The Business Coach

In Terms Of Impression-management, Team Obama Is Kicking Team McCain's Butt

Dr. Steven Berglas — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:19:27 +0000

Many leaders, and far more celebrities, employ “impression-management coaches” (or public relations [PR] agents) when they stick one-or-both feet in their mouths. Mel Gibson did following the anti-Semitic diatribe he launched at the LAPD officer who busted him for DUI. When Kobe Bryant was accused of raping the assistant manager of a hotel he visited, the L.A. Laker star used PR agents in an effort to refurbish his image and retain his lucrative “endorsement persona.”

While politicians are not immune to needing this sort of help, I cannot recall the use of impression-management coaches to deal with stigmata that come to light during an election campaign. Once Senator Thomas Eagleton’s history of depression was exposed, his vice presidential aspirations vanished quicker than you can say ECT. Ditto Gary Hart. After one fateful trip aboard the good ship Monkey Business, his run for the White House was torpedoed, as was his career in the Senate soon thereafter.

But times have changed since depression was a source of shame and discovering that a gray-haired politician was having an affair with a 20-something-year-old girl evoked cries of righteous indignation from New York Times editors. Today, the electorate is “cool” and relatively unflappable. Even so, there were obviously some members of Barack Obama’s campaign team that feared voters might not be cool enough to embrace the notion of a Black man with a Muslim middle name becoming president.

I believe this because Team Obama created and executed one of, if not the, most impressive impression-management strategies I am aware of. Actually, the impression-management coaches working for Obama did two things: (1) They niftily addressed (in large measure) the stigmata that Mr. Obama may have carried with him into the race for the White House, and, (2) did a masterful job of tar-and-feathering John McCain. Let’s look at each tactic briefly:

Pre-emptive strategic self-presentation. The psychologists preparing Barack Obama to become our next president had a problem well before the democratic primaries. They knew that some people would be uncomfortable if Senator Obama was associated or “linked” with the Black Muslim party. When your candidate’s middle name is Hussein and his skin is Black, in some quarters that spells trouble: Smoe people might make an association to “Malcolm X” and badda-bing, you’ve lost them. If my use of the term “badda-bing” evoked Sopranos, you know what I am driving at.

Every PR professional since the time of Edward Bernays, the father of public relations, will tell you that their science is designed to understand and manipulate the irrational thoughts of the masses. A little known fact about Bernays is that he was a nephew of Sigmund Freud, and he used his uncle’s theories (about irrational thought and “herd behavior”) when designing the fundamental strategies of his profession. The best PR agents know well that if you zero-in on the most basic, irrational aspects of the human thought processes, you can manipulate the vox populi into singing your tune.

Sometimes, a great PR campaign can achieve positive image-enhancement simply by repeated association: Get enough images of the macho Marlboro Man in front of the public and every Russell Crowe wannabe will carry a pack in the sleeve of their T-shirt. But this sort of PR campaign works best when trying to create or develop an image for something or someone that previously had none. What do you do to preempt negative associations drawn from yoking someone to a pre-existing image or association (Hussein means 9/11)?

One technique involves tapping into a fundamental belief that all (normal) humans hold in the recesses of consciousness: The world is a just and fair place. This so-called “just world hypothesis” or theory also functions as a “just world effect:” When confronted by evidence suggesting that the world is not just, most people act to restore justice as quickly as they can. However, since behavioral “injustice correction” is hard to effect, most people sustain their belief in a just world cognitively: Since a “bad” person would not be the most powerful elected official on earth, anyone who accuses our president of a crime must be wrong. That is how most people adjust their thinking to restore justice (“the president must be innocent") irrespective of what G. Gordon Liddy & “the plumbers” did or what was on Monica Lewinsky’s blue dress.

Truly masterful impression management coaches don’t wait for violations of just world theories to occur. Instead, they preempt them or inoculate people against even considering “unjust” notions about their clients. I am assuming this was precisely what the impression-management coaches on Team Obama did: Throughout the early stages of his run for the White House, Senator Obama would caution audiences (and later enjoy having news outlets repeat his statements) something to the effect of: “You know, they’ll say I don’t look like the presidents on our currency; they are going to tell you that I have a funny name; and you know, they’ll even say, ‘Have you noticed he’s Black?’”

Why, you wonder, did Obama repeat this cautionary tale several times? His goal was to shake the foundations of the electorates’ just world theory. People hearing Obama had to think; “How unjust; they cannot do that! Why that’s racist!” To restore justice, listeners had only one choice: To block themselves from focusing on, or attending to, surface aspects of Senator Obama that could unjustly evoke negative thoughts and associations.

The sheer brilliance of this strategy is that by using an inoculation of “injustice” to evoke “natural defenses” against violations of the just world theory, Team Obama prevented “infestations” of beliefs that might prejudice people against him or lead to the conclusion that he, himself, bore prejudices. While I am 100% convinced that Mr. Obama is not a man who harbors hateful prejudices, many people could have drawn that conclusion when it was revealed that the church Barack Obama attended for over 20 years honored Louis Farrakhan as a man that "truly epitomized greatness." However, as a result of how the non-toxic dose of injustice Senator Obama gave the nation worked (evoking just world theories on his behalf), this did not occur. In fact, it became hard-to-impossible to find Obama “guilty by association” in any manner.

The tar-and-feathering of John McCain. Team McCain, in contrast, did nothing to preemptively manage the stigmata clinging to their candidate like lice: President George H. W. Bush. Whether they did nothing because they overlooked the problem or because they felt impotent to address it, Senator McCain has been damaged every time Senator Obama attributes every ill in America to the policies of George Bush, and adds that McCain is nothing but Bush redux. If you watched the first Presidential debate you witnessed Senator Obama using this strategy as often as he could. McCain’s “defense” –I was not Miss Congeniality; I am a maverick” – was easy to construe as post hoc wriggling to shake-off highly effective condemnation-by-association.

So what can Team McCain do now? The tar has stuck, denial would seem disingenuous, and Bush’s record is difficult-to-impossible to defend right now. More to the point, were McCain to show contempt for a fellow party member it would be incredibly poor form. Actually, “dissing” one’s teammates is NEVER a good strategy. Al Gore learned this by not asking Bill Clinton to campaign for him. Many political experts claim that by ignoring the now “fully-rehabilitated” former president, Gore alienated many Democratic Party movers-and-shakers and, actually, cost himself the election race against Bush.

I believe McCain must go on the offensive, gently, to tap into the sense of justice that protected Senator Obama from having any of the mud flung at him from sticking. Actually, I say this from experience: Many of the executives I coached felt a need to “shake-off” reputations wrongly attributed to them. Fact-based protestations didn’t work, but when I helped my clients generate appropriate appeals for fairness, these tactics did. McCain can mount a campaign of this sort effectively, but only by attending to these provisos:

1. McCain must appeal for justice, not demand it. Saying, “I feel it unfair that I am yoked to the policies of an administration that I often opposed. Would it be just, Senator Obama, if the electorate came to believe that you as endorsed all of the policies and position statements that emanated from the Trinity United Church of Christ during the 20 years you prayed there? Is it just, simply because you often professed affection for Reverend Jeremiah Wright, to say that all of the people he honored –particularly Louis Farrakhan—you, too, hold in high esteem?”

2. McCain should avoid, “My record speaks for itself” when attempting to distance himself from Bush. Voters do not “read records.” Most voters have only the most superficial sense of a candidate’s policies. Sound bites, images, and “big picture” associations (“the party of the rich vs. the party of the people”) are what stick.

3. McCain must act in an empathic manner. Were McCain, in debate #2, to say (when addressing Obama), “Senator, I understand how you come by your belief that I would continue the policies of the Bush administration. I regret this, but I understand how easily a prejudice like that forms in otherwise just and caring people. Regrettably, in the Senate we are all guilty of categorizing people on the basis of surface attributes –He’s a Democrat; she’s a Liberal; etc.— and, having done so, never getting to know that person for who they are. Please stop stereotyping me and I promise to never stereotype you.”

Are these “appeals for justice” too little, too late? Who knows? I fear, particularly with regard to strategy #3 –trying to turn the tables on a man who so adroitly preempted being stereotyped— that these strategies may be seen for what they are. But hey, I don’t have a crystal ball. What do you think?

McCain's Mistake, My Mistake, and Harry Levinson's Genius.

Dr. Steven Berglas — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:09:01 +0000

Today, 9/24/08, I think John S. McCain made a strategic mistake. I know I did. What’s Harry Levinson, the psychoanalyst most responsible for linking psychology with business, got to do with it? Nothing directly, but when I was a psychotherapist at Harvard Medical School’s McLean Hospital, and had my first inkling of becoming a business coach, a CEO I knew gave me a book of Levinson’s readings on “executive psychology” entitled, “Ready, Fire, Aim.” Well, I’ve been thinking about that title all day, and am convinced that McCain and I were both guilty of engaging in an ill-considered reaction pattern of that sort.

McCain erred, I believe, by suspending his campaign today in order to fly to Washington, D.C. and serve as a “senior statesman” in Congress. His goal? To help Treasury Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke generate comprimise legislation designed to shore-up our heavily threatened economic system. Don’t get me wrong; I applaud McCain’s courage, his selflessness, integrity and, in the main, his leadership acumen. In fact, what he did today is paradigmatic of what is best in a leader (acting boldly) as I noted in my last blog. But what I omitted from that blog is that there are exceptions to every rule, and today McCain violated one of them big time.

My error –and I thank two individuals who made it salient to me with their comments on my blog, “abipartisanopinion” and Jennifer— was that I REACTED in haste and misplaced “righteous indignation, and did not survey the entire situation I was in before doing a “Ready, Fire, Aim.” For you first-time readers, this morning I found one comment about my last blog inappropriate and offensive. I (wrongly) took offense because a reader, as I saw it, thwarted me from realizing the goal behind my blog: Spirited, INTELLECTUAL DEBATE. Unfortunately –and I am ashamed to admit it— by “biting” at the taunts of the person who, I felt, misrepresented my work, I impeded my goals and, worse yet, caused distress to “neutral” readers.

I apologize to anyone reading this (and my last) blog who felt they might be a regular reader and is now (as Jennifer seems to have been) questioning that choice. I acted inappropriately.

So why do I feel Senator McCain did what I did? He didn’t get into a pissing contest. I mean, it could even be said that McCain was marching in lockstep to what I said all good leaders should do –act boldly. Sure, but everything (even love and oxygen) to excess is damaging, and McCain was excessively bold today. Here’s why:

Courage 101; Look Before You Leap. I never met a man with more political skills than Brad Hildebrandt, founder & CEO of the world’s largest legal consulting firm. A fisherman (as I am), Brad used countless aphorisms and benevolent “fish stories” to help grease the skids when negotiations were getting bogged-down or contentious. My favorite –one he used to break deadlocks or inertia within the ranks of his consultancy— was, “Look; I never mind going out on a limb; I just want to make sure that someone is on the tree with me” (or words to that effect).

McCain failed to look back at the tree before going WAY OUT on a limb. To McCain’s credit, this is who he has been forever: From passing-up an opportunity to leave a prison camp in favor of remaining with his men, to declaring, “I’d rather lose a presidential election than lose a war” (or words to that effect). In these instances, McCain went out on a limb, but there were folks in the trees to catch him (so to speak). Today, Senator Obama outplayed him by continuing his campaign. Worse yet, McCain should have known that the most vocal and influential media outlets are not only NOT in the tree waiting to catch him, they have proven their desire to shake him loose.

In today’s political environment –where the New York Times, Washington Post, and MSNBC are truly gunning for McCain’s hide—making a move (like suspending a presidential campaign) that can be “spun” into a negative is foolhardy, irrespective of its intent.

Ditto my pissing contest today on my blog. I am passionate about my work, very selective with whom I will work (I was ABSOLUTELY JOKING, IF YOU READ MY WORDS, ABOUT OFFERING COACHING SERVICES TO OBAMA), and committed to advancing psychology as a science. That said, I’m thin-skinned and need to refrain from self-destructive responses. [Were I narcissistic, however, as accused, the “slights” would have rolled off me like water off a duck’s back. Narcissists only relate to what other “elite” individuals say.]

What Harry Levinson Would Have Advised. I only met Harry Levinson twice when my office and his were both in Belmont, MA, but each meeting is as fresh in my mind as if it occurred yesterday (they were decades ago). I cannot swear to it, but if I could get coached by Dr. Levinson –and pass the advice on to the McCain campaign—I am certain it would be akin to what my father used to say (quoting Theodore Roosevelt): “Walk softly and carry a big stick.” In this instance, that phrase means, “Take charge of a situation, but don’t discharge unnecessarily (either a defiant employee, or an ‘attack bomb’).”

In a 1964 article for Think, IBM’s in-house magazine, Levinson said:

Unless the leader in any situation takes charge, and makes it clear that he is in charge, his subordinates are likely to challenge him and be in conflict with each other.

McCain did not take charge today because he could not. He does not control Mr. Obama, Congress, Secretary Paulson, Mr. Bernake or political pundits. For this reason alone, unilateral action was, in my opinion, imprudent.

I certainly didn’t take charge today for precisely the same reason: I cannot (nor should I have the right to) control what comments my blog generates. Dissent is enlivening, enlightening, and endemic to a blog; believe me, I welcome it. I reacted poorly to being either misunderstood or misrepresented. But that is not the point. It is not my place to do more than present informed opinion for the “global” (in this case, PT readers’) good. As Levinson, in his brilliance realized, my inability to take charge –and my failed effort to do so—precipitated “in-fighting” among readers, not the exchange of ideas about business coaching. I soiled my nest and, for the final time, I am sorry.

Where Have You Gone "Give 'em Hell" Harry S. Truman?

Dr. Steven Berglas — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:30:11 +0000

Forgive me; this post is nothing if not provocative. But I cannot help myself. Just yesterday I avoided referencing the #1 spots on each ticket for president when introducing my "New & Improved" blog, and this evening a quote attributed to Barack Obama is forcing me to take portable-keyboard-in-hand again. I really wanted to give this avocation a rest, but the junior senator from Illinois forced me back in (sort of). Here’s what happened:

Scanning Drudge I read a comment that Abdon M. Pallasch, a staff reporter of the Chicago Sun-Times, claims Mr. Obama uttered at a rally on his behalf in Wisconsin. Although Mr. Pallasch didn’t say so, the comment is a clear roadmap of what Mr. Obama’s leadership style would be were he to become the leader of the Free World. Mr. Obama stated:

“When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it.”

Please Mr. Truman; please stop spinning in your grave! I mean, Lord-a-mighty… aren’t American history courses offered at Columbia University? Everyone knows that whoever occupies the Oval Office should adhere to the notion, “The Buck Stops Here.” Or do they?

Believe me, every C-level coaching client of mine who did not know that and conveyed the sentiment that Mr. Obama did –essentially, “I intend to have the most participative democracy on earth since Plato was lecturing about The Republic— would be warned of dangerous times ahead.

Now before you accuse me of putting words into Mr. Obama’s mouth, he did not claim, “Why I’ll just put stuff out on the internet and let all 200+ million of you with access to computers let me know what you think…” However, despite the fact that Obama was not that far out to lunch, I do wonder: If he was not implying that he welcomed input from the entire electorate on the bills before him, what other possible implication can you draw from his statement, “… you will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it.”

Did Senator Obama mean:

1. “Look at the bill and, as they say in poker, ‘Read ‘em and weep’”?
2. “Go online, react, then go to hell”?
3. Or; “Go online, react, then notify your Senator or Congressperson regarding your feelings”?

I’m going with #3 and I’ll tell you why, were I coaching the democratic candidate for president, I would do everything I could to have him adopt a far more proactive (vs. passive-to-reactive), leadership style:

The Buck Truly Does Stop On A CEO’s Desk: There are countless ways to support this sentiment, but let me choose one –the notion of paralysis-by-analysis. Men and women are entrusted with leadership roles primarily because they inspire confidence in others. We all defer an astounding amount to leaders, nowhere more obviously than vis-a-vis elected government officials. I mean, think about it: One day you are president of a union and a B-picture actor, the next, the most powerful man on earth (Ronald Reagan). Please do not insult my intelligence and tell me that when Reagan became the 40th. President there weren’t HUNDREDS of Professors of government or law (let alone politics) at our universities who were smarter and better negotiators than Ronny. But when, during a primary debate, Dutch Reagan barked, “Mr. Speaker; I paid for that microphone…” the country went wild.

RWR had charisma, presence, “stuff,” and above all, he convenyed the sense that he was in charge. This, in turn, inspired confidence. Dutch would never have said, “Hmmm; let me see how the people feel and THEN I’ll decide how to act,” even in jest.

No, not Reagan. When the air-traffic-controllers threatened a strike, Reagan fired-them-cold.

Now I hear your protest: A “bill from congress isn’t the same as a crisis.” I concur. But research demonstrates that leader’s tend to exhibit consistent behavioral styles across situations, and the one who hesitates is not only “lost,” he’s doing a bad job.

“If You Try To Be Too Well-Rounded, You loose Your Point.” I first heard this old saw from the managing partner of a law firm when I was coaching one of his more successful (and narcissistic) partners. He used it as a warning to a group of incredibly successful attorneys at the firm who were threatening to split-off and form their own boutique. Actually, a better word for what my client did with that saying was to issue a threat: “Our firm can tolerate dissenting opinion and debate for only so long. That time has past; we must now function like a business since we sell a service, not give it away." Guess what? The dissident lawyers never protested again.

Ambiguity Kills. Finally, what may be my biggest objection Senator Obama’s remark –and the main reason why his statement strikes me as indicative of poor leadership skill— is that it creates ambiguity. One thing most great leaders do is act swiftly and decisively. Roberto Goizueta was the former Chairman & CEO of Coca-Cola who, in addition to creating more shareholder value in his tenure than any CEO before or since, ALSO introduced “New Coke” (the Edsel of the soft drink industry). What did Mr. Goizueta do when people threw cans of the New Coke at his Atlanta offices in protest over its taste (and the fact that THEIR beverage was gone? He pulled “New Coke” off the market! That’s what leaders do; they act.

Am I really saying that Barack Obama is not fit to be President? C’mon.

What I’m saying is that should Mr. Obama emerge victorious on 11/5/08, he should give me a call. I’ll help him with the hard part of being a leader since his participating in the irrelevant stuff ended. Then again, I did say this post was provocative...

The Business Coach: My "New & Improved" Blog

Dr. Steven Berglas — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:22:46 +0000

Welcome to my “New & Improved” blog, The Business Coach: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About What Coaches Do, and Cannot Do For You, but Didn’t Know You Could Ask. To answer the obvious question, “Why switch from ‘Success Without Distress’ to this subject?” it’ easy: I think this will be of greater interest to Psychology Today’s readers.

As Hara Marano, Editor-at-Large at PT (and my official great friend & godmother) remarked regarding my request to switch foci; “You’ll address some of the issues you planned to raise in your old blog anyway, won’t you?” Of course, I said. I have studied success, successful people, and self-sabotaging successes for (I hate to admit it) over 30 years. With that degree of immersion in a subject it’s hard not to discuss it 24/7. (Or, as they say, “when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.”)

For the moment, however, I want introduce briefly what I do to pay the mortgage, and give you a flavor of blogs to come. My mortgage is covered by the fees I receive from “executive coaching,” a sub-section of what I will blog about as The Business Coach. Within my practice I’m asked to do three things: (a) help salvage self-destructive, extraordinarily talented (or once-successful) executives; (b) help inoculate fast-track A Players (young superstars) against the stresses born of success that might derail them, and, (c) select and help integrate new C-level hires into businesses (a subject I addressed briefly in my blog, “Discerning the content of a candidate’s character…”).

In subsequent posts I would like to explain the intricacies of these issues and help readers who use (or want to use) coaches, set their expectation levels for what coaching can and cannot do, as well as help you determine when psychotherapy –in contrast to coaching—is your best bet.

Allow me a brief example of what I mean:
A number of businesses ask me if one of their employees has “leadership potential,” the most over-used and misunderstood concept in management today. To explain my problems with how “leadership potential” is abused would take an entire ISSUE of PT, not a blog. Suffice it to say, leadership is a unique talent (or skill set) that most people confuse with other talents (or skill sets).

In a nutshell –using the example of a basketball team— rarely is the best athlete on the team the best leaders. It does occur (e.g. Tim Duncan of the San Antonio Spurs), but so does the opposite circumstance: A vast number of men who have played in the NBA (most notably, Bob McAdo), have incredible skills (at scoring, passing, etc.) but are not only horrific leaders, they are not even team players.

On the other hand, the NBA is an ideal showcase for people who may not necessarily have the best raw athletic talents (e.g. they are slow), but are, nevertheless incredible team players AND leaders. Both Steve Nash is a “short” (by NBA standards) two-time MVP, yet thought to be not nearly as skilled as (respectively) Jason Kidd. Maybe so, but Nash makes everyone around him play ABOVE their potential, he’s unselfish in every realm of his life, and is a superb leader.

When I assess “leadership potential,” I never give high grades to someone who has a constant string of A+ reviews (and report cards) to his or her credit. I look for over-achievers; the guy or gal with average intelligence, high EQ, and a stint as head cheerleader or team mascot to their credit. Why the rah-rah traits? Because the person who cheers for his home team, school, or university, puts an entity greater than himself first, and will not be narcissistic. Leaders must be dedicated to their business in rah-rah ways to do the following:

• Hire to their weakness. Every great leader does so, realizing that their job isn’t a solo performance with manifestations of competence across-the-board, but, rather, finding the best talent to get the job done.
• Give credit where credit is due…and then some. Under duress, everyone plays follow-the-leader. In bull markets, if leaders do not have rah-rah spirit, give credit to direct reports for their success (rather than hog it), and serve as head cheerleader (or, as a client of mine who was CEO of a $215 million company said, “I’m chief encouragement officer), their workforce will walk out the door to go where they will be appreciated.
• Be respectful. This, folks, is the big one. Good leaders NEVER put people down gratuitously; they always bolster the “little guy’s ego” because they are 100% secure within their skin. Believe it or not, A+ students are less apt to act this way than B students. Why? The B student has tasted a few C’s or D’s, knows how it feels to hurt, and as a result has gained empathy, whereas the A+ student has never had occasion to do so.

The sole exception to this rule is the man (it’s never a woman) suffering what I call “LES” –LITTLE EGO SYNDROME (or Little Man Syndrome, a.k.a., a Napoleonic Complex). These pathetic guys were poor students in school but always felt they deserved A’s, resented those that got A’s, and spent their lives compensating for being small, unpopular, a poor athlete, and an inadequate man. Regardless of how successful they are in their later years, men who suffer LES, as adolescents are never chosen by me to be a leader. Why would I do such a thing, anyway? A guy with LES is, for example, an author (or blogger) who, despite never holding political office, takes cheap, unwarranted, and vile potshots at, for example, Sarah Palin, without actually knowing a thing about her.

While we’re at it, I wrote a column defending Sarah Palin’s psychological fitness for office. Several liberals objected to my post, much to my surprise since I never said that Sarah Palin would be a good Vice President. But now I will. Judging the #2 spot on both tickets –and only the #2 spot—if you asked me who, following a horrific tragedy, would be better suited to fill the #1 spot in Washington, D.C., I would say Palin, hands down, for the following reasons:

1. Palin appears happy and as if she loves life. Exuding this sort of attitude suggests to me that a person can give praise to others, not “hog” success. It also suggests that if she could hire to her weakness (which is easy for someone who is psychologically secure). On the other hand, Joe Biden has never spoken in public without putting someone down.

[He recently, for reasons the Lord only knows, went up to a reporter, jabbed him in the chest, and said, “Work on those pecs (pectoral muscles).”] That, PT readers, is not being a good “party man,” it is contemptuous behavior, purely and simply. In my role as a business coach, that attitude would rule Biden out of contention for a leadership role.
2. Palin is “rah-rah”. Depending upon what poll you believe, Sarah Palin’s approval rating in Alaska ranges between 60% and 84%. Good Lord; only Joltin’ Joe DiMaggio had those numbers. You get astronomical approval ratings by serving people, not pursuing self-interests. As many a Republican pollster observed, Palin got more votes running for mayor of her home town than Biden got in the last two Democratic primaries.

This, then, is how I assess “leadership potential,” and that’s one subject, dear PT reader, I will blog about.

Thanks for making the transition with me!

The Route To The Oval Office: Sizzle & Style...not Substance.

Dr. Steven Berglas — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 20:09:33 +0000

This seventh –and final— post as an alleged authority on the subject of “Success Without Distress,” comes close on the heels of my sixth post for a simple reason. The response to my last post convinced me that I erred in using the case of Sarah Palin to illustrate how women who have “love & work” in their lives are, in many ways, psychologically stronger than both women with “love” and no vocational stimulation, and men in general. My error was in failing to anticipate that I would catch partisan flack as a consequence. I was either horrendously naïve or asleep-at-the-wheel. In either case, I learned a lesson that spurred me to write this farewell post which addresses a political issue with both eyes open: Why, in contrast to CEOs and other (e.g. military) leaders, most American political leaders lack authentic strength of character.

Is this a broad generalization? Categorically. Nevertheless, the route to political success in our nation is fraught with potholes that punish some phenomenally gifted people and reward others who are far less worthy of the status they gain. For my entire career I have studied how success that is not hard earned, contingent upon the competent execution of difficult behaviors, and achieved in a manner that few can duplicate, causes myriad psychological problems. In contrast, contingent success based on merit alone –I offer Peter Drucker as Exhibit A— generates a well-tolerated noblesse oblige that we should demand, but do not get, in our political leaders. Leaders of this nation should have a surfeit of the feeling that they are obligated to help the less fortunate and serve the society as a whole. Instead, our political leaders are self- or special-interest-group obsessed.

St. Luke made a similar observation – “To whom much is given, much will be expected” – that I have taken exception to in many of my writings. A minor, but crucial aspect, of St. Luke’s directive accounts for the overwhelming failure of U.S. politicians to help others, and society, in the manner that Drucker did in his lifetime. You see, success that is “given” –as, for example, in the manner of children who inherit wealth— does nothing good for a person’s self-image. In fact (witness the suffering that the children and grandchildren of Joseph Patrick "Joe" Kennedy, Sr. have endured), being born with a “silver spoon” in one’s mouth often wreaks havoc in a person’s life.

The key to occupying a vaunted political status and doing good vs. doing ill, lies in the process of getting there. Regrettably, for most American politicians, getting to the top is usually a function of “image manipulation” rather than achieving success the old-fashioned way –by earning it.

Were I a preacher, this is the point when I would segue to Scriptures and refer to the section of Proverbs that warns against using image manipulation to achieve success:

People are more impressed with our sincerity if we act on our beliefs than if we merely talk about them.

Since I am not a man of the cloth, let me make my point using the lingua franca of our times: “By your deeds shall ye be known.” The corollary to this point is, “If you lack authentic deeds to back-up your B.S., watch out.”

No campaign for the U.S. Presidency that I can recall demonstrates our national penchant for endorsing “style-over-substance” more blatantly than the current one. While I can remember my father lamenting –in words I won’t repeat—that Adlai Stevenson was “too smart” for the electorate who needed a hero (cf. Freud’s Moses and Monotheism), believing that this same issue was what derailed Rhodes Scholar (and N.Y. Knick star), Senator Bill Bradley, in his bid for the White House, and being aghast that (according to many pundits) Michael Dukakis lost an election because a photograph of him (in a tank wearing a helmet that made him look like Rocky The Flying Squirrel) created the impression that Bush-the-elder was the “stronger leader.” In these instances, negative images derailed potential leaders with both ability and good character. Today, what we are seeing are faux heroes being embraced by the electorate solely on the basis of image.

In America, most of people attain political office owing to style over substance for one simple reason: All it takes for someone to rise like cream in the esteem of the nation is to become his or her party’s nominee for a prestigious elective office. The transformative power of this one outcome is so powerful, it can (hypothetically speaking), convert a man known to be a pathological liar, someone whose only talent is seducing people (for votes and/or sex), into a man perceived as brilliant and wise. Should a person win an election, the power of this transformative effect is sextupled. Anyone who walks to a podium while “Hail to The Chief” is being played is judged heroic irrespective of what he or she did –or did not do— en route to winning office.

Psychological research demonstrated that the cause of this transformation (from zero to hero) is a function of what is known as the “halo effect:” The tendency for positive trait ratings of individuals in a favorable role to show a higher inter-correlation than would be shown by objective measurement. In everyday terms, a halo effect explains why grandmothers whose grandchildren graduate college Phi Beta Kappa but still live at home, unemployed, and totally dependent upon their parents, ask them: “If you’re so smart, how come you’re not rich?” Or, to steal a line from Fiddler on the Roof (used by Tevye to rationalize asking the Lord to make him a rich man); “When you’re rich they think you really know.”

Is the halo effect operative in the current race for the White House? Let’s look at some data:

●   Sarah Palin, who two weeks ago had no national reputation, today has higher favorability ratings (according to many polls), than Barak Obama OR John McCain. Why? One speech. ONE SPEECH! Forgive me, but I am absolutely certain that Morgan Freeman or Dennis Haysbert (who stars in Allstate Insurance commercials and, as Jonas Blane, in the TV show The Unit) could deliver a better presentation than Sarah Palin did.

●   John McCain endured a hellish imprisonment in Viet Nam that few men could. He also manifested strength of character that is astounding by any standard when he refused an early release from captivity to remain with, and supportive of, his fellow prisoners of war. But do these attributes translate into the leadership acumen needed to help our nation deal with an impending economic disaster coupled with the fact that we live in a time when international relations are threatening to destroy us? Can “grit and guts” solve these problems? I don’t know, but if it were up to me, given the exigencies we face today, I would draft Paul Krugman, a Professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University (who is also an Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times) into public service and demand that he lead us. Dr. Krugman earned his B.A. from Yale and his Ph.D. from MIT, and countless awards and commendations for his contributions to economic knowledge.

●   Barak Obama, a man with academic credentials arguably as impressive as Krugman’s, earned them while pursuing a degree in law. Regrettably, I am absolutely certain that not 10% of his supporters back him because of his brains. In my view –an opinion advanced by many others as well— Obama’s “hero status” is born of his skill at public speaking and charisma, attributes I again claim, are held by Morgan Freeman and Dennis Haysbert in equal (or greater) supply. Who concurs with my claim that Obama is valued for sizzle not steak? The avowed liberal Paul Krugman who said as much in a very recent New York Times Op-Ed: “…the very qualities that inspire many fervent Obama supporters [are] the candidate’s high-flown eloquence [and] his coolness factor.”

The reason I am so distressed by the fact that Americans choose political leaders owing to halo effects is because the vast majority of successes “obtained” in this manner precipitate negative psychological outcomes. When you rise to the top of a heap primarily as a result of image rather than substance, you feel it in your bones and long to eradicate the sense of being a “pretender to the throne.” That longing will, on rare occasions, motivate authentically heroic deeds (e.g. the healthy noblesse oblige of John F. Kennedy who knew that he owed his success to his father’s money). But JFK is the exception. Most “pretenders” act-out: They wield their questionably obtained power like a cudgel. This is the reason why most legislation affecting our economic viability is strewn with “pork barrel” initiatives, and overt corruption is the norm in Washington, D. C.

Am I wrong to lament the fact that our presidents are elected on the basis of strategies that Madison Avenue uses to sell deodorants, razors, and automobiles?

Is it naive of me to hope for changes that will give us politicians who attract voters on the basis of authentic WORTH vs. WOW created by an image consultant? [Our brains respond to, and process, images long before written or spoken messages because we are “hard wired” to recognize shapes first, then colors, and only much later, verbal content.]

Should I abandon the dream that voters in our nation will one-day look beyond self- or special- interests in choosing the occupant of the highest office in the land, and not act like the jury that acquitted OJ of murder because, they felt, “He’s one of us”?

I await your thoughts.

The Truth About Sarah Palin

Dr. Steven Berglas — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 22:42:40 +0000

This post is not an instance of jumping on a bandwagon or beating a nearly dead horse. I am doing what I’ve always wanted to do since gaining a modicum of stature from my writings: Trying to disabuse the public of misconceptions concerning how, psychologically speaking, people tick. I engage in this pursuit for a primarily for selfish reason: When half-truths and lies make their way into the mass media and, once there, metastasize like runaway cancers, my blood boils.

My current idée fixe is the trashing of Sarah Palin by pro-Democratic media outlets. I understand political agendas, how much The New York Times and NBC loathe the current president and anyone seen as continuing his policies, but, as they say, enough is too much. I cannot stomach the active distorting of the truth, and this vile behavior is casting Sarah Palin in an underserved negative light. In an attempt to help counteract this wrong, I will attempt to set the record straight about Ms. Palin’s inability to simultaneously be a wife, mother, and Vice President.

The one thing not in dispute about Alaska’s Republican governor is that she is an extremely successful woman. Since I have studied and worked with both successful men and women since 1981 –as a research scientist, psychotherapist, and executive coach— I feel more qualified to assess if, and how well, Ms. Palin will be able to cope with off-the-job exigencies that may affect her should she become vice president, than “political pundits” currently attacking her. Actually, I could address this issue from a number of angles, but let me hit it head-on by debunking the major myth about Ms. Palin –and other women— running for political office:

Sarah Palin’s history of career success and her potential to be catapulted into an extraordinarily taxing job, do not make her more vulnerable to suffering psychological distress or burnout than stay-at-home moms. On the contrary, career success inoculates women against these disorders.

Here’s why:

• Demographic studies of mental health conducted over the past 20 years reliably find that roughly 25% of women will experience diagnosable depression at some time in their lives, compared with approximately 10% percent of men. Explanations for this disproportionately high rate of depression among women can be found in both medical (e.g. post-partum reactions, menopause, etc.) and social-psychological models of gender differences. But since the “concerns” about Ms. Palin stem from a psychosocial issue (i.e. job responsibility) I will restrict my analysis to that.

The rap against women from a psychosocial perspective is that they are more likely to suffer from depression (and, in related ways, stress) because of their roles in society. This concern has become omnipresent since women have assumed their rightful position in the workplace. As a result, numerous studies have examined the hypothesis that employed, married women will, by dint of increased demands upon them (bread winner + parent + spouse + homemaker), be less mentally healthy than those who do not have careers out of the house.

As is so often the case when it comes to informally derived conceptions about human behavior, these studies give lie to commonsense reasoning: Empirical research shows a positive association between occupancy of several social roles and mental health. Specifically, women who are simultaneously a wife, mother, and professional, have reliably been found to have higher levels of self-esteem and, in turn, presumed better able to cope with life stressors, than women without professions.

• Since this blog is about “Success Without Distress,” permit me to tell you why Sarah Palin would, strictly from the vantage point of “capacity to cope with on-the-job-pressure,” be a better choice than Joe Biden for vice president: Attaining specialized professional success invariably affords a person both high status and material compensation, but often comes with the onus of low levels of challenge or vocational diversity. Consequently, the professional “specialist” can actually suffer a loss of potential sources of self-esteem augmentation relative to the generalist. Women with familial AND professional “demands,” on the other hand, are in a position to enjoy more experiences that will enhance their self-esteem than stay-at-home-women, because the more role responsibilities one has, the more social stimulation and opportunities for psychological rewards they will are exposed to on a day-to-day basis.

For those who say, “Whoa…what if a woman’s role as mother and/or spouse exposes her to stress? What if, for example, she must endure intense anxiety caused when a teenage daughter becomes pregnant prior to marriage? Wouldn’t mothers with jobs then cope less-well than men?” The answer is a resounding “NO.”

A number of scholars have examined this very issue and found that the key to understanding why problems stemming from intimate relationships are less likely to derail professional women than professional men –who should, by all rights, be upset if, for example, their daughters suffer “unwanted” outcomes— is rooted in a woman’s orientation toward intimate interpersonal relationships. The most prominent voice in this area of study, Dr. Jean Baker Miller, maintains:

[A] central feature [of women's development] is that women stay with, build on, and develop in a context of connections with others. Indeed, women's sense of self becomes very much organized around being able to make and then to maintain affiliations and relationships… for many women, the threat of disruption of connections is perceived not as just a loss of a relationship but as something closer to a total loss of self.

Research spawned by Dr. Miller’s seminal work demonstrates that while a man would likely cope with negative feelings derived from a daughter’s predicament in ways designed to externalize emotional pain (e.g. by acting-out or abusing drugs), women are socialized to not externalize emotional pain. Similarly, since women develop a far more nurturing nature than men as a result of their earliest socialization experiences, adult women fear separateness and broken ties with loved ones. Consequently, they make greater efforts to either sustain relationships or resurrect ones that appear threatened.

In the short-term, this orientation is likely to be a source of stress for women, particularly if they attribute “relational failures” to their powerlessness or helplessness. Ultimately, however, a woman’s "I should make this relationship work" attitude is far more likely to be rewarding than disruptive. It would take a dozen blog postings to list all of the reasons why this is so, but consider these salient ones:

Women garner kudos merely for endeavoring to nurture others, irrespective of whether it succeeds or fails.

If their nurturing efforts succeed, women enjoy significant self-esteem enhancement.

If attempts to nurture a family member (for example) prove difficult, there is a high likelihood that without asking for help women will receive social support and assistance for others. This outcome –irrespective of whether-or-not their nurturing reverses a negative situation- is self-esteem enhancing (“look at how many people care about what I’m doing…”).

Do these facts –as opposed to the garbage being strewn about by journalists who support Barak Obama’s candidacy— prove that John McCain was wise to have chosen Sarah Palin to be his running mate? Hardly. I actually believe that Meg Whitman, former the president and chief executive officer of eBay, Inc., would have been a bolder and more unassailable choice. Ms. Whitman –a brilliant woman with Princeton and Harvard degrees, who married a neurosurgeon and has two college-age children— would have buttressed McCain’s far more than Palin. The fact that McCain is seen as being weak on economic issues would have been offset by Whitman’s success: She is an ex-Bain & Co. consultant (like Mitt Romney), who shepherded eBay to a position where it is now one of the internet’s most surprising success stories. Granted, Whitman became a billionaire thanks to her eBay stock and the Republicans are loathe to have another “rich person” atop their ticket, but that stigma could have been argued-away by raising the issue of how many Democratic standard-bearers such as Kennedy, Kerry, and even Clinton, are worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Since no one in the McCain camp took the calls I made offering my advice, Palin is their choice. My fervent hope, now that the die is cast, is that she prevails or fails on the basis of authentic issues, not the manure being thrown at her by writers and talking heads with political axes to grind.

References:

Greenglass, E. R. (1995). "Gender, Work Stress, and Coping: Theoretical Implications," Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10 (6): 121-134.
Miller, J. B. (1976). Toward a new psychology of women. Boston: Beacon Press, p. 83.
Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I. & Alloy, L. B. (1989). Hopelessness depression: A theory-based subtype of depression. Psychological Review, 96, 358-372.

Discerning the content of a candidate’s character: The use of IF… vs. WHEN… I become President.

Dr. Steven Berglas — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 22:58:55 +0000

Theodore Roosevelt, one of the country’s most admired former presidents, often quoted the African proverb, Talk softly and carry a big stick. My father, a man who adored “TR” and called me his Teddy Bear (after the president), taught me the value of Roosevelt’s catch-phrase as well as the related notion, “Talk is cheap.”

Today I use the insights gleaned from my dad when asked, by corporations or venture capital firms, to evaluate the psychological strength of candidates being considered for C-level jobs. In my capacity as a “screener” I attempt to determine if candidates talk-up their game or if they are humble-but-assertive. It isn’t easy. Although “it ain’t bragging if you can do it,” you cannot forget that actions speak louder than words. Therefore, I rely on my dad’s “test” to weed-out blowhards from those who will put points on the board, valuing quiet strength with nascent “strike power” over slick sales pitches.

I never thought of using what my father taught me in a presidential election, but while watching both candidates in a made-for-TV question-and-answer session this past Saturday (08/16/08), I realized how valuable it was. You see, one candidate kept answering questions with, “When I am President of the United States” –a remark that would have failed my dad’s litmus test for authentic strength— while the other guy kept saying, “If I am elected President,” language that would have “said” to my father, “this guy’s the one.”

I can virtually hear some of you groaning, “C’mon Berglas; you wouldn’t really base your vote for the next president on stylistic self-presentational nuances would you? Don’t you know that these guys have speech coaches who probably directed what they said?” Yes, and no. Yes, I place enormous value on “little things” candidates say. Thus, I put great stock in the meaning of a candidate’s “pre-emptive close” (WHEN I am President) vs. a show of authentic humility (IF I am elected…). And no, I do not believe that speech coaches can put words into the mouths of U.S. Senators if these elected officals find them unpalatable.

Forgive me, but it takes incredible audacity of ego for anyone running for president to proclaim, “WHEN I am your President” before the Electoral College meets. Forget about Bush vs. Gore and what happened in Florida; consider Hilary Clinton who prefaced every remark she made with “When I am President…” Where is she now? Someone with inner strength accepts the infinite number of “unknowables” that go into electing a president. It takes a strong ego to face that sort of ambiguity with the attitude, “I’ll do my best…I hope that it is enough.” On the other hand, I do not trust people who attempt to manage their anxiety with denial.

I doubt that this argument will convince those of you who think I’m nitpicking to come over to my point of view. What may get you to see it my way is for me to take you inside the work I do vetting C-level executives. To that end, what follows are brief descriptions of two (2) “sub-tests” I use (in conjunction with my dad’s “TR’s Motto Test”) that may help explain why I trust the “IF vs. WHEN” discrimination to tell me who is the stronger candidate for president in the upcoming election.

● The “Two-Men-Exiting-the-Dojo” Test. If you ever find yourself standing outside a school of martial arts (dojo) with a hankering for a fight, and you see two possible sparring partners exiting the school, here is the money-back-guaranteed method for determining which guy has the 3rd. degree black-belt (i.e. the sensei [teacher] who runs the dojo), and which guy has taken less than a dozen lessons at the school: The guy to pick a fight with (i.e. NOT the sensei) will likely be wearing a Ninja outfit or a jacket with the school’s logo or some Asian symbols on it. That’s the guy with 12 lessons under his white-belt who is saying to the world, “WHEN I have a black-belt…” or “I will have a black-belt some day so be careful!” The sensei doesn’t need the external accoutrement of strength & power because he has an authentic “big stick” that he earned (represented by a black-belt). As a consequence, the sensei will be dressed comfortably (e.g. in California, expect him to be in jeans and a T-shirt).

● The Leona Helmsley Test. You remember “The Queen of Mean,” don’t you? The former real estate agent who married real estate mogul Harry Helmsley and inherited his empire when he died? Marrying money does not give you an inner (“big stick”) sense of strength since it is irrelevant to the attributes that comprise an authentic sense of self-esteem. Lacking an authentic “big stick,” Leona acted just like a candidate who says, “WHEN I am elected President” before the election. One day she haughtily proclaimed, “Only the little people pay taxes.” Why did she say it? Who was she attempting to convince that she was not a “little person”? Was she engaging in a “Whistle A Happy Tune” self-help strategy? Did she believe, “the more I fool the people I fear, I fool myself as well”? It sure seems that way since Leona voiced her view of what differentiates “little” from “BIG” people to one of her domestic workers. Not only did this woman pay taxes, she most likely declared income that was less than Leona spent each year on dog food. [Despite being one of the little people, this woman was smart enough to “drop a dime” on her boss.]

To use the Leona Helmsley Test I always dine with job candidates I’m vetting (and with coaching clients, as well) to see how they treat “little people” (e.g. bartenders, waiters, etc.) in restaurants. If they act like Leona did I know –with virtually 100% certainty— that regardless of how they talk, they are not carrying a “big stick.”

As always, you will decide if my vetting process has merit, and who gets your vote. As I see things, those who carry “big sticks” have too much self-respect and respect for others to presume the outcome of a fight before they step into the ring for 15 grueling rounds of combat. Guys in denial about how easy it is to get knocked-out in a championship fight should, for my money, suffer that fate.

John Edwards: A self-deceiving psycho-diagnostician.

Dr. Steven Berglas — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 05:43:25 +0000

Professional psychologists think their cause is advanced when politicians like Henry Waxman protect the NIMH budget from cuts. Humphf. I say we got a real incremental boost in our status when John Edwards became only one of a handful of politicians to self-diagnose the cause of his professional self-destruction in public. Any time a former candidate for Vice President uses the term “narcissism” with reporters taking notes, our stock goes up.

Unfortunately, that’s where my good news ends. You see, Edwards used “narcissism” on 08/08/08 in a statement admitting that he had, indeed, had an extramarital affair with Rielle Hunter, exactly as The National Enquirer had been asserting for weeks. Sounding just like a shrink, Mr. Edwards’ rationale for doing “the naughty” with Ms. Hunter was that success clouded his judgment. In his own words: "In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic." I can hear Dana Carvey (as the Church Lady) saying: “Now isn’t that special…?”

After issuing his statement, almost-VP Edwards went on ABC’s Nightline to reiterate his excuse and close the book on the issue. How did he propose to do that? Why, of course, by saying that he understood what drove him to do what he did and it won’t happen again! “Now isn’t that special…?”

Here’s the BIG HOLE in Mr. Edwards’ mea culpa: He strongly suggests that since he “understands” what he did, he is positioned to live “happily ever after” as a sadder-but-wiser-and-chastened man. Trust me; it won’t happen. Why? Because like most of what has been oozing out of his mouth since being caught virtually in flagrante delicto at the Beverly Hilton Hotel, his “apology” was disingenuous.

In my first blog for Psychology Today I said:

My decision to blog stems from a veritable lifetime of studying the question: "They had the world in the palm of their hands...what made them do it?" This question appears in headlines, dominates the airwaves, and passes over virtually every intelligent person's lips, after people like Eliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton, or Martha Stewart engage in self-destructive, career-threatening (or career terminating) behavior.

Clearly the former Democratic U.S. senator from North Carolina evokes a “Here we go again…” from those familiar with my work. This, of course, is horribly sad, since a man and his family are in pain. The reason why I am neither concerned with what Mr. Edwards did with Ms. Hunter nor the implications his infidelity has for our political system (and the fact that such a huge moral collapse would be ignored by every major newspaper in the USA is a BIG DEAL), is because I think his post-trysting behavior is of greater import.

I have never met nor have I ever spoken to John Edwards, but as a result of studying, and working with men like him for over 30 years, I do know what makes these individuals “tick”. As such, I fear that he is going to be psychologically devastated if he thinks that after last Friday’s “performance” he is on the road to redemption.

Problem:

Edwards did not have an affair because “success went to his head.” If anything, he had an affair (or has had many), because of the pain caused by blows to his self-esteem.

Analysis:

Edwards was successful since high school when he was a star football player. Men like that don’t suddenly get ‘Wrecked By Success” (as Freud observed in 1915) 20 years after first tasting stardom; it happens with the first bite.

But let’s say that John Edwards was truly resistant to the ravages of success; wouldn’t a windfall such as the one his personal injury law practice brought him – nearly $30 million— have rocked his world enough to tip him over?

One other thing: I have worked with over 40 multi-millionaires who were unfaithful to their spouses because of “success-induced” narcissism. Not one of these men engaged in a single, time-limited affair, as Edwards claims he did. Unless or until these men began working with me, they were active, serial seducers of naive women –like Bill Clinton— not one-time adulterers.

An Alternative Perspective:

People like Edwards, who as far back as they can remember, enjoyed continual success, respond horridly to career failure and the knowledge that they cannot be considered “a success” again unless, or until, they replicate or exceed past performance levels. When he left the U.S. Senate to run for VP with Al Gore in 2004, and recently in a failed campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, Edwards tasted failure.

I feel these two blows to Edwards’ ego are what drove him to act-out. Specifically, I feel that Edwards had a need to re-assert his power and his masculinity (via an affair) because of his history of believing that his entire self-worth derived from success. Had Edwards not “proved his potency,” I feel he would have suffered ego-annihilation when he failed.

Why Edwards Is Still In Trouble:

I could address this for pages; actually, I did, in my last book, Reclaiming The Fire: How successful people overcome burnout. Since I feel I have so much to say about Edwards’ plight, let me draw some of it out over subsequent blogs. For the moment, consider this:

For men who, almost literally, become addicted to the external accoutrements of success, there is one and only one cure: Subordinating their ego to family (or a community) OR religion. There are no other known substitutes for the highs obtained from adulation, material wealth, and interpersonal power.

The issue is, involving oneself in either requires candor, humility, and the knowledge that although you may be your Mamma’s favorite boy, you are not her SUN; you’re her SON. Edwards’ sins by omission and, until he was caught-red-handed, lies, demonstrate that he is not ready to subordinate his ego to anything.

I will address other aspects of why I am worried that John Edwards is deceiving-himself into a major psychological catastrophe in subsequent blogs.

Until then, please tell me what you think.

Pygmalion In The Gutter

Dr. Steven Berglas — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:13:14 +0000

I read The New York Times and The New York Post every day despite having major misgivings about their integrity. I will never forgive the Times for being an unflinching apologist for former President Bill Clinton, since he committed adultery with a girl his daughter’s age in the Oval Office. With regard to the Post, the newspaper with the best coverage on earth of my beloved New York Yankees, my pique stems from their chronic glorification of tawdry and vulgar elements of our society. While they refer to Paris Hilton as a “professional airhead,” they nevertheless cover her every move like a blanket. Worse yet, since Eliot Spitzer’s life was left in a shambles after his dalliances with prostitute Ashley “Kristen” Dupre were discovered, the Post routinely devotes multi-page coverage to Dupre’s escapades, in effect, exalting them. Recently, after exposing Dupre’s affair with a married New Jersey businessman, The Post trumpeted the fact that Ms. Dupre was offered $1 million to star on a reality TV show.

Most people simply say “Big Whoop” to what The Post puts on Page 6 and leave it at that. I get steamed. Maybe it’s because I know that material success has had a “bad name” since Biblical times. Recall what Matthew (19:24) opined: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of heaven.” For my money, the news coverage given to Paris Hilton, better known for a poor-quality porno movie than anything else, and Ashley Dupre, a hooker, plain and simple, is giving material success a worse name than being “filthy rich” ever could. I base this contention on the consequences of The Pygmalion Effect, a very sophisticated analysis of how expectations guide behavior.

The Pygmalion Effect is a term that was coined by Dr. Robert Rosenthal, an emeritus professor from Harvard University (now at UC Riverside). Rosenthal cleverly used a Greek myth as a hook to promote his brilliant research on self-fulfilling prophecies, and enlightened a nation. According to the ancient Greeks, Pygmalion was a sculptor who despaired ever finding a good woman (in his eyes) to marry. Thus, he made a statue of a beautiful maiden that he felt was the ideal female form. Pygmalion was so enamored of the sculpture he created –Galatea— he fell in love with it. He also regularly prayed that a woman “as perfect” as his statue could be his wife. At the festival of Aphrodite, a Greek goddess, Pygmalion prayed, as usual, that he could marry his “ivory virgin.” Aphrodite was so moved by Pygmalion’s prayer, she granted his wish, gave life to Galatea, and enabled the sculptor and the now living Galatea, to marry.

The insights into human nature evoked by the story of Pygmalion struck a chord in many creative geniuses. Before Professor Rosenthal conducted his research, George Bernard Shaw turned the story of Pygmalion into a play, which, in turn, became the wildly popular Broadway musical by the wildly successful team of Lerner and Loewe, My Fair Lady. All these works of art and, most importantly, Professor Rosenthal’s study of self-fulfilling prophecies, demonstrate one thing: People will behave as we expect them to behave.

Clinical and laboratory studies of self-fulfilling prophecies show, for example, that a psychotherapist’s expectations for how a patient will respond to treatment can affect therapeutic outcomes just as readily as a researcher’s expectations can effect the findings obtained in experiments. From my experience, self-fulfilling prophecies often occur in groups or on a societal level. When arbiters of social consciousness put their idiosyncratic stamp on a definition of success, their zeitgeist will shape how those susceptible to their influence set goals and, ultimately, strive for success.

In May 2003, Jason Blair was forced to resign from his staff position at The New York Times after he was exposed as plagiarizing stories that bore his by-line. While many New York Times executives will object to my conclusion, I am certain that their editorial policy condoning Clinton’s disingenuous behavior facilitated Blair’s unethical behavior. Blair had to reason, “Hell, even the President is as dirty as gutter slime, yet the VIPs here are supporting him. I guess they assume ‘the ends justify the means’.”

My abiding fear is that when newspapers devote feature stories to people who are notorious, not noteworthy, doing so will influence the achievement-strivings of our children by creating the wrong sort of self-fulfilling prophecy: “He (she) is exhibiting what society-at-large values,” our children sense from extensive media attention; “I guess I should strive to be like him (her).”

Once, in our society, women who engaged in adulterous relationships were forced to wear the “scarlet letter A” on their bosom as a badge of shame. Today, many wear the trappings of success –e.g. expensive jewelry— on clothing that all-but-reveals their bosom in public. Does objecting to this mean that I, like the citizens of Puritanical Boston (in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s novel) who shunned Hester Prynne, am unnecessarily prudish? Or am I, a father of a 10-year-old girl and a 7-year-old boy, concerned about how my children (that I adore) will develop aspirations and orient themselves toward achieving success?

You, of course, will draw your own conclusion. But if you ask me, a culture that showers media coverage on Paris Hilton and Ashley Dupre, condones Bill Clinton’s adultery and deceit, and blithely dismisses white-collar crime as an innocuous symptom of “absolute power corrupting absolutely,” is creating self-fulfilling prophecies that cannot help but cause significant damage to generations yet to come.

The Burden of Being A-Rod

Dr. Steven Berglas — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:46:16 +0000

While watching Major League Baseball’s All-Star game last Tuesday I was awash in conflicting feelings: Holding my 7-year-old son and describing the workings of the game to him while telling him about my visits to Yankee Stadium and memories I had of watching some of the Old-Timers who were honored Tuesday night, was a pure joy. Recalling how my dad and I bonded at Yankee Stadium and missing him was bittersweet. Oddly, however, after nearly 5 hours of baseball, the feeling I was left with was sorrow for the plight of Alex Rodriguez, the MVP third baseman for the Yankees who happens to be the highest paid man in baseball. It wasn’t Rodriguez’s performance that got to me –so few players have truly “all star” showings in these games—it was the fact that there was a 2-ton monkey on his back before, during, and after the game.

For those of you who spent the last month in Katmandu, Alex Rodriguez is starring in the second celebrity divorce (after Christy Brinkley’s) being featured this summer in the tabloids and on cable TV. Sick of his womanizing, A-Rod’s wife filed for divorce. Moreover, the soon-to-be-ex Mrs. Rodriguez has told the world that A-Rod’s “involvement” with Madonna (not Our Lady of Fatima; the other one), is the straw that broke her once-tolerant back.

To his credit, when questioned about Madonna before the All Star game, A-Rod fielded the questions with all the grace and style he exudes in the Yankee infield: "Look, everyone has distractions, everyone goes through personal issues…mine are on the front page of the papers." While his articulated position on the “gift and the curse of sports stardom” was simple, succinct, and psychologically grounded, as A-Rod made his statement (and in other interviews), you could see pain in his face. While I may be reading way to much into Rodriguez’s face (which I have only seen once in person), I would bet all the money I have that he wanted to scream, “Can’t I just love and hate like a ‘normal guy’ once in a while?”

The answer is a resounding “NO,” which is why life at the top is often so traumatic for those who succeed. It’s not that paparazzi and tabloid reporters stalk their every move, but the fact that the successful are expected to be “different” than normal folk in relationships poses their greatest hardship.

In his world-famous Interpretation of Dreams, Sigmund Fred remarked:

“An intimate friend and a hated enemy have always been indispensable to my emotional life; I have always been able to create them anew, and not infrequently my childish ideal has been so closely approached that friend and enemy have coincided in the same person; but not simultaneously, of course, as was the case in my early childhood.” (from, Jones, E. (1953). The life and work of Sigmund Freud (Vols. 1-3). New York: Basic Books, p. 8-9).

Successful people are damned by the fact that when in conflict with others it is assumed that they –not their antagonists—should be the first to “turn the other cheek” since they have “so much going for them.” The right to having intimate friends is hampered for those who succeed because after you have status that affords you a wealth of privileges and rewards not readily available to others, it is almost impossible to feel certain that people care for you because of who you are, as opposed to clinging to you sycophantically because of what you can do for them.

So ask yourself: What’s so good about being #1 if you cannot have the passionate relationships (loving and hating) that are presumably so central to a healthy emotional life?