Categories
BLG Leadership Insights Managerial Competence Political Competence Proactive Leaders

6 Ways Jane Austen Would Have Survived Cubicle Life

austen

Jane Austen is credited with creating some of literature’s first “modern characters.”

“Modern characters” are just normal people doing normal things. They aren’t powerful warriors in the vein of Achilles or tormented queens like Lady Macbeth.

They’re just the ordinary people you meet every day.

But these characters are hardly boring. Instead, modern characters are recognizable personalities that can teach us a lot about the frustrations and joys of social interactions and institutions.

Jane Austen helped shape this modern movement from a small rectory in North East Hampshire, a few rented rooms in Bath, and a modest house in Hampshire. Her life was quiet and filled with financial stresses, a failed romance, and numerous family dramas.

Austen had little schooling and she never had the time or money to discuss literary theory with London’s primer authors. Yet she wrote six novels that were well regarded both in her century and in ours.

Austen’s ability to observe and her persistence helped her become an accomplished writer–but would these same skills and sensibilities help her survive the modern office? Would her independent and sharp nature thrive in a world of lay-offs and “action-plans”?

These silly questions led me to think of a few reasons Jane Austen might have succeeded in the modern office:

1. Austen Knew How to Deal With Boredom

It’s easy to see Austen making copies and collating documents when she writes in Mansfield Park, “Life seems but a quick succession of busy nothings.”

Indeed, Austen has the mental fortitude and the jaded wisdom to survive the minutia of office life. Her ability to look at cubicle life as a collection of minor actions will afford her the opportunity to pursue larger goals to stave off ennui. Boredom often produces brilliance.

2. Austen Would Deal With Failure

In 1803 Austen’s brother, Henry, went to a London publisher named Benjamin Crosby. He showed Crosby Austen’s first novel, Susan, an epistolary novel centered around a brash young women. Crosby liked what he saw and bought the book for 10 pounds–but he never published it. Later, Austen wrote a long and angry letter to Crosby asking for the rights to Susan back. Crosby agreed–if Austen could pay back the 10 pounds. Austen couldn’t afford the price and had to leave Susan unpublished.

Lots of writers would lose confidence after a slow, dragged-out rejection–but Austen kept writing and trying to get published. In today’s business world, Austen’s determination would have earned her a few promotions and the respect of her peers.

3. Austen Understands the Golden Leadership Rule

It’s odd when you read an interview with a CEO and they DON’T mention the importance of having a smart team. The golden rule in business demands that you surround yourself with people who can do crossword puzzles faster than you.  Austen agrees. In her novel Persuasion the following dialogue occurs between the obstinate Anne and Mr. Elliot:

“My idea of good company…is the company of clever, well-informed people, who have a great deal of conversation; that is what I call good company.”

“You are mistaken,” said he gently, “that is not good company, that is the best.”

Austen would only mix with the hard-working, book-loving, strivers in any office and this would propel her career.

4. Austen Could Take Constructive & Un-constructive Criticism

The most scathing critique of Austen comes from Mark Twain. Twain wrote to a friend, “Jane [Austen] is entirely impossible. It seems a great pity that they allowed her to die a natural death.” Thankfully, Austen wasn’t around to hear Twain’s remark.

However, Austen faced critics in her own time with little irritation.

In 1811 she published Sense & Sensibility and made a good profit and collected favorable reviews. Soon after, she published Mansfield Park which was panned by critics, but was extremely popular. Austen didn’t let high-brow criticism drown her ambitions and she went on to write Emma, Persuasion, and Northanger Abbey.

5. Austen Could Work From Home

We hear the real Jane Austen, momentarily, in Mrs. Elliot’s character in Emma.

She says to the meddling Emma: “Ah! there is nothing like staying at home, for real comfort. Nobody can be more devoted to home than I am.”

Austen rarely traveled and rarely expressed a desire to see the corners of the earth. She was the most productive at home and her mother and sisters would do extra chores so Austen could write without disturbance.

She would have been at home in today’s virtual economy where everything is done remotely, out-of-office, and through email or video chat. Austen could have climbed the corporate ladder without leaving her settee since she was self-motivated and didn’t need a boss or a commute to inspire her to action.

6. Austen Didn’t Like Stupid People

Austen was a master at reading people, mapping out their actions, and dissecting their intentions. All six of her novels prove this point.

But ultimately Austen could judge a person’s intellect by using one criterion.

In Northanger Abbey Austen’s urbane Henry Tilney says, “The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid.”

While these words don’t necessarily echo Austen’s sentiment–they probably aren’t too far off. Austen, it would seem, wouldn’t tolerate stupid co-workers.

But the quote also illustrates that Austen valued self-improvement. Novels helped Austen learn more about her craft and the world around her. Her efforts to learn, develop, and grow would have been valued at any firm.

Categories
BLG Leadership Insights Features

The Two Types of Persuasion

Persuasion isn’t a knack reserved for confidence men and back-room gamblers. It’s not a tool that’s used exclusively by smooth talkers and charismatic leaders. It’s a necessary skill that leaders must understand and implement in order to get people on their side. Persuasion is a skill not an art. It can be learned and mastered without a muse.

There are two types of persuasion:

1. Tacit Approach: Has the subtlety of an informal after-thought, a side conversation, a by-the-way mentality.

2. Explicit Approach: Is thought out in advance, and the main focus of a conversation.

As a leader you have two very different strategies you can implement in order to persuade and feel out potential coalition members.

When you are communicating tacitly, you are searching for potential allies, like-minded colleagues, and people who share your basic organizational perspective. These tacit conversations happen anywhere and are seemingly impromptu. They are held over quick coffees and in unscheduled meetings. They are casual back-and-fourth’s that hint at your goals, plans, and agenda while searching for help and support. It can be a simple conversation that transpires on the street or a quick chat after a meeting in the Oval Office. The process isn’t framed and there is no time limit.

On the other hand, explicit communication is an in-your-face confrontation that’s public and defined. It mirrors negotiating and bargaining procedures. All the cards are laid on the table and the question is public, “Will you or won’t you join my coalition?” Corporations, countries, and unions use explicit communication when they sit around the bargaining table. It’s a no-holds-barred interaction that demands a question and response.

Both approaches can help leaders get people on their side, but neither are perfect. By looking at the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, leaders can decide what their organizational needs demand.

Tacit communication chats can help leaders quickly assess initial reactions and agreements. Tacit conversations also limit the potential public rejection. Leaders who push plans on a face-to-face basis that end up failing won’t have to suffer the embarrassment of wide-spread public rejection. Purposing a plan informally and in a small organizational setting can get initiatives rolling with little personal risk.

However, the tacit approach can’t promise timely results. Rather, the tacit approach works on its own schedule and gets things done in small steps. Leaders who persuade tacitly need to be ready to make an ambiguous time investment. Further, tacit conversations are ambiguous and don’t guarantee buy-in. While a leader might assume his colleagues are on his side as a result of a tacit agreement she can be setting herself up for a bad surprise. Agreements made using a tacit approach should not be depended on or assumed solid. They are malleable agreements that are subject to breaking.

Explicit communication builds stable agreements that are public. Since explicit communication doesn’t beat around the bush leaders can rely on the buy-in it generates with more confidence. Better yet the explicit approach forces conversations to have a very specific beginning, middle, and end. Time is saved and everyone gets on the same page.

The explicit approach can be too public and demand a large spot light. The increased attention has the potential of hurrying leaders and forcing mistakes and bad calls. Worse, the added attention can back-fire and create a politically embarrassing situation. Simply because leaders state their goals and objectives doesn’t mean they will get buy-in and agreement.

Leaders need to be aware of the two types of persuasion and their inherent strengths and weaknesses. Persuasion doesn’t require hidden, indefinable, social skills, but rather a clear understanding of your organizational context and what persuasion approach is best for you.

Picture Credit: State Library and Archives of Florida