Or is it lipstick on the pig?

Since several people have commented that yesterday’s post was snarky, let me explain that manipulating your presentation of self is something that we all do. We use images and techniques to demonstrate who were are through affiliations, allegiances, beliefs and dogmas. Just because the Creative Class think themselves so smart that they don’t do this (thus explaining AdBusters) this doesn’t mean that they don’t. And because they don’t have a conscious ability to recognize that they do it, you can manipulate their symbols and their foibles to get a job in a depressed market.

Many of you don’t live in Creative Class Centers (CCC) so don’t understand what all this is about. I live in an God-blessedly totally uncool place, northern Indiana, where we like Country Music, farming, NASCAR, the WWE and the UFC. But I used to work in a tier-2 CCC and worked in a CC industry. Back then I tended to use Texanisms such as overt threats of massive physical violence, pink Oxford shirts and references to BAR-B-Q rather than the CC methods but the idea is the same. And, reflecting back, it might have been more successful.

All of this is written for some thankfully uncool readers who asked a specific question: How can I increase my chances in executive interviews? The answer depends on industry but it always comes down to this: You have to look like one of them.
[Read more →]

Jack Fallow had an excellent article in the recent GO Society book, Organization Design, Levels of Work and Human Capability: Executive Guide (“On Being Heard: Insights from complexity theory
and values as touchstones for effective executive communication
across the levels”). In it, Jack talks about the values that followers seem to expect from a leader who is supposed to be at each level. I imagine that it also goes the other way: this is the type of leadership behaviours that managers expect out of their subordinates.

Here’s his table:
[Read more →]