would have. There is Reward power, the ability to reward another person for compliance. There is Expert power conferred by the knowledge and skills of the leader. Referent power, conferred by worthiness or attractiveness. Coercive power which comes about by punishing non-compliance. And after 6 years of additional study they added Informational power, the ability to control the flow of information needed to accomplish tasks.

Their work was from the viewpoint of where power originates, but there is a flip side to this work and that is consent, the acceptance of power, by those upon whom this power is exercised. The Declaration of Independence, penned by Thomas Jefferson (with some editing assistance from Benjamin Franklin and others) was a clear rejection of the power of the King of England and it stated that is was necessary to describe why they were rejecting that Legitimate power, that up to that point in time, the king exercised over them.

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

The second paragraph of the Declaration, begins to explain to the king why they are rejecting his power over them, and going beyond the notion of equality for all and the notion of unalienable rights – that rights that can’t be taken away, hits on the notion of consent. That is, that those who are having power exercised over them must consent to that power being used to control them. The founders, with a few exceptions, were not particularly religious people, hence the separation of church and state safeguards, and yet they described rights as being conferred upon them by a creator. That was very deliberate, for rights conferred upon you by some kind of creator, a higher power, can’t be taken away by people, and that is what makes them unalienable. Further the second paragraph states that when “government becomes destructive of these ends” it is the right of the people to change the government.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”

I argue from an Organizational Psychology standpoint, not a legal standpoint since I am not a legal scholar, but this is THE founding document of the United States of America and it served as a guideline for the Constitution, the amendments which were added and over the years various interpretations of how to operationalize those statements. Consent and the ability to withhold that consent was at the core of the separation from England, it is what allows us to form a government, gives our leaders legitimacy, and is part of the DNA of the American people.

Giving consent or withholding it always involves the behavior of one person or a group of people over one or more people.  Consensual sexual behavior between people, by definition, should only occur when consent is given. But there is a lot of behavior that falls short of sexual and yet should only occur when consent is given. A third-grade teacher asks her students “What does it mean to give consent?” And the students answer, saying “Yes” or “No”, “to give permission” and “to be allowed to do something”. She further explores, “When do we need consent?” And the answers come back, “giving hugs”, “borrowing things”, “kissing”, “telling secrets”, “sharing”. And she pushes the point to clarify, “What if you really want a hug and the other person doesn’t?” or “The person let you hug them yesterday but they don’t want a hug today?” She clarifies, “that is not consent”. Teaching what consent means and what it means to withhold consent begins, as it should, early.

CEO’s worth their salt and others in leadership realize that while they may have legitimate power, expert power or other power as defined by French and Raven, without clarity of vision and the consent of those within the organization to be led in a manner to fulfill that vision, they will not be successful. CEO’s who lose the consent of their people can’t succeed. CEO’s who lead by barking out orders and simply expecting execution of those orders, in the long run will fail and fail miserably. For consent when done right, buys more than agreement to be led, it buys effort and the willingness of those within the organization to work towards mutually agreed upon goals.

The United States government today is rocked by scandal, too many to count, with an administration put into (or Putin to) place or whose election was greatly assisted by a foreign government, making the legitimacy of the current president questionable and calling into question whether the American public actually gave this leader consent to govern. A majority of which certainly did not. You have a President, a Congressional majority and now a Supreme Court that represents ideologically a minority of the public and therefore lacks the consent of the majority to govern. Republicans ignoring the right of President Obama to install Merrick Garland to the Supreme court was only a hint of things to come. And now the installation of Brett Kavanaugh, by a group of Senators, without legitimate investigations of sexual behaviors that was forced upon another without consent, flies in the face of the concepts upon which this nation was founded. And of course, the clear lack of impartiality by this judge, will make all of his future decisions suspect.

When does a population have the right to withdraw their consent to be governed by those in power? According to the Declaration of Independence it is “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends…” In other words, when those being governed did not give their consent or choose to withdraw their consent. Vote in November.