By Daniel Butcher
Some CEOs achieve celebrity through hard work, and some have celebrity thrust upon them. Some become celebrities through pure dumb luck—combined with the media’s propensity to lionize CEOs.
Academy of Management Scholar Tim Pollock of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville said that he’s done research on how, why, and who becomes an A-list celebrity versus a B- or C-list celebrity.
“We looked at two different factors: push and pull,” Pollock said. “Push factors would be the CEO trying to get media attention, making themselves available, putting themselves out there, having lots of quotes in the press releases, articles, and elsewhere, being very self-focused in a way that that makes them easy for the media to use and make them heroes.
“Pull factors made the CEO attractive to the media as a story, whether or not they were trying to push themselves into the limelight, and so we found that demographically distinct CEOs—if they were someone other than a white male, essentially—then that could have an effect,” he said. “Also, strategic non-conformity is another pull factor—their firm engaged in strategic actions that were leading the companies in ways that were different than the industry’s norm.
“This makes them stand out, makes them newsworthy, and allows the media to construct stories around these behaviors that we call ‘dramatized realities,’ so the press basically tells the truth, but they tell the story in a way that’s going to make it interesting and engaging for readers.”
Journalists often paint either a CEO or a company as the hero, praising them for everything that went right, even if success was due to luck or factors out of their control.
“The press often accords CEOs responsibility for all kinds of things that one person or one company couldn’t possibly do by themselves,” Pollock said. “The CEO gets credited for all kinds of stuff that it takes a team of people within the organization and elsewhere to actually pull off, or that they may not even be responsible for, but they get credit for, because it makes a great story.
“We like to see individuals as heroes in our narratives, as especially as Americans,” he said. “So, this is the kind of thing you see happen.”
-
Daniel Butcher is a writer and the Managing Editor of AOM Today at the Academy of Management (AOM). Previously, he was a writer and the Finance Editor for Strategic Finance magazine and Management Accounting Quarterly, a scholarly journal, at the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA). Prior to that, he worked as a writer/editor at The Financial Times, including daily FT sister publications Ignites and FundFire, Crain Communications’s InvestmentNews and Crain’s Wealth, eFinancialCareers, and Arizent’s Financial Planning, Re:Invent|Wealth, On Wall Street, Bank Investment Consultant, and Money Management Executive. He earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of Colorado Boulder and his master’s degree from New York University. You can reach him at dbutcher@aom.org or via LinkedIn.
View all posts
Up next....
Famous Mentors Can Be a Blessing and a Curse
By Daniel Butcher
Students and young professionals who get well-respected, or even famous, mentors gain can gain skills that help put their careers on promising trajectories. But mentees’ identities and reputations becoming connected with prominent mentors can provide both benefits and challenges.
Academy of Management Scholar Bess Rouse of Boston College said that, on the positive side, relationships and connections with prominent mentors can improve mentees’ opportunities. On the negative side, the entanglement of an individual’s career with a prominent mentor can also lead to being taken for granted, having their contributions underappreciated, and feeling overshadowed. She and her coauthors of an Academy of Management Review article refer to this as the “paradox of promise” that complicates mentees’ building meaningful career narratives.
“We were looking at mentorship in a creative context, and all of us were able to draw from our experiences as well, but our research findings apply to any place where there is a strong mentor figure where you learn by doing and being around somebody who is experienced and renowned in their field,” Rouse said. “This paradox of promise can happen—we know that working with very prominent people in the field is useful; it can help you get connections, and you learn a lot.
“This person is well-known, because they are very skilled at what they do, and so you can see that happening, where you’re learning very easily from this person, because they have a lot of knowledge to give you, but at the same time, you have the shadow over you when you go out and try to make a name for yourself,” she said. “You’ll often be referred to in context with your mentor, and so it’s very hard to break out and establish your own identity, because people assume—maybe rightly, maybe wrongly—that basically you are just the output of this other person and haven’t really established a voice on your own.
“And so that can be very challenging for people, especially if you are driven, as some of our informants were, to really make a name for themselves and separate themselves from their mentor.”
It can be difficult to craft your own career narrative in the way that you’d like if most people know you based on the work that you’ve done in the shadow of a successful, celebrated mentor. That said, some mentees embrace their association with such a figure.
“There are other people in our study that were much more comfortable to build on the legacy of that mentor and feel that they were the next stage of that—helping that legacy to live on, contributing to that legacy was really important to them, and they were able to find meaning from that,” Rouse said. “This is really about what you are trying to get out of your own creative career as a protege and thinking about the different ways to find career success.
“An interesting thing about our study is we found that all people found a way to craft a career narrative and find meaningfulness,” she said. “They just took different paths for doing that.”
-
Daniel Butcher is a writer and the Managing Editor of AOM Today at the Academy of Management (AOM). Previously, he was a writer and the Finance Editor for Strategic Finance magazine and Management Accounting Quarterly, a scholarly journal, at the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA). Prior to that, he worked as a writer/editor at The Financial Times, including daily FT sister publications Ignites and FundFire, Crain Communications’s InvestmentNews and Crain’s Wealth, eFinancialCareers, and Arizent’s Financial Planning, Re:Invent|Wealth, On Wall Street, Bank Investment Consultant, and Money Management Executive. He earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of Colorado Boulder and his master’s degree from New York University. You can reach him at dbutcher@aom.org or via LinkedIn.
View all posts
Up next....
Two Creators Working Together Are Better Than One
By Daniel Butcher
There are many examples of creative and productive partners, including John Lennon and Paul McCartney, the Coen brothers, Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, William Procter and James Gamble, Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard; the list goes on and on.
Academy of Management Scholar Bess Rouse of Boston College said that people who create together engage in intimate creative interactions that lead to a shared interpersonal boundary—“I created it” becomes “We created it.” This shared interpersonal boundary influences creativity by forming a closed, safe space in which duos can explore divergent ideas and navigate creative blocks.
“We know a lot about team creativity, and we know a lot about individual creativity, and one of the things I was really interested in exploring is this idea of two people working together and the balance that happens in that space,” Rouse said. “You look at a lot of successful, creative people in the world, and they’re often working in pairs, and it’s either a very explicit pair or a well-known person who works with a shadow person.
“It might be a husband and wife, or it might be a more dominant person and a secondary person who are working together,” she said. “That creative space is really special, because you can challenge that person and they’re trusted, and it’s in this bounded space where you develop the sense of a shared interpersonal boundary, where you feel very connected to this other person, and so they’re able to challenge each other and get some of the benefits of having an outsider voice.
“Yet the trust and the support are built into the relationship as well, and that seems to be a really powerful dynamic for developing really high-quality creativity and sustaining it over time.”
An example that Rouse cited in an Academy of Management Review article is from Michael Lewis’s book, The Undoing Project: A Friendship That Changed Our Minds, on social psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky.
“They were social psychologists very well known for doing their work together, and Lewis does a really good job of fleshing out the sorts of tensions in that kind of relationship, but they’re also a very powerful example of two people collaborating and working together successfully and bringing out the best in each other over time,” Rouse said.
-
Daniel Butcher is a writer and the Managing Editor of AOM Today at the Academy of Management (AOM). Previously, he was a writer and the Finance Editor for Strategic Finance magazine and Management Accounting Quarterly, a scholarly journal, at the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA). Prior to that, he worked as a writer/editor at The Financial Times, including daily FT sister publications Ignites and FundFire, Crain Communications’s InvestmentNews and Crain’s Wealth, eFinancialCareers, and Arizent’s Financial Planning, Re:Invent|Wealth, On Wall Street, Bank Investment Consultant, and Money Management Executive. He earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of Colorado Boulder and his master’s degree from New York University. You can reach him at dbutcher@aom.org or via LinkedIn.
View all posts
Up next....
Why Mentees Should Highlight Similarities with Mentors
By Daniel Butcher
While high-quality mentorship boosts protégés’ careers, a mentor who is disinterested or unmotivated doesn’t provide value to mentees. To maximize mentors’ networking help and advice, mentees should highlight similarities with their mentor to strengthen mutual identification.
Academy of Management Scholar Bess Rouse of Boston College, who coauthored an Academy of Management Review article with Beth Humberd of the University of Massachusetts Lowell on this topic, said that the effectiveness of mentoring depends on the mentor identifying with a mentee to form a close relationship.
“It has been interesting to watch the shift of people understanding more about this network structure and broader constellation of developmental relationships,” Rouse said. “One of the big pieces of advice that a lot of people would give is don’t look for the be-all and end-all of a mentor that’s going to do all of these different functions for you.
“It’s really diversifying networking and career-development efforts and understanding that different people have different strengths and weaknesses when it comes to professional relationships,” she said.“Some people are much better at psychosocial support, the trust and friendship part of a mentoring relationship, whereas some people are much better at the career side of it and giving sponsorship opportunities or challenging you or reading your work.
“Those benefits of mentorship can come from a range of different people.”
Talking about pastimes cultivates identification
People enjoy talking about their pastimes and things they have in common with each other. Mentors are no exception.
“Think about not only how we are similar in terms of our work experience or where we want to go, but also commonalities as simple as like hobbies—if you find somebody who plays tennis and you play tennis, use that as a conversation-starter,” Rouse said. “Think about how you can develop an easygoing relationship that then can build into a mentoring relationship.
“You shouldn’t underestimate those various forms of connection that you might use for networking and relationship-building, and think about doing those in small doses, rather than thinking, ‘I’m going to find my mentor today’—it’s establishing a good rapport with potential mentors,” she said. “There’s a whole body of literature on positive work relationships and high-quality connections—ask yourself how you can build smaller connections into bigger relationships.
“Especially as an introvert, thinking about having those particular strong, high-quality connections is what ends up building into those valuable mentoring relationships.”
-
Daniel Butcher is a writer and the Managing Editor of AOM Today at the Academy of Management (AOM). Previously, he was a writer and the Finance Editor for Strategic Finance magazine and Management Accounting Quarterly, a scholarly journal, at the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA). Prior to that, he worked as a writer/editor at The Financial Times, including daily FT sister publications Ignites and FundFire, Crain Communications’s InvestmentNews and Crain’s Wealth, eFinancialCareers, and Arizent’s Financial Planning, Re:Invent|Wealth, On Wall Street, Bank Investment Consultant, and Money Management Executive. He earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of Colorado Boulder and his master’s degree from New York University. You can reach him at dbutcher@aom.org or via LinkedIn.
View all posts
Up next....
Taming Toxic Workplaces
By Daniel Butcher
If you work for a bad boss at a dysfunctional or toxic organization, you can either find a new job or learn to cope with stressful conditions. But if you can get middle managers on your side, then you might even be able to start changing the toxic culture.
Academy of Management Scholar Bess Rouse of Boston College, who coauthored an Academy of Management Journal article with William Kahn of Boston University on this topic, said that toxicity appears in organizations as intolerance, bullying, narcissism, and other forms of destructiveness that demoralize employees and undermine organizational success. Senior leaders often perpetrate toxicity or fail to stem destructive behaviors.
“How do the people working underneath these intolerant, narcissistic, or destructive leaders respond in these toxic situations?” Rouse said. “It isn’t uncommon for me to talk to somebody who feels like they have one of these toxic leaders that they’re working under, but they don’t always have an idea of how to handle it.
“One option is to just leave, but we don’t always have that option to just leave, so then we think about, ‘How do we want to be? What kind of middle manager, if we’re in that position, do we want to be?” she said. “Do we want to be somebody who protects ourselves and has that toxicity cascade down the organization, or do we want to be somebody who buffers our employees and makes them feel protected?
“There are different ways of thinking about coping with a toxic workplace; we talk about this as workarounds for how you think about responding to those toxic leaders.”
Toxic organizations drain workers’ personal agency, undermining their capacity to act independently and make choices.
“Leaders’ toxic behaviors such as intolerance, bullying, narcissism, and destructiveness are all red flags, and we can be good leaders without having those behaviors,” Rouse said. “What we saw in that study was that these weren’t bad people—they were driven by anxiety about a lot of external challenges that were happening in the organization, and they just managed that anxiety by belittling other people and diminishing them.
“Obviously it wasn’t the most effective way, but that was their way of dealing with that pressure, and then we also found that that stayed in place because the senior team colluded around that, essentially, and no one stepped up and said, ‘We can’t keep behaving this way,’” she said. “It was actually the middle managers, those people who were better at shifting from absorption to differentiating among team members, which ended up challenging that structure in that type of toxic organization.
“Especially when that that top leadership team has become very insular and supporting of one another in a way that there are no new voices coming into that senior team, then the middle managers are left to have to do that that work of changing the toxic organizational culture.”
-
Daniel Butcher is a writer and the Managing Editor of AOM Today at the Academy of Management (AOM). Previously, he was a writer and the Finance Editor for Strategic Finance magazine and Management Accounting Quarterly, a scholarly journal, at the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA). Prior to that, he worked as a writer/editor at The Financial Times, including daily FT sister publications Ignites and FundFire, Crain Communications’s InvestmentNews and Crain’s Wealth, eFinancialCareers, and Arizent’s Financial Planning, Re:Invent|Wealth, On Wall Street, Bank Investment Consultant, and Money Management Executive. He earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of Colorado Boulder and his master’s degree from New York University. You can reach him at dbutcher@aom.org or via LinkedIn.
View all posts
Up next....
Why Some People with Mental Disorders Thrive as Entrepreneurs
By Daniel Butcher
Symptoms and traits associated with certain mental disorders, including attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), bipolar disorder, dyslexia, and autism, may help entrepreneurs and other businesspeople succeed, noted Academy of Management Scholar Dean Shepherd of the University of Notre Dame.
Shepherd said that conditions that might be seen as a negative, particularly in employment, can sometimes be an advantage in entrepreneurship.
“Some mental disorders are perceived to negatively impact reliability in traditional nine-to-five employment but can actually be an asset in entrepreneurship,” Shepherd said. “Research has found that people with dyslexia tend to have weaker aspects in their left hemisphere of their brain, but their right hemisphere is stronger, and so therefore they can enter entrepreneurship and be successful in it.
“We have the statistics to say that the people with dyslexia are more likely to become entrepreneurs than the general population—in fact, it’s true for many groups who feel like they’re constrained in being promoted in corporate employment turned to self-employment or entrepreneurship,” he said.
“That includes minorities, marginalized groups, and people with all sorts of disabilities, for example, women and immigrants, because they feel like they have constraints or face discrimination in the workplace and that they don’t have those as much in entrepreneurship.”
Research has found that people with ADHD are more likely to become entrepreneurs.
“People with ADHD are more prepared to engage in risk taking, they’re more proactive, and they’re more innovative, and we also found that people with autism are actually getting used by companies engaging in software testing, because they have some advantages in being able to test software,” Shepherd said.
“Entrepreneurship may cause some mental disorders through high stress or loss when a business fails, which can be an important point to consider when deciding on your career path, but people with disorders are also drawn to entrepreneurship,” he said.
-
Daniel Butcher is a writer and the Managing Editor of AOM Today at the Academy of Management (AOM). Previously, he was a writer and the Finance Editor for Strategic Finance magazine and Management Accounting Quarterly, a scholarly journal, at the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA). Prior to that, he worked as a writer/editor at The Financial Times, including daily FT sister publications Ignites and FundFire, Crain Communications’s InvestmentNews and Crain’s Wealth, eFinancialCareers, and Arizent’s Financial Planning, Re:Invent|Wealth, On Wall Street, Bank Investment Consultant, and Money Management Executive. He earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of Colorado Boulder and his master’s degree from New York University. You can reach him at dbutcher@aom.org or via LinkedIn.
View all posts
Up next....
Disabled U.S. Veterans Are Finding Success as Entrepreneurs
By Daniel Butcher
A higher percentage of disabled U.S. military veterans become entrepreneurs compared to the general population due to their experiences both before and after getting injured, according to research by Academy of Management Scholar Dean Shepherd of the University of Notre Dame and his colleagues. Most of the disabled veterans returning from Afghanistan and Iraq who became entrepreneurs did so for two main reasons.
“The first reason is they felt that following orders were the things that almost got them killed, and what they wanted to do now was to run their own businesses where they were the boss and they weren’t following someone else’s orders,” Shepherd said. “There’s a mental aspect here that causes them to say, ‘I cannot work with someone who’s telling me what to do—I must have that kind of freedom and independence.’
“And in a related issue, they spent so much time in hospitals being told what to do by doctors and nurses that, again, they had this strong desire to become entrepreneurs because they could follow their own orders,” he said. “And the other thing was, because of their disabilities, they still had a lot of medical work that they needed to go on, but also sometimes they’ve had traumatic headaches and different symptoms, which meant that they couldn’t be regular about when they could attend and perform work.
“And under those circumstances, an entrepreneurial career gives them the freedom and flexibility about when they work, and they can work when they’re feeling good—they can work around their medical visits and things like that—and so that’s why entrepreneurship was a good career for those people.”
-
Daniel Butcher is a writer and the Managing Editor of AOM Today at the Academy of Management (AOM). Previously, he was a writer and the Finance Editor for Strategic Finance magazine and Management Accounting Quarterly, a scholarly journal, at the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA). Prior to that, he worked as a writer/editor at The Financial Times, including daily FT sister publications Ignites and FundFire, Crain Communications’s InvestmentNews and Crain’s Wealth, eFinancialCareers, and Arizent’s Financial Planning, Re:Invent|Wealth, On Wall Street, Bank Investment Consultant, and Money Management Executive. He earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of Colorado Boulder and his master’s degree from New York University. You can reach him at dbutcher@aom.org or via LinkedIn.
View all posts
Up next....
Entrepreneurs’ Taboo F-Word
By Daniel Butcher
There’s an F-word that used to be taboo among entrepreneurs and researchers who study them: failure.
Academy of Management Scholar Dean Shepherd of the University of Notre Dame said that when he was a doctoral student at Bond University in Australia teaching entrepreneurship to undergraduates and MBAs, the assigned texts on entrepreneurship rarely mentioned failure.
“On the one instance that one of them did, the textbook said, ‘Entrepreneurs don’t fail—businesses do, but entrepreneurs are just motivated to try again,’” Shepherd said. “Then one day, I got a phone call from my father, and the family business that he’d created and run as long as I’d been alive was failing badly, and I said, ‘You have to close it down,’ and that caused him and me great distress and anxiety.
“And so it felt funny going back into the classroom and trying to encourage everyone to become an entrepreneur and not be able to say, ‘There is a chance that it’ll fail,’ and also not give them the tools to say that, if you do fail, this is how you cope with it,” he said. “I waited for quite a few years before I wrote a paper about it, and I went into the psychology literature on bereavement and grief, because there, psychologists had tools to help people overcome grief.
“And I thought, ‘My dad’s reaction wasn’t as bad as losing a loved one, but in some ways, it’s still grief, where grief is the negative emotional reaction to the loss of something important.”
Some entrepreneurs even call the business they start—or help launch—their baby. Their ventures are entwined with their own identities.
“When people ask them, ‘What do you do?’ they say, ‘I’m an entrepreneur,’” Shepherd said. “Are you still an entrepreneur once your business fails?
“And so the psychology literature really gave us some good tools to say that maybe you do a bit of grief work; you talk it through with someone, and as you come up with a story for why it failed, then it makes it a little less painful,” he said. “The negative emotional reaction can diminish.”
-
Daniel Butcher is a writer and the Managing Editor of AOM Today at the Academy of Management (AOM). Previously, he was a writer and the Finance Editor for Strategic Finance magazine and Management Accounting Quarterly, a scholarly journal, at the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA). Prior to that, he worked as a writer/editor at The Financial Times, including daily FT sister publications Ignites and FundFire, Crain Communications’s InvestmentNews and Crain’s Wealth, eFinancialCareers, and Arizent’s Financial Planning, Re:Invent|Wealth, On Wall Street, Bank Investment Consultant, and Money Management Executive. He earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of Colorado Boulder and his master’s degree from New York University. You can reach him at dbutcher@aom.org or via LinkedIn.
View all posts
Up next....
Resilient Entrepreneurs Don’t Shy Away from Failure
By Daniel Butcher
Some of the most common mistakes that entrepreneurs make are focusing too much on past successes, pretending that hard work always results in success, and not learning from failure, according to Academy of Management Scholar Dean Shepherd of the University of Notre Dame.
Shepherd said that the shocking closure of his own father’s business was what inspired him to study the effects of entrepreneurial failures. He described loss orientation as communicating about the disappointing or traumatic event and restoration orientation as thinking about other things, including next steps.
“It was a family business in residential construction formed around 1965—I am not sure how large it was, but [it built] maybe 100 houses per year, and there were no full-time employees; my father used a lot of sub-contractors,” Shepherd said. “It started to experience some difficulties approximately one year before he closed it down.
“He was very much a restoration-orientation person, so he refused to talk about it, just like a typical Australian male, and he and I never discussed it,” he said. “He never engaged in loss orientation, [grieving the] loss of his business; he never oscillated between loss orientation and restoration orientation, and so he suffered for a long time as a result of that.
“I did research on scientists working in Germany, and when their projects failed, those that were able to oscillate between the two, loss orientation and restoration orientation, were the ones who were most successful at processing the setback or loss, bouncing back, and moving forward.”
Shepherd cited the work of Eric Ries, an entrepreneur and author of The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses, as emblematic of a strain of entrepreneurship that doesn’t shy away from failure but actually highlights the need for it to inform the organization’s plans, budgeting, and initiatives.
“A lot of entrepreneurs now, including the author of The Lean Startup, are trying to think about different projects like real options, so they’re probes into an uncertain environment, and if we have many of them, then we gain information, and as we get that information, we can kill some projects and redeploy the resources to the ones that show promise,” Shepherd said. “That’s a way to try and manage the uncertainty, and it really has failure as part of the process, because we must terminate those initiatives that don’t show promise in order for this strategy to work.
“If we have an anti-failure bias and we choose not to terminate them, or we take longer to make the decision to discontinue them, then the downside losses actually start to increase,” he said. “The best examples are my dad, who struggled to process failure, and the studies of the German scientists, some of whom were able to deal with failure in a productive way.”
-
Daniel Butcher is a writer and the Managing Editor of AOM Today at the Academy of Management (AOM). Previously, he was a writer and the Finance Editor for Strategic Finance magazine and Management Accounting Quarterly, a scholarly journal, at the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA). Prior to that, he worked as a writer/editor at The Financial Times, including daily FT sister publications Ignites and FundFire, Crain Communications’s InvestmentNews and Crain’s Wealth, eFinancialCareers, and Arizent’s Financial Planning, Re:Invent|Wealth, On Wall Street, Bank Investment Consultant, and Money Management Executive. He earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of Colorado Boulder and his master’s degree from New York University. You can reach him at dbutcher@aom.org or via LinkedIn.
View all posts
Up next....
How the GOP Won the 2024 U.S. Election
By Daniel Butcher
The Republican Party took advantage of the headwinds facing the Democratic Party during the cycle leading up to the 2024 U.S. election, including switching presidential candidates at a late stage and persistently high inflation, for which voters blame incumbents. Regardless of the potential effectiveness of their policy proposals, winning GOP candidates spoke to American voters’ concerns about jobs and the high cost of living as many Democrats instead painted a rosy picture of the economy.
Academy of Management Scholar Tim Pollock of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville said that, in contrast with Democrats, who focused on touting the accomplishments of the Biden-Harris Administration, more Republicans were willing to talk about voters’ concerns, anxieties, worries, grievances, and other negative feelings.
“Republican candidates were willing to say, ‘Yeah, we hear you. We are going to deal with this. We’re going to bring inflation down,’ even though inflation was already coming down, and even though many of the factors across the supply chain that might have been responsible for inflation are not actually under government control,” Pollock said. “Whatever the actual reasons are, they said, ‘We hear you, and we’re going to do something about it.’ And the Dems are citing data and saying, ‘No, things are great—unemployment is low, and the stock markets are hitting record highs.’
“But if I’m living paycheck to paycheck, I don’t care what the S&P 500 is doing,” he said. “I care about the prices of eggs, meat, and gas.”
In an ironic twist, many economists are skeptical that the Republicans’ policy proposals—sparking a global trade war with high tariffs and deporting illegal immigrants—will actually improve the economy, create jobs, or bring down inflation.
“Every economist I’ve seen, heard, or read says that they’ll do the opposite—those policies would increase inflation,” Pollock said. “Increasing tariffs would only increase costs, because they’re going to get passed on to U.S. consumers, and cracking down in immigration will cause labor shortages, etc.
“But on the campaign trail, they were saying, ‘I’m going to solve the problem,’ and people are thinking, ‘Great, because nobody else is listening to what my concerns are; nobody else says they want to fix this, and they hear me and understand what I care about,’” he said.
A sample of Pollock’s AOM research findings:
-
Daniel Butcher is a writer and the Managing Editor of AOM Today at the Academy of Management (AOM). Previously, he was a writer and the Finance Editor for Strategic Finance magazine and Management Accounting Quarterly, a scholarly journal, at the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA). Prior to that, he worked as a writer/editor at The Financial Times, including daily FT sister publications Ignites and FundFire, Crain Communications’s InvestmentNews and Crain’s Wealth, eFinancialCareers, and Arizent’s Financial Planning, Re:Invent|Wealth, On Wall Street, Bank Investment Consultant, and Money Management Executive. He earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of Colorado Boulder and his master’s degree from New York University. You can reach him at dbutcher@aom.org or via LinkedIn.
View all posts
Up next....
Effective Persuasion Calls for Appealing to Emotions Over Logic
By Daniel Butcher
In persuasion, whether it’s gaining support for a business plan, selling a product or service, or seeking forgiveness after a misstep, it’s crucial to pay attention to emotions and respond in kind. Academy of Management Scholar Tim Pollock of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville said it’s most effective to show people that you’ve actually listened to them and tried to understand how they’re feeling, rather than argue with them based on logic or data.
Pollock said many organization leaders face challenges responding to emotional problems or reactions with rational analyses and logical arguments.
“You can’t have an emotional impact by relying solely on logical reasoning, and it isn’t going to have the effect that you hope for,” Pollock said. “If we’re having a rational discussion, we’re being analytical and saying, ‘Okay, let’s look at the data. Let’s figure out what’s going on.’
“That can work really well in some cases, but when I’m reacting emotionally, trying to explain to me why I’m wrong or why things aren’t as bad as I feel they are, or providing me with data is not going to be an effective strategy,” he said. “Parents know this; think about if you’ve tried to have a rational argument with your kid when they’re in the middle of a meltdown—it doesn’t work very well, and so it’s the same principle.
“You have to read of the situation, understand where the emotions are coming from, and address the source of the emotions, not try to provide an analytical assessment—you can’t answer emotions with analysis.”
A related communications pitfall to avoid is making a crisis-management statement that deflects responsibility, comes off as insincere, or doesn’t contain an actual apology.
“In the face of misconduct, they’ll try to rationalize stuff, as opposed to just saying ‘You’re right; I’m sorry’ or to go back to Bill Clinton, ‘I feel your pain,’” Pollock said. “If you say that and apologize and mean it, it’s more effective at diffusing the situation.
“Do not give the performative non-apology or deflection of blame and accountability,” he said. “‘We’re very sorry, but it isn’t really our fault, but we’re still sorry this happened to you,’ as opposed to, ‘We’re sorry we did something,’ and a lot of their apologies sound more like ‘We’re sorry we got caught,’ as opposed to, ‘We’re sorry for what we did.’”
A sample of Pollock’s AOM research findings:
-
Daniel Butcher is a writer and the Managing Editor of AOM Today at the Academy of Management (AOM). Previously, he was a writer and the Finance Editor for Strategic Finance magazine and Management Accounting Quarterly, a scholarly journal, at the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA). Prior to that, he worked as a writer/editor at The Financial Times, including daily FT sister publications Ignites and FundFire, Crain Communications’s InvestmentNews and Crain’s Wealth, eFinancialCareers, and Arizent’s Financial Planning, Re:Invent|Wealth, On Wall Street, Bank Investment Consultant, and Money Management Executive. He earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of Colorado Boulder and his master’s degree from New York University. You can reach him at dbutcher@aom.org or via LinkedIn.
View all posts