Tag Archives: Trump

When Did Opposition Become Obstruction?

In today’s political climate, there has been a focus on the “oppositional” party. How the “less represented” party tries to push their agenda forward has always been a talking point. The difference is in the tactics that have been used during the previous Presidential administration and have continued into the current one. It’s the difference between opposition and obstruction.

By definition, oppositional parties tend to be against the policies of the “ruling” party and/or person(s) in power. This is an important part of a democracy. Through debate and discussion, they ensure we retain checks and balances. The ruling party is held accountable and the views of a broader range of constituents are represented.

While oppositional parties work against those in power, traditionally they have also been willing to work with their foes to some degree, while retaining the focus on their agenda. That is the key differentiator between opposing and obstructing.

The duty of the opposition is to oppose.—Winston Churchill

Obstructionists are those members of the opposing party who refuse to not only work with those in power, but purposely block their opponent’s progress. It does not matter whether the decision is justified and reasonable, which it often is. It does not matter whether they agree with the progress being proposed, which they often do. And it does not matter whether the majority have the right/ability to make the change, which is often the case. An obstructionist’s goal is to stop the rival at whatever the cost.

The obstructionist knows that to give a little is to concede. The fallout is irrelevant as are the consequences of their actions. Even if an obstructionist loses, they can show that they are not complicit in the outcome. Could they have made the solution better with their insight? Sure, but then their supporters would think they’re weak and without core principles.

If there is a nuclear tactic being used here, I submit it is the use of that obstruction where a willful minority blocks a bipartisan majority from voting on the President’s judicial nominees.—John Cornyn, U.S. Senator

This was not always the case. Politic use to be about compromise; it use to be about taking part in the process without an instinctually defiant stance. When you disagreed, you argued your points. You bargained for your agenda. You helped shape the solution so it included some of your party’s input. But this only happens through participation…and obstructionists refuse to participate.

This is a lesson for leaders. If you want to make an impact, if you want influence within your organization, don’t allow your feelings of opposition to transmute into obstructionist behaviors. Removing yourself from the discussion does not mean you are more ideologically pure, it means you are giving others a valid reason to cut you out of the decision making. While you may not like what others are proposing, a willingness to compromise will allow your concerns to be heard and may shape the end-result in a way that makes it more palatable for those who oppose it. Or, you can cover your ears and repeatedly yell, “NO.” I’m sure your opponents didn’t want to hear your views anyway.

Are You a Victim of Gaslighting? How to Avoid Being Manipulated by an Unethical Leader

Let’s say, just for the sake of discussion, that the leader of a country stated his predecessor had committed a federal crime. Then, when asked to provide proof, he pivoted, declaring we misunderstood his blatant accusation. What about that same leader denying making statements when he’s been recorded making those very statements? Unlikely, right? What’s even more unlikely is that this guy has a loyal following who believes him. How does this happen? It may be a little psychological trick called gaslighting.

Gaslighting is a tactic in which the victim is manipulated into questioning their reality. Through methodical mental exploitation, the perpetrator is able to control the victim’s perceptions of themself and their environment, thereby providing control over the victim’s behaviors.

The term “gaslighting” originated with the play Angel Street and its subsequent 1944 film Gaslight starring Ingrid Bergman and Charles Boyer, in which a husband attempts to convince his wife she is crazy by manipulating small elements of her environment. For instance, per the movie title, he dims the gaslights and then pretends that she’s the only one who thinks the room is getting darker. Slowly and steadily, the wife begins to succumb to the self-doubt created by the subtle changes.

In the beginning of the article, I loosely described a leader who refutes the reality we all see. You probably thought I was discussing President Trump and his endless supply of falsehoods (his ‘landslide’ election, Russian hacking, history of sexual harassment, border wall, ability to save jobs/healthcare/economy, etc and etc and etc). I was, but I also described the actions of many other ethically-dubious leaders.

Leaders (the ethically-dubious ones, not you) utilize gaslighting to gain a loyal following… and by “loyal” I’m referring to a cult-like culture where no one disagrees with, questions, or even considers doubting the direction of the leader. People adhere because they’ve undergone a form of mental abuse where their perception has been morphed into viewing the world through the leader’s reality. It is then reinforced when they witness the belittlement and banishment of those who dare to deviate from the party line.

Before you pass judgment on these supposed weak-minded followers, its important to note that we are all susceptive to gaslighting. It takes place so slowly that we are often unaware we’ve been brainwashed. It can involve such truth-blurring techniques as:

Denying they said something even though you have proof. You heard them say they would do something, but now they deny it. It makes you start questioning your intellectual or moral validity. Maybe they never said it or you misunderstood. Either way, the more it happens, the more you blame yourself for being wrong and begin accepting their reality.

Telling you or others that you’re crazy or a liar. Not only is this dismissive and aimed to make you question yourself, it also creates a fear that others will side with the gaslighter to question your sanity and honesty.

Exploiting what is important to you. Gaslighters know what you care about and use it to make you doubt yourself. They then invoke your worst insecurities, intimidate you, and mock you under the guise of humor.

Wearing you down over time. Gaslighting typically starts small and gradually ramps up. It’s like the way you cook a crab; the heat is turned up so slowly that the crab never realizes the water is boiling.

Aligning people against you. Gaslighters know who will stand by them and they pit these people against you. As an FYI, they are pitting you against them, as well. Side comments like, “XXX doesn’t think you know what you’re talking about” are an effective way to isolate employees and create distrust amongst the ranks. It also forces people to rely on the gaslighter as the single source of “accurate” information.

Using occasional positive reinforcement. After a stream of criticism, slights, and insults, they throw in some praise. This can be confusing, but it can also make you feel just good enough to undergo more of their abuse and create an emotional opening for further manipulation.

I don’t list these techniques as a “how to.” With awareness, you can identify the signs and avoid the gaslighter’s trap. I stress avoidance because, according to the book The Gaslight Effect, this is the single most effective way to not be gaslit. Any attempt to prove the gaslighter wrong will most likely lead to you trying to prove the gaslighter right. That’s why they’re an effective gaslighter; they can turn your defense against you

No attempt to stop gaslighting will be effective unless the person being gaslighted is willing to walk away from the relationship. In other words, one must be willing to end the gaslighting relationship. In the arena that we are discussing; that means walking away from the wider culture at large.—Dr. Robin Stern, The Gaslight Effect

Whether it’s your supervisor or the President of the United States, we must remain vigilant against manipulation. Seek leaders whose actions match their words. People who do not feel the need to re-explain or re-clarify every statement. People who are more concerned with doing the right thing than with being right. People who can (and willingly) support their arguments with facts. People who exert more effort building you up versus pressuring you to follow them. This should be obvious, but gaslighting sneaks up on you; once you’re in, it is difficult to unwind.

How ‘Fake News’ Damages Your Company and What You Can Do About It

Since the election, the idea of “fake news” has been prominently debated. Whether from willful blindness or a general sense of gullibility, stories that appear real have spread throughout social media…but this is not a new phenomenon.

200 years ago it was reported that after cutting down a cherry tree, a six year old George Washington guiltily told his father, “I cannot tell a lie…I did cut it with my hatchet.” Similarly, Paul Revere didn’t ride through the streets of Concord, Massachusetts yelling, “The British are coming” and Isaac Newton did not discover gravity when an apple fell on his head.

While these stories are technically fake news, they are distinguished from today’s fake news in their intent. When Mason Locke Weems penned the cherry tree tale in 1806, he was trying to illustrate Washington’s virtue so as to inspire young Americans to emulate him. Elias Phinney relayed Revere’s ride as an act of patriotism. And John Conduitt used Newton’s apple story as a metaphor so the less educated could understand the concept of gravity.

The fake news in our current political climate is more in the vein of Marie Antoinette’s, “Let them eat cake.” This quote was inaccurately attributed to Antoinette when a French Revolutionary anti-establishment pamphlet distributed it as a cartoon. In publishing such an untruth, the author was not trying to generate a metaphorical narrative; rather he was seeking to fuel the insurrection and overthrow of the French government.

As Antoinette can attest, fake news is inherently destructive in nature. Whether it’s from protesters or government leaders, these stories have no purpose but to disparage those with opposing views, stoke irrational fears, and spread falsehoods. There is no way to rationalize it; if an argument is well-intentioned, the truth should be sufficient to convince the masses. If it’s not, you need a better argument.

Consider how your company reacts when a malicious rumor is started. These localized fake news stories have long lasting negative ramifications on your team. Not only are they distracting, but the fabrications harm reputations, working relationships, and the overall culture. This then affects performance, productivity, and the bottom line.

There are two action items we can learn here. One, we need to do a better job identifying and quashing fake news. If you think this sounds easy, think again. A recent Stanford study found that students cannot determine fake news from real news. This lack of critical thinking is particularly alarming considering their nonstop media consumption. Participants had a hard time distinguishing advertisements from news articles and were unable to identify where information came from. In addition, more than 80% believed a native ad identified with the words “sponsored content” was a real news story AND only 25% recognized and were able to explain the differences between a verified Twitter account and one that simply looked legitimate.

This finding indicates that students may focus more on the content of social media posts than on their sources. Despite their fluency with social media, many students are unaware of basic conventions for indicating verified digital information.—Sam Wineburg & Sarah McGrew

The second action item is that as leaders we must take responsibility for this fakery within our organizations. This begins with educating those on our team to be discernable absorbers of information. When new information is presented, teach them to evaluate it based on the following questions:

  1. Do you know the source? Is he/she reliable and trustworthy?
  2. Can you verify the information?
  3. How does it measure up to what you already know?
  4. Does it make (common) sense?
  5. Do you understand the complexity of the information?
  6. Do you understand the context of the information?
  7. What biases do you have that could affect how you interpret the information?
  8. Have subject matter experts corroborated the information? What about the company’s executive team?
  9. How current is the information?
  10. What is the intent of the person disseminating the information?

Fake news is an epidemic. Thankfully, you are in a position to be the Senior Editor of your organization’s “news” outlet. When fake news stories arise, no matter how trivial, report the truth. Don’t allow even one minor fib to become part of the dialogue. The more you practice this, the more fact-checking will become engrained in your culture.

Donald Trump: Three Leadership Lessons from the Republican Presidential Candidate

donald trumpAuthor’s Note: This article is not an endorsement of Donald Trump, nor does it condone, justify, or defend anything he has said or done. The leadership tactics we will discuss are proven to be effective in persuading others and bolstering influence. Whether these skills are used for positive purposes is up to you.

As today marks the beginning of the 2016 Republican National Convention, it seems fitting to discuss the projected GOP presidential candidate, Donald Trump. Whether or not you like him, we can all agree that Trump’s unlikely ascent in this race did not happen by accident. Trump’s masterful display of a few simple leadership techniques has resulted in a loyal fan base and unrelenting media coverage. Here are three such techniques that can benefit each of us.

Use Words That Sell Your Idea…and Repeat Them Often

One tactic Trump regularly practices is repetition of particular words. As listed in the Trump University Playbook, the most persuasive words that should be used when selling include: you, free, money, guarantee, and results. To show Trump’s frequency in using these words, a New York Times study of every Trump rally, speech, interview and news conference over a one-week period found “he has a particular habit of saying ‘you’ and ‘we’.”

We have to be more vigilant. We have to be much tougher. We have to be much smarter…

As for the other persuasive words listed above, he commonly makes such statements as:

  • “I have a lot of money.”
  • “I know a way that will absolutely guarantee
  • “I get results, believe me.”

The repetition of key words and phrases promotes clarity, but can also have an affect on a subconscious level. Often called supraliminal messaging, there is mounting evidence regarding information that is not consciously perceived and it’s downstream effect on our thought processes, decision making, and perception. Apparently, when words are regularly repeated, they can get lodged in the subconscious mind as expressing a real situation. The mind then tries to align the words with reality where they are more likely to be accepted and can block out contradictory thoughts.

In short, figure out the ideas that you are trying to communicate, condense them into a word or short phrase, and inject them into as many exchanges as you can.

Focus on Your Vocal Presence

As much as the words you say matter, how you say them may have a greater impact. A study by Rosario Signorello, a postdoctoral researcher at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine, and his colleague Nari Rhee examined the speaking strategies of politicians and its influence on voters. Consider a recent speech by Trump:

By the way, I think I’m going to win the Hispanic vote. [Then loudly and emphatically] Do you know in the state of Nevada I win with Hispanics?!” [Then softly again] They know I’m going to bring jobs in. They know I’m going to take jobs away from Mexico and China and all these places.

Signorello and Rhee found that speakers like Trump who utilize a wide vocal variation can impact how they are perceived. By increasing his pitch and volume, Trump is more likely to be seen as dominant. Hilary Clinton tends to go the opposite way by lowering her pitch and volume throughout the speech. She ends on a calm note so as to be seen as confident and commanding. The Italian politician Umberto Bossi, who suffered a stroke that impaired his speech, found that pre-stroke, people thought of him as an authoritarian, in part due to his wide-ranging pitch. Post-stroke, his pitch flattened out and he was seen as more benevolent.

Before your next presentation, consider the message and image you are trying to get across. Then, modulate your voice over the course of the speech. By varying your pitch and volume, you will not only lead the audience, but you’ll also keep them engaged in what you have to say.

Assign an Enemy

As leaders, we are aware that to be successful, our company and personal brands must stand for something. One way to do this is to distinguish what you stand against. Trump does this very well. He has expressed strong views opposing immigration, religious groups, Barak Obama, news reporters, and his prior GOP opponents.

Exploiting the “enemy” is not a new phenomenon in political campaigning. Since long before the founding of the United States, candidates and lawmakers have used potentially threats to further their agenda. Marketing expert Adam Morgan calls this creating a “fake monster” where a leader rallies the team to unite against the monster and save the village.

Articulating what you are against does not have to be fear-based or manipulative. The advertising agency StrawberryFrog launched a successful oppositional campaign for a smart car based upon their refusal to accept over-consumption and excess. And in its infancy, Apple’s brand was centered on anti-conformity and anti-Big Brother.

However it is used, by defining what you are against, you are also defining what you believe. You can speak out against the status quo or defend tradition. You can focus on a known adversary or create an imminent menace. Just ensure that your antagonist is aligned with your organization’s principles and culture.

Whether you agree with his politics or not, I think Mr. Trump’s more aggressive tactics may be one attempt at trying to assert some level of control in a situation where people feel scared and a loss of control — as a means of helping them to feel safer. The dilemma then becomes whether supporting these more extreme policies justifies the ends — particularly in terms of how it changes us as a society. — Samuel Justin Sinclair, assistant professor of psychology at Harvard Medical School and a co-author of The Psychology of Terrorism Fears

Donald Trump is running a successful campaign—you don’t need to agree with his ideology, actions, and/or personality to admit this. Instead of relying on such typical traits as experience or sophistication, Trump is prevailing through his use of expressive jargon, compelling speaking skills, and a crowd-resonating message. If you support him, these techniques are working. If you don’t, sharpen your skills to help defeat him.