May 2017: Aide-de-Camp or NATO spouse?

May 2017: Aide-de-Camp or NATO spouse?

by | May 26, 2017 | Articles, News

The recent NATO meeting in Brussels offered some spectacular examples of how gender culture stereotypes remain embedded in our society- whether manifested by the playground bully’s bionic handshake, his predilection for shoving lesser beings out of his way, or in the assumed rivalry between the women who are representing their countries. The sartorial choices of Melania Trump vs Mme Brigitte Macron supposedly provided evidence of the latter. I am sure you will have glimpsed the article in The Daily Telegraph (25 May, 2017) in which it was solemnly noted that, “if there was ever going to be another First Lady to out glam Melania Trump, Brigitte Macron was the woman for the mission”.

Yet within this mis-en-scène was some something far more perplexing for consultants such as ourselves, dedicated, amongst other things, to dismantling assumptions about the way men and women behave in corporate contexts. This concerned the astonishing lack of interest shown by the media regarding the the only man in the line-up of “NATO spouses” (and heaven save us from such nomenclature).

I refer, of course, to Gauthier Destenay, husband of Luxembourg’s openly gay PM, Xavier Bettes. As I was drafting this blog, one article popped up in my in-box, via Gala.fr, in which it was noted that M. Destenay valiantly participated in all activities, including the Magritte Gallery visit and a soirée hosted by HM Queen Mathilde at the Laeken Palace. We know little about Gauthier other than he is a Belgian architect who married the Luxembourg PM in 2015.

Now call me a kill joy, but rather than focusing on the supposed fashion rivalry between Mmes Trump and Macron, (one ostentatiously changed her outfit for the palace reception, the other did not), I could only think of the insightful, articles that might have been written about Gauthier Destenay.

What, for example, is it like, being the first gentleman of Luxembourg ?

What are his interests and passions?

How does he integrate, blend and bond when he is the sole man amongst women at such an event? Does he grit his teeth, smiling and nodding, through all the formalities, or does he genuinely enjoy them? Does he network? Can he bring his professional interests into the political arena?

To me, it was a lost opportunity for the media to acknowledge a lovely case of diversity in the world of diplomacy and politics.

And now it is confession time: when I spotted this photograph, my eye was instinctively drawn to the handsome man at the Magritte Gallery hovering in attendance to the First Ladies. And guess what? I assumed he was an aide-de-camp… never imagining that he was a political husband.

Jul 2016: Passionate about what you do? Or do you wish you were?

Jul 2016: Passionate about what you do? Or do you wish you were?

by | Jul 28, 2016 | Articles

Authenticity and credibility, voice at the table, leaning in, and don’t forget, leaning out. These are, of course, just some of the key phrases that have shaped the leadership discourse in recent years. Endlessly flourished during debates about how to improve one’s chances of leadership, the terms have become, dare I suggest, just a little over-used?

So, when working with women (and yes, men) in the analysis of individual leadership styles, and how a gracious leadership mantle might be constructed, we often begin the conversation with passion. Sounds racier than it is because this simply means asking our client one question:

“Are you passionate about what you do?”

To ignite the discussion, we consider leaders, both past and present, who have had great passion for their leadership roles.

Take Elizabeth I, for example. Hers is an example of sixteenth century feminine leadership that retains a poignant relevance to our own time.

Refusing to be bullied into marriage, Elizabeth also refused to allow her childlessness to impact perceptions of her leadership. She ruled in a patriarchal culture, supported by principles that never faltered. Her personal motto, “semper eadem”, reflected this constancy. She consecrated her queenship to twin passions: the welfare of her people and the peace of the realm.

 

Elizabeth was spectacularly successful.

I would suggest that the moment you bring passion into the modern conversation about leadership, you create a compelling template for changes that may yield dramatic success. The effect is akin to a crackling charge of electrical current passing through an otherwise static cable.

I am not saying that leadership terminology is irrelevant nor unimportant, but it has obscured the bigger picture that must surely include both the ingredients and catalysts for good leadership.

Examining your passion for a professional vocation, passion for projects or passion for those you are leading, are not bad places to start.  From there you can build a leadership profile based on the skills you already possess, and those you might need to acquire. Take a blank journal, fill it with challenging questions and you may discover answers that are enlightening.

It is remarkable how conversations with women who are trying to define what kind of leadership roles they want, and above all, the kind of leaders they wish to become, are enriched by a dialogue about passion. It can even lead to career re-evaluation.

One of our clients actually migrated from banking into the UN and microfinance as a consequence of examining her career through the lens of passion.

She has, incidentally, never been happier.

So, over to you: what is your passion?  Does it animate your work and inspire you, every day?

If the answer is a resounding “no”, then it might be time to ask yourself some very tough questions. Passion truly brings purpose and the ability to soar.

Without it, we are left staring at a jumble of letters in the leadership puzzle and believe me, they spell frustration.

Come on: it’s time to fly!

Jul 2016: So, you’re struggling with content: gold mine or land mine?

Jul 2016: So, you’re struggling with content: gold mine or land mine?

by | Jul 13, 2016 | Articles

Content can endear you to a reader, or it can alienate by failing to deliver what a title has glibly promised. It means the difference between a gold mine that enriches and intrigues, and a land mine that bombards with the shrapnel of irrelevant detail.
When discussing content research with our House of Beaufort clients, I always ask two questions:

  1. Do you want your article or speech to have value and impact?
  2. Do you wish to secure a loyal following?

If the answer to either question is “yes”, we then examine content research through a critical lens of:

 

It doesn’t matter which content research resource you are using (books, journals, Google, Topix, Bottlenose or Spezify) but it does matter that you:

FOCUS

Before writing her famous novel about a scientist who blindly pursues an egocentric experiment, the talented Mary Shelley conducted rigorous research into scientific issues of contemporary interest.

Frankenstein (1818) was an instant bestseller.

The focus of research should be dictated by your chosen topic: not the one you wish you were writing about; or the one that you are suddenly writing, by default.

 

Let me give you an example. Perhaps I am writing about the death of the Empress Joséphine, an event that I find interesting because its unlucky circumstances are filled with the social details that make history sparkle.

So, I do my content research using the key words or phrases that will lead me to nuggets of information.

I book-mark, print off and then make notes.

I like to  keep separate research journals for projects: they are filled with references, articles, and the ideas that are triggered by what I have read. The  benefits are reassuringly immediate because you literally watch your research project grow.

CONTROL

Content research should be controlled and it should be relevant. There is no surer path to an article without impact than one peppered with digressions (and procrastination, but I will come to that next time).

 

“Oh yes, but this fact is so interesting”, or worse, “if I add this anecdote, the reader won’t care that something I promised in the introduction has been forgotten…”  We have all been guilty.

I am afraid the only person who loves your digressions is the one who has the most to lose by them: You.

So, back to the death of the Empress Joséphine.

My content research is shaping up nicely. In 1815, the perfectly healthy Empress caught pneumonia after strolling through her rose gardens at Malmaison with Tsar Alexander I of Russia. The Tsar, one of the victors of Waterloo, had been her dinner guest and wanted a private tête à tête.

Despite the chilly midnight air, Joséphine refused to wear her shawl because she was proud of her white shoulders (consolation for her dreadfully  blackened teeth?  You will note that in all the portraits, she never revealed her teeth). So, there she was, strolling across the terraces, wearing a skimpy silk gown, not unlike the one in Pierre-Paul Prud’hon’s portrait.

Look closely: Joséphine is sitting on her shawl. She clearly had an issue with wearing it. “PUT IT ON!”, I want to shout.

Did you know that the Tsar had romantic feelings for the legendary empress?  The poor man, married to a matronly German princess, had once mused that had he not been born an Alexander he would have liked to have been a Napoleon. Madame, incidentally, was christened “Marie Joséphe Rose” but Napoleon, who loathed all these names, called her “Joséphine”.

Content research has now migrated dangerously off piste but I am determined  to insert my precious anecdotes, somewhere or anywhere.  Just like those Victorian drawing rooms crammed with nineteenth century bling.

I love all the details so, surely, my reader will too.

Digression has now hijacked my content focus.

So, if you do not want your writing to be taken hostage, book-mark your content digressions for another time and keep focused on the topic in hand.

FILTER

By now, you have gathered a respectable amount of content that is highly relevant to your post, paper or speech.

Now ruthlessly examine it.

Ask yourself which parts of your research will serve your writing task best.

Choose the most powerful examples or citations, not all of them.  Less is more. If you do this, you will leave the dross behind and construct an article that has a powerful and lasting impact.

So, which would you prefer?  The serene elegance of  Downton Abbey or that ostentatious Victorian drawing room?

And with that, I must return to Joséphine.  There is still time to save her from the recycling bin and do her the justice she deserves by writing a gold mine article.
Jul 2016: So, you think you can’t write …

Jul 2016: So, you think you can’t write …

by | Jul 3, 2016 | Articles

Edith Wharton, the first woman author to win the Pulitzer Prize in 1921 for The Age of Innocence (1920) famously wrote in bed, throwing pages of her manuscripts to the floor while her faithful secretary scrambled to retrieve them.
I do not claim to have Edith Wharton’s prodigious writing talent, but my love of the written word supported a teaching career in Geneva and propelled me through an English doctorate. It also produced, I hesitantly confess, a romantic novel set in Tsarist Russia that sadly gathers dust in my desk drawer.

Moving swiftly on, as a leadership consultant, I am always saddened to discover that clear and confident writing is a skill that eludes many professional people. For me, the discipline of effective writing is not dissimilar to the instinct to dress elegantly.

Like most of us, I pride myself on being well-groomed: hair twisted in a chignon, minimalist jewellery, subtle makeup, perhaps my favourite dress, trustworthy heels that won’t send me flying off the podium and I am ready to go.

Writing competently, without wishing to sound too flippant about a process that many find challenging, is fundamentally a process of accessorising. In this case, however, the garments are words, phrases, voice, register, flow and cohesion, not to mention that final glance in the mirror, editing.  The result should be one of polished elegance.

If your opus – report, self-appraisal, email or LinkedIn post – is poorly edited or indifferently written, then a valuable opportunity has been squandered: the power of impact. An error in the writing process may spell (sorry!) doom for your credibility by suggesting a lack of professional competence.

Many people tell me, defiantly, “I can’t write” but I always insist that they are wrong.  Writing is a skill and it can be learnt. With a little application, anyone can fashion a respectable piece, including, by the way, that novel you always wanted to write (it really is never too late).

You do not have to be Ernest Hemingway (if you are, let me know as I fell in love with you years ago!), but emulating his crisp, economical style would obviously be an excellent start.  If you haven’t yet read The Sun Always Rises (1926), try to, because you will see exactly what I mean.

When Ernest was living in Paris during the 1920s and battling with writer’s block, he would gaze out of his Left Bank window, across the pearly turrets and towers of Paris’s sublime skyline. He would tell himself: “All you have to do is write one true sentence. Write the truest sentence you know” (A Moveable Feast 12). That advice translates across genres and writing purposes.

It means:  be true to yourself when writing. And then write.

 

You are expert in your field and therefore have an advantage that others lack.  Yet, too often, people forget this and struggle to write those first few lines.  Before long, they have literally lost the plot. A writing task also assumes deadly proportions the longer it is delayed. Procrastination will make the challenge seem as futile as climbing Mont Blanc in carpet slippers. For others, editing is the stumbling block.

Victor Hugo wrote in the nude. An arch procrastinator, he insisted that his valet hide his trousers and undergarments so he could not steal away to the local bar without attracting unwelcome attention.

I would not suggest that you adopt this habit, but a few tips might help you to start writing with more confidence. Assuming that you have gathered all your content research, now is the time to pace yourself with this simple but effective technique we use with our House of Beaufort clients.

The PACE Technique
P – PLAN what you want to say and how you will say it.

A template might sound simplistic, but headings and key messages will coax you away from rambling incoherence towards more concise prose: Introduction, outlining your purpose in writing; Body – citing your main arguments, and Conclusion, offering a pithy wrap up.

Pad out each section with bullet points to prevent you from taking the reader off piste on a digression that can kill interest. These bullet points may later be removed.

A – ACHIEVE one complete draft.

It doesn’t have to be Pulitzer Prize standard but believe me, when you produce a complete draft, the elation will make you think you have achieved such a prize!

C – CRITIQUE

Does it flow?  Is the meaning clear?  Have you used succinct language rather than a style deadened by prolix (pot calling kettle black here, but prolix is prose that is wordy, showy, rambling, shambling and truly pretentious).

So, you have rigorously critiqued. Well done!  But you haven’t quite finished.

E – EDIT (ruthlessly)

Always print off hard copy for the editorial stages (note, plural!) because scientific research suggests that the brain navigates textual landscapes more accurately than it does screen landscapes (see Ferris Jabr “The Reading Brain in the Digital Age”). I certainly prefer to edit from the page and am often horrified by the errors I have overlooked on the screen. Reading aloud may also help you gain some sense of confidence regarding the quality of what you have written.

You will, I am sure, be delighted with the results.
References

Ferris, Jabr. “The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Sciene of Paper versus Screens. Scientific American. April 11, 2013.

Hemingway, Ernest. A Moveable Feast. New York: Scribenar, 1964.