Author: amypearlman

“To effectively communicate, we must realize that we are all different in the way we perceive the world and use this understanding as a guide to our communication with others.” – Anthony Robbins

Communication is hard. It’s hard enough when its with a person or small group, harder still when some members of the conversation aren’t invested or see things a different way. The larger the group, the larger the groups of disengaged individuals and the greater the number of viewpoints.

All of that being said, time and time again I encounter the same gaps to making communications the best they can be.

As a note, most of my experience is in technology – everything from outages to initiatives. But in my observation, this phenomena is not limited to my area, and may be more thoroughly considered in IT than in many other disciplines.

“Communication works for those who work at it.” – John Powell

Good communication takes time. It takes effort. It takes investment.

Sure, when you someone well you can shortcut some things, but the important things still require clarity and care.

When you are communicating broadly, you have even more work to do – first you need the recipient of your communication to know why they should care, and once that is sufficiently established to understand and engage with the message.

“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.” – George Bernard Shaw

It is natural when a person is communicating to start with their own perspective or what they find important. When the goal is to reach a large population, you need to flip this on its head — what is important to them? Why should they care? What is the benefit? How do they perceive the topic? What is the impact?

If you communicate from your perspective, chances are that you have spoken (or written, etc.), but you may not have communicated. If you did reach members of your audience, their takeaway might not be what you expected it to be.

“There is no communication that is so simple that it cannot be misunderstood.”― Luigina Sgarro

I cannot count the times a communication has come from me, my department, or another entity that had been looked at from multiple perspective, seemed clear, seemed well written….and then it went out and the deluge of calls and questions started. All of the reviewers have typically already been familiar with the message contents and did not see the lack of specificity, confusing language or jargon, or overlap between this and a similarly named thing in another part of the larger organization. You have assuredly seen this in your home life as well as your professional – your doctors and insurance, your utilities, your cell phone carrier, places you buy from, your municipality, and a hundred other entities communicate with you. Periodically it will absolutely go wrong. And you develop habits of mentally filtering out information from so-called “unreliable” sources that give you unhelpful or unclear information.

How can you be clearer and more directed for your audience? Almost immediately you encounter the next challenge: your audience is not a monolith. In fact, it isn’t really one audience at all.

 “Use different messaging for different groups to ensure your communications are relevant.” – Andrea Plos

In one recent project, we were preparing for the planned departure of one chief executive, and the arrival of another. We knew that both prior to the change and afterward there would be large personnel changes throughout the organization. Initially the team had a plan that had 2-3 communication messages and channels. I felt there were gaps so I asked that we do an exercise defining audiences. We used a little bit of journey mapping and some other techniques to walk through the skeleton timeline and tease out all the places where different people would need different messaging. We ended up with over 20 distinct audiences and a complex communication calendar ensuring that each group got the most relevant communication at the right time.

Most initiatives don’t need this level of differentiation. The initiative I’m referencing was multiple months and hundreds of person-hours of work produced.

Right now I am looking at a project where we are dealing with the public website, intranet, and individual intra-department recordkeeping and communications. After a look at the information architecture and current publications I found myself with my age-old question: who are these sites for? And why does the content not match the assumed answers?

“The most important things to say are those which often I did not think necessary for me to say — because they were too obvious.” ― André Gide

I spent a little bit of time with my markerboard and defined 3 audiences and the types of information each requires, and noted examples for each – what I came up with seemed logical and obvious to me. And. In looking at the existing sites, the categories of information are not delineated in a way that seems to me to suit the audiences of the published sites.

According to my assessment, we need 3 or possibly 4 distinct datastores/sites depending on the capability of the tools, rather than the existing 2, and we need to fill some gaps where information is not published. Then we need to make this information discoverable, particularly for more occasional visitors.

This exercise reminded me of the work I had done with previous teams and why I had been so insistent on audience definitions. This circles back to the earlier point of differentiating communications.

This allows you to get the right information with the right context to the right individuals at the right time. All four of these are needed for the effective communication that leads to effective change management and to successful adoptions, and also allows clear crisis communications. Add with empathy and you have a recipe for success.

It’s also work. This kind of effort can seem huge. But I have leaned to ask “what is the cost of skimping on communications?” The answer is never good. It’s risk.

Now, here in the real world we are don’t have endless resources and we are not in a risk vacuum; some risk has to be accepted. You may choose to combine some audiences and call them “close enough” and we are all going to do our best. But trust me when I say one message will not fit all, and a wall of text full of if/thens is is not the differentiation you need. Invest time and effort up front, share templates when messages overlap, and keep the work well organized to allow for the contextual changes and nuances that tell your audience groups you mean them. You will minimize drama, get more engagement, and generally have smoother changes.

I will assuredly come back to the topic of communication and also audiences as they are part of my professional lifeblood. For now though, this is what I have.

Part of me was hesitant to write this as there are as many versions of an Agile leadership model (both capital and small a) as there are ways to implement Agile development or operations. These also vary in quality and meaningfulness, and some seem to be a new cover to old theory.

However, recently I saw the following infographic on LinkedIn and it got me thinking:

When I think about how I am and how I want to be as a leader and as a professional, many of my core behaviors and philosophies align closely with this model. I would say to overlook the quotes as some of them I find a bit problematic, but let’s look for a minute at the content.

• Quick Thinking Mastery
• Diverse-Decision-Making
• Continuous Learning
• Collaborative Action
• Strategic Problem-Solving
• Emotional Intelligence
• Reflective Leadership

I see these as critical for my leadership, and also for any leadership for whom I am to work. They are remarkably descriptive of my own long term approach. However I also see these as as qualities to develop within your teams at all levels. As I think about my most recent positions, I can see points where I, my partners, and my managers used some if not all of these as unspoken core values and worked to teach and value practices that allowed, encouraged, and empowered these.

I want to explore each of these items in future posts, but my first thought is that leadership needs to model these adaptive traits, but then also imbue these into your teams as values, skills, behaviors. If we as leaders are folowing a leadership agility model, but we are not also valuing it in our team than several things are going on: 1) diverse decision making will be less effective because people with important perspectives will not know how to engage, 2) you run the risk of building a non-adaptive org where only the leader can drive agility, which wastes talent. 3) we’re not adopting the spirit of agility and facile, adaptive organizations, we’re only valuing, centering, and developing ourselves. And this will lead to failure.

Your team – your partners, the org under you, your peers – are your success and you are a big piece of theirs. If you have read more here or on social media, you have heard this before – it’s our responsibility to create an environment where there are strong, growing professionals. These concepts let us do that while also creating maximum ability to deliver and succeed in our own orgs. People who can model the behaviors listed above will be better partners to business, better technologists, and better at successful execution — all in a place where they know they are trusted to succeed — and to make learning mistakes while being supported.

As professionals, we are often shown one model of what it is to be “professional” or “executive.” While many of us truly value diversity, the traditional model is built to look and behave within one particular frame – historically straight, cis, white, male, well dressed and coiffed, highly educated, neurotypical, and exhibiting the behavior patterns that are consistent with this. Even when we see diversity, what we often see is people fitting a large percentage of these demographics and mimicking others. Of course, there are exceptions, but despite a wave of pushback, this is still the common perception among those at top leadership levels.

There is also the idea, present in many cultures, that the individual that stands out will be cut down (“tall poppy” syndrome or “the nail that sticks out gets hammered down”) – depending on the cultural context one is raised in, this can be a very strong formative concept especially among women, the neurodivergent, and the highly intelligent.

None of this is new news, so what’s my point?

I have been on a search for a new role. I have listened to advice and received assistance from many quarters and it was not until today that I realized that the advice I was following was threatening my ability to be authentic.

A resume (C.V., whichever your profession requires) needs to be accurate. It needs to bring forward the important accomplishments, list qualifications, facts, figures, and for lack of a better term evidence. Ethical professionals do this as accurately and and honestly as possible. But in doing so it is possible to lose what makes a person exceptional and also what makes them authentic.

I am an empathetic leader. I care deeply. I am female. I am neurodivergent in ways that both challenge me and make me exceptional. I create teams and culture where people want to work and perform and that matters. Yes, I’m good at tech, I understand business needs analysis, I am capable of forecasting (pretty darn well), I creatively work with budgets and contracts and remove blockers. But what I really do is figure out what *people* need to be successful in the context of the environment, and what we together need to do to meet organizational goals. At all levels. And the way that I go about that makes me – and my teams and partners – able to course correct even the most challenging environments, create function out of dysfunction, and weather every storm and crisis, coming out better than we started.

I had allowed my documents to lose my personality and my values. I had allowed my core gifts as a professional to be genericized to fit the expected frame.

And then I received the important question: “I see your EQ in conversation – where is it here?” And it changed my thinking. I will not forget who I am. It makes me special, exceptional. And no, it does not always fit the frame, but that does not detract from me, instead it has enabled my success and enabled me to support the success of others. I will not give this up. And I will reflect it in my documents and everywhere I represent myself.

Professionals are best when they are allowed to be whole people. The best of us is in who we are as humans in the world. Our authenticity is core to who we are, and I cannot lead without it so why would I not reflect it?

References

• https://www.fastcompany.com/90732810/we-need-to-talk-about-why-we-still-see-ceos-as-white-men-and-how-to-challenge-that
• https://theglasshammer.com/2013/02/is-executive-presence-sexist/
• https://hbr.org/2024/01/the-new-rules-of-executive-presence
• https://www.cfar.com/evolving-what-it-means-to-exhibit-executive-presence/
• https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbescoachescouncil/2023/09/19/mastering-executive-presence-through-a-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-lens/
• https://www.ideatovalue.com/inno/nickskillicorn/2021/01/tall-poppy-syndrome-vs-tall-weed-syndrome/
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathymillerperkins/2024/03/25/authenticity-at-work-how-to-balance-transparency-with-professionalism/
• https://hbr.org/2013/10/be-yourself-but-carefully
• https://daniellesax.com/blog/post/the-importance-of-authenticity-in-your-professional-life
• https://careerstonegroup.com/blog/81/Get-Real-and-Get-Ahead-Five-Steps-to-Professional-Authenticity
• https://medium.com/coaching-notes/what-does-being-professional-mean-anyway-notes-on-authenticity-39ad8b39a76b
• https://resources.businesstalentgroup.com/btg-blog/leadership-development-essentials-authenticity-professionalism

This topic is a little bit about management and leadership, and also recruitment, retention, performance, just simply being a good citizen in the larger industry and community, and being good to your people. For me, it’s a keystone to a healthy org and industry community and to who I am as a manager and leader (which are distinct, but that’s a different post).

Those of us who choose to be in the disciplines of management and leadership have chosen to take on a role for their staff and their organization. It’s our job to hire and maintain a staff of qualified individuals to perform a certain set of work.

Some organizations and “leaders” appear to think very transactionally about this. There is a concept that when you hire a person to do a job, the paycheck is enough, that you only care if they can do *that* job, that you don’t need to invest and grow in them. Also, hiring is expensive, so getting someone up to speed who has the exact skill set you need now and keeping them there as long as possible is what’s best for the org.

This is – in my opinion (and it’s my blog) – absolutely and unequivocally the wrong way to think about it. It’s tremendously shortsighted and limits not only the person but the organization, it has a high hidden cost, and leads to mediocrity and failure.

Now, there is some research and theory – most commonly you’ll hear Dan Pink – that paying someone well enough that money is not a problem is a huge motivator. And it is. But only because money issues are a distraction from the ability to do meaningful work. Now, I’m not 100% in on Pink’s theory, but only because I think “meaningful” is a term with many meanings…that’s part of what I’m getting at here (it’ll make sense).

What do we want as employers? We want performing teams and individuals. We want them to be effective, interested, and engaged. We want them to invest in our work and organization. We want them to do work that brings the org and its clients forward. We want their best work. We want a great pool of skilled people to choose from when we hire. We want to keep valuable people in the org.

I would argue that there’s some other things we should want, but these are pretty common and non-controversial.

Let’s deconstruct a bit.

Hiring

Hiring is pretty simple, right? You have work you need done, you write a job description, maybe an ad, you post it, you call some people, you have some interviews and you pick the person who is the closest to the job description. Easy Peasy.

Nope. Not at all. Now, I’m going to have to write another whole post on hiring processes and where we fail ourselves and our candidate pools, but let me focus on one aspect…

There are a lot of pieces to this, but in my experience and observation the best candidate is not necessarily the one with exactly the skills you need now. The best candidate is often one that is in the right direction with (depending on level) applicable or translatable skills and *a proven track record of learning and adapting* (or the strong potential). A hard working, capable person with the capacity to learn and think critically or problem solve is going to grow with you and your needs. Someone with curiosity and an understanding of the conceptual foundations and the “why” of what you’re doing will be the one who moves you forward.

But here’s the thing. This person will likely be phenomenal. But without some effort on your part they aren’t staying. Because even a big paycheck (assuming you have one to offer) isn’t everything, and if you’re not paying top end of market the other pieces matter even more.

Once You Have A Talented Person

Great! You made an awesome hire. So by traditional theory we want to focus them on the work we most need done and keep them in this role as long as possible right? Again, not so much.

Earlier, we talked about what we need as managers in our employees. We want investment and people’s best work. Why is a talented professional going to give us that if we put them in a box?

So what does the employee need or want? Well, people vary but here’s a few things:

• Meaningful support from management and team members
• Respect
• Room to learn, grow and develop into the job role
• Room to develop and learn beyond the original scope of the job
• The ability to do novel things
• Agency and a voice in the direction of their work
• Support in working toward (and sometimes developing) career goals
• The ability to learn from communities and resources beyond the company
• Over time, the right to be supported in achieving the next opportunity

Does money matter? Yes. Do the tools to do the job well matter? Yes. But it’s not the be all and end all. Work that is *satisfying* (meaningful to an individual) matters.

Employees often don’t stay forever. That person was only going to stay in that role until they outgrew it anyway. Might we have put the person on a path to outgrow it sooner? That’s possible. But that’s not a bad thing. That extra six months you might keep them is not going to be worth what it could have been if you were getting the best from the beginning.

Here’s the trick.

If you put the person in a box, they are less happy, they can feel the limits, they can feel the lack of support and growth. Which means they have no reason to give their best work. If you invest in the person’s growth then every day you are there, that growth benefits your org. Now obviously this is not unlimited. If you are at a technology company and the person is a developer and what they really want to do is play soccer professionally, there’s not much the job can do to allow them to develop in that direction. But to the extent it’s possible, professional curiosity and growth will benefit your team and your goals.

(Also, these things are just good and responsible management for non-toxic environments)

What Happens If (When) They Outgrow This Role?

Oh no, *panic* — our amazing hire might want to move on!

Ok, cool. So what’s next for them? They don’t have to tell us, nor take us up on assistance and coaching. But with enough trust, they likely will.

Is there a role within the org which suits their next goals? Are they well set up for it? If not, is there an option for making that possible? If you can make this work, you allow them to grow while retaining their organizational knowledge and (hopefully) goodwill.

There isn’t room for their next step in your org and isn’t likely to be soon? Help them leave. If you have the means to help them make connections, prep their materials, be prepared for interviews….do it. If they are ready to go, keeping them is soon going to become a losing proposition. Back to the fact that frustrated, unhappy employees are never going to give their best. Now your goal is improving your professional community, keeping a positive connection, and having them leave supported. Most of our specialities aren’t that big. You are going to talk to this person again. You may exchange knowledge, or they’ll recommend a great hire to you, or an important client relationship. You are building the reputation of you/your organization being worth working for. You get to watch them go forward and do the work you know they’re capable of. A former employee outgrowing you is tremendously gratifying and should be one of our goals.

Crux

Our job is not to hire someone and keep them in the chair (role) we hired them into. We fail ourselves and our organization this way. We limit creativity, innovation, and end up with a field of mediocre performers while real talent stays engaged or moves elsewhere.

Our job is to invest in the success of the team and the org, and one of the keys to this is investing in the individuals and their career directions. It’s how you get their best work now, and how you line them up to benefit your org and your industry over time.

Once again, I have been inspired by an online conversation with a friend (oddly enough, same friend) and also by some of the conversations we have been having within my own org.

And I’ll give you this take which sr folks typically hate: the ones who can most easily tell you where design has failed are front line support. Your thing might be shiny by itself but if the experience breaks because something was poorly thought through, they know first.

— Amy, demigoddess of chaos, first of her name (@AmyPearlman) September 27, 2023

True, these folks are often (not always!) earlier in their career, and may not have the specialized expertise of an engineer, architect, developer, administrator or what have you. Certainly they aren’t as well paid. But I have been in charge of these functions throughout my career, and I have some news for some of these skilled and talented folks: they’re sleeping on real value. And those people you’re treating poorly have the potential to be your future colleagues (maybe they used to be you), so stop with the positional classism.

A higher ed colleague (and forgive me, I don’t recall exactly who), in a conversation about just this topic. She said “they’re the only ones who see it all” and it’s true.

It doesn’t matter if you support a product and a customer base, or you are support for your org or enterprise. Someone designs products/systems/services, someone builds and implements said products/systems/services and a support team becomes the first point of contact for these. Unless your org has a dedicated support team for each and every different component in the environment (rarely if ever), you have a team that sees not only one product, but several (or all) and how they interact or fit together.

What does your support team know that your engineers, architects, and designers don’t?

• What *really* works and what doesn’t
• Where “as designed” isn’t usable or useful
• What features and functions are discoverable and which are hard to find
• Where people using and administering these solutions run into trouble – points of friction
• Where solutions that are supposed to be consistent with one another…aren’t.
• What’s missing
• The myriad of ways to break everything
• Any accessibility holes
• Ways in which different components fail to correctly or smoothly integrate
• So much nuanced information you will never think to ask
• What the entire environment experience looks like from end to end

Chances are good that the support folks received different or less training than the client and is having to figure things out and try to meet the need. They may have documentation, but no documentation can reflect every possible thing a client will do with a system. They’ve had to figure things out…and without the ability other groups may have to specialize or look under the hood.

A few orgs have a formal or smooth informal process for integrating support feedback, but it’s not common.

The Challenge

Because most support teams live in a responsive frame, they don’t always know how to provide feedback in a way that fits into an improvement process. A tech can tell you a lot about a specific issue, incident, or set of circumstances, but typically if an engineering team were to ask how they make something better, they are going to get very granular, top of mind issues. There may need to be a fair amount of digging just to find out that the support desk wrote an internal memo months ago on a workaround for the most common issue, and solves it so routinely they don’t even consider raising it any more.

Interestingly, this immediate, responsive frame can sometimes keep an otherwise good technologist with potential from being successful at a broader or more project oriented role.

So what do we do?

• Build trending skills in team and service leadership
• Normalize involving support in project planning and design conversations
• Have specialized staff periodically observe or participate in support shifts or rotate serving as SMEs in active support chats/channels

“But no one has time for this!” Ok, I hear you. I have never worked anywhere properly resourced and these efforts can be expensive in time.

My question is whether you have time not to do it. And. Is there any better way to assure that support staff are prepared to be project participants and be ready to think critically when the time comes than giving them a more wholistic viewpoint where they can observe these processes?

I know with my support folks, being caught up in responsiveness and unable to operate as a representative member of a project team or feedback loop is a real problem and one we are using some of these thoughts to work our way out of. Watching people’s minds unfurl is amazing.

Your support team likely has some things to tell you. They also likely have some hidden gems that would be fantastic in other parts of your org over time. You’re not going to find them if the only place you look is down your nose.

And here I am, writing a post in the middle of the night because my brain already wrote it and I need to get it out.

A conversation with a friend today got me thinking heavy thoughts about respect and responsibility.

Respect

Let’s start here: for me, respect is earned. Society teaches us we should respect certain people and positions, for example:

• Parents
• Elders – due to their wisdom and lived experience
• Religious leaders (usually of one’s own and compatible religions)
• One’s supervisor/manager/job-related hierarchy
• Political leaders (this one varies)
• Other notable figures who are said to have contributed to society and history
• Highly successful people

We also are told to “show respect” during certain kinds of events, usually those with some kind of significance or ceremony to them, whether religious, patriotic, or in some other way “serious.”

In reality, these are less about actual respect than:

• Authority (or sometimes control)
• Courtesy
• Recognition of acts

For the sake of argument let’s use the definition Oxford Languages provides to Google:

Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more

re·spect

/rəˈspek(t)/

noun

noun: respect; plural noun: respects

1. a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.”the director had a lot of respect for Douglas as an actor”
   • the state of being admired or respected.”his first chance in over fifteen years to regain respect in the business”
   • a person’s polite greetings.”give my respects to your parents”
2. due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others.”young people’s lack of respect for their parents”
3. a particular aspect, point, or detail.”the findings in this respect have been mixed”

verb

verb: respect; 3rd person present: respects; past tense: respected; past participle: respected; gerund or present participle: respecting

1. admire (someone or something) deeply, as a result of their abilities, qualities, or achievements.”she was respected by everyone she worked with”
   • have due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of.”I respected his views”
   • avoid harming or interfering with.”it is incumbent upon all boaters to respect the environment”
   • agree to recognize and abide by (a legal requirement).”he urged all foreign nationals to respect the laws of their country of residence”

So in reality, we are being told to provide a level of courtesy and deference to certain individuals or positions with or without the feeling of admiration (respect) being evoked. “Due regard” is an interesting phrase because it once again reinforces the societal *assumption* of tradition, feelings, or wishes which may not be your own as deserving of respect.

What makes that regard “due?” In a lot of cases it’s societal or cultural expectation. But at what juncture might that societal expectation be reinforcing inequity, bias, or privilege? At what juncture might you be asked to “show respect” for things you wholly disagree with? In my experience and observation, pretty often.

Here’s what actually earns my true respect:

• Integrity
• Authenticity
• Kindness
• Skill or knowledge, applied and shared
• Interest and capability in learning and bettering oneself
• Leadership qualities that are actually shown to benefit the people you lead
• Sharing insight or wisdom that makes the world better

Here’s what doesn’t:

• Being richer
• Having more degrees
• Having a title or role
• Hoarding information or gatekeeping
• Acting or speaking in judgmental and hypocritical ways
• Looking or behaving like a societal expectation of a particular role
• Treating other people as less, regardless of why

I’m sure I’m missing something here, but all of my answers are along these lines.

Which brings me to…

Responsibility

We are told our societal “responsibility” is to treat people and situations defined by norms “respectfully.” But what is typically implied is more than mere courtesy or politeness. One is expected to treat that person or event with the regard that others around you have for it, whether you have that same regard. And what does that mean?

Sometimes it means “behave.” Be quiet. Hold your tongue. Don’t cause upset. Conform.

And there is a way where this is ok, and a way in which its not.

We are told we need to respect roles, traditions, situations. Dress a certain way, comport ourselves is a certain way – whether in a professional setting, family, religious, formal, whatever. But what about respecting ourselves and our viewpoint?

Respect your parents, your elders. Does that extend to them espousing casual racism and misogyny at a family event? Do we take that quietly and “behave” — we’re often taught so, women in particular. Personally, keeping my mouth shut has never been my gift in these situations, but I have often been told I am being “disrespectful” and “causing conflict.”

Respect religious leaders. Even if they are preaching hate? Even if they are abusing people in their community? Even if they are indulging in politics from the pulpit?

Respect the leaders at your job. Even if they are showing a lack of integrity? Even if they are acting in a way which shows that they don’t respect their clients or the people in their organization?

Now…some of these things are easier than others, and depending who you are your milage may vary. Family can be complicated, and emotional connection can be all caught up in it. Nobody wants to cause harm to someone they love. You might not respect your organizational leaders, but you might not be in a position where you can afford to walk. I’m not saying the math is simple or that my answer is yours.

What I’m saying is this — we have been taught that respectful means sit down and shut up. What if it doesn’t? What if respecting tradition isn’t more important than respecting yourself and your own authenticity and integrity? And you’re saying “of course, I would never compromise my own…”

But we do, all the time. We reinforce privilege, injustice, poor treatment, toxic ideas, and casual hate by our silence. Now, you might be a rare person who doesn’t do that, but before you claim that look damn close.

What brought this on? I’m going to a family funeral this week with family members with whom…let’s just say I don’t agree. We are different ends of the American cultural spectrum. And I was talking about not starting fights at funerals and not wanting to upset my father (who for the record, while imperfect, is an amazingly loving and accepting person despite his subculture and is willing to hear other perspectives and learn). Now, I have been absolutely taught funerals are not places for fights, and certainly I shut down a few at my own mother’s funeral because they were arguments made of bullshit and purposeless drama and they pissed me off. And, my da doesn’t like conflict on his best day. I’m not going to this event for me, I’m going for him.

I am expected to behave within my assigned gender role, pretend to participate in the religious ceremony even if I’m faking, dress appropriately, speak softly, and make no waves. Now, as previously mentioned…never been something I’m great at.

The (smart and insightful) friend I was talking to said a couple of things that were good reminders and set me on this path. “You don’t owe anyone silence in the face of ignorance.” and “If people say hateful shit, and no one checks them, you check them. Anyone else’s feelings about that aren’t your problem.”

So what is my *responsibility* here? I need to have a certain amount of care for my da — I don’t wholly believe his feelings are not my problem – in one sense every person is responsible for their own, and in another sense, this is a highly emotionally charged event for him and he’s a person I love. And. That does not mean I need to let hatefulness and casual bias go without comment. It doesn’t mean I need to sit and listen while this grates on my soul. I do not need to “respect” my elders and the event so much that I disrespect myself and what I know is right by being silent.

I wish I could say I’d never done that. I wish I could say I had never bitten my tongue rather than cause conflict. I wish I could say I had never been complicit due to my silence. I’ve opened my mouth more often than I’ve kept it closed, but I can’t say I have not done it. But we live and learn.

My responsibility is not to be silent for false-respect. My responsibility is to say something — not punch people, or start screaming, or treat people badly — but to challenge assumptions. Sometimes this will do nothing. But the cost of silence is too high. Too many of us are silent and it allows people with toxic beliefs to think they are in a comfortable and unchallenged majority.

I haven’t posted here for a long while — I actually forgot this was still up — but I have been getting the writing bug again and I may be putting a few things down here in the coming days and weeks. I have a list of topics itching at the back of my mind.

As to where I’ve been? In 2019, I went into a new job and in 2020 I found myself IT Director of the Public Health Department for a major city. You might imagine how my 2020-21 went (or more likely you can’t — I may write about it but it was intense and nonstop). I then took a promotion to central IT for that same City and I’ve been running hard with that and the complications of life.

It’s getting past time to back up and think out loud again.

If you’ve never read it: https://blog.amypearlman.com/about/

I have been having many conversations both in person and online about living and succeeding as an ADHD professional. What I’ve found is that a lot of ADHD adults think they’re somehow broken, and we don’t share info with each other very effectively. I know I have received feedback that I could not be successful because of some of my coping mechanisms. These are statements made by people with little understanding.  I can’t claim to have all the answers, but I’ve learned a few things in the past [some number] of years and I thought I’d gather my thoughts here.  

Before I get started, some context: I am female (which I mention because it matters when it comes to how ADHD exhibits). I was what you call a “gifted kid”—generally considered to be of high intelligence (for all that IQ is worth). I was diagnosed while in college, and I am now mid-career with a relatively senior position.  I have informally coached and/or compared notes with both employees and other professionals with these issues. I am in Information Technology. I am not a medical or psychological professional and nothing I say should be considered to be medical advice of any kind.  I’m sharing observations, experiences, and opinions. And always, as it says on the label, these thoughts are unpolished.

Being ADD or ADHD is a type of neurodivergence.  According to Dr. Nick Walker “neurodivergence is not intrinsically positive or negative, desirable or undesirable.” Even within the diagnoses of ADD and ADHD, there is significant neurodiversity — meaning that we have different patterns and the thing that works for one of us may not work for all of us.

Also, the vast majority of medical and psych research over the years in this area have been on adolescent and pre-adolescent males, largely white males. ADHD exhibits differently in girls, women, and adults. I don’t have enough information to know how it may exhibit differently in people of color, though in my experience taking narrow research and trying to apply it broadly is not particularly effective.  I had symptoms as a kid, but my mother was told that I could not have ADHD because of the way I was able to focus on some tasks.  Today we know that hyperfocus on preferred tasks is a hallmark of ADHD behaviors.

So, here are some things I’ve learned:

• Our processes may look chaotic to others.  That doesn’t mean that others are right and we are wrong.  Neurodivergent brains can’t use neurotypical tactics and be successful. Learn to explain. Also learn when you need to translate your process to an ordered format in order to communicate your result.
• We work in bursts, rather than at steady rates. ADHD people can be very effective thinkers, amazing team members, and high producers, but it happens in rapid bursts, and requires taking downtime between. Eight hours of meetings in an eight hour day is rarely effective for anyone, but it’s a real issue for an ADHD person.
• Time and task management doesn’t work for us like it does for others.  Most popular task management methods are designed by and for neurotypical males, and we need to account for the refocusing time we need due to interruptions and task switching.
• Environment matters.  Balancing interactive time and quiet time and being able to both block out distractions and not fall too deep into hyperfocus holes are critical. 
• There’s more than one kind of drug.  Stimulant drugs don’t work for everyone. There are non-stim options like Strattera which work for some.  There are also many anti-depressants and other brain drugs which have ADHD-related off-label uses.
• Drugs are not the answer for everyone. Some people can use a measured stream of caffeine. Others can use tactics and manage their environment.
• Your food choices, supplements, sleep, and stress management are huge. Remember that your body essentially has a single pool of resources to manage your focus, stress, and any physical stressors—many ADHD individuals have additional conditions as well. You need to keep that pool as big as it can be which means managing your sleep, your downtime/recharging activities, and your nutrition. Some of us try to run on sugar—don’t fall into that trap. And as I’ve been known to say, serotonin debt is real.
• Managing your focus pool is critical. You’ve got to choose ruthlessly about where you spend your focus.
• Preferred tasks are an ADHD standard. We over-invest on things we like to do, and ignore or postpone other tasks. You either need to choose a job that leans to your preferred tasks, or find a way to focus on things that aren’t. For me, it’s about desiring an outcome and then doing what it takes to achieve it.
• There are adult and professional coaches, as well as therapists, that specialize in ADHD. Keep in mind that unless a coach is either ADHD or trained in tactics to understand how our brains our wired, their advice may not be applicable.
• It doesn’t matter how old you are—age, new roles, and desire to improve and advance as a person and a professional may mean you need help, drugs, or a change in tactics at different points in your life. For me, as I’ve moved up, I’ve had to rethink—you can’t direct other people’s work if you can’t present an organized vision.

I may explore some of these statements in detail on future posts if people are interested, but the point is this: it’s okay to need different things, to work in different patterns, and to need different organization. We add a lot of value. We see connections and patterns others don’t. We have significant creative potential. Often, ADHD people are highly intelligent and will find new innovations. However, in order to be successful we both need to know how to manage ourselves, and our relationships with our colleagues and our management. And we need to work in organizations that will accept our needs and value our contributions.

I was reminded of a post I’ve been meaning to write when I saw the drawing below.

It’s the truth.  Women spend a lot of time talking about our oppression, glass ceilings our male allies (and whether we need/want them, or whether that’s a false narrative), our opportunities, how to amplify each other…

And sometimes we march, call Congress, gather together, present, write, and call for action.  We gather in real life and on social media, we say #metoo and wear black.

And all of this is critically important, don’t get me wrong. These points of action are vital and need to continue.

Where I think we miss is in the every day.  Women ask and expect to be supported by male allies, but we fail to take care of ourselves, and we are pretty terrible at being allies to one another.

I’m a pretty assertive person, some might even say more than assertive.  But several incidents have stuck in my head from the last year or so where I could have and maybe should have done better at asserting for myself, and asserting for other women.  I’ll share two — please excuse their length.

Asserting for myself: I am a technology manger and part of the core team on a technology project (a common role for me). For context, I work for a women’s college of liberal reputation and the vendors are well aware of that before arriving. During the selection process, one vendor brought an engineer that was a challenge. Before the meeting even began, he had already flatly refused to enter two doorways before me and had made several borderline comments meant (in his mind) to show his respect for me as a woman, but actually fairly offensive.  I later described him to a colleague as “southern in all the wrong ways.”

During the course of the demonstration, I asked many questions, and he directed all of the answers to the only male colleague in the room. At one point, he and his colleagues asked me if my husband would buy me my new smartphone.  Note:  this has never, ever happened, nor do I need it to.  I did push back on this, but allowed the conversation to be laughed off.  When we walked out at the end of the meeting, my male peer was fuming and asked me why I hadn’t “taken that guys head clean off his shoulders.”  My response was that I had determined in the first 5 minutes that I didn’t have the time to re-educate him and I was just going to get through the meeting.  Upon further reflection, I came to the conclusion that the behavior just hadn’t bothered me as much because 1) I was used to having to fight to be heard and I didn’t find his behavior that unusual, and 2) I was well aware that the other reps with him saw nothing wrong with his behavior.

Later in our process, it became clear that the vendor would be returning and intended to bring the same SE.  I sent an email to the sales rep, which read (in part):

You need to ensure the team is aware that this is a women’s college of distinctly liberal and feminist reputation.  Some of our technologists (myself included) and many of the attendees will be women.

I call this out because a major part of the internal debrief when we last met was that, while the product was compelling, *all* of our attendees had observed/perceived that though women asked most of the questions, most of the answers from the engineer were directed at the only [institution] male in the room. Of the 8 vendors we saw, this was the only meeting where the group felt this way.

We don’t believe this was conscious or intentional, however I must be crystal clear that our community has very little tolerance for displays of gender inequality.  If the same kind of interactions are observed during this meeting, it will easily be grounds for you losing this sale.  I apologize for my frankness, but I thought it was important to flag this issue for you.

The vendor’s response was to bring the engineer in question, but to add a female manager to the lineup of suits.  While the engineer did try to modify his behavior, it was clear to me that while he had been spoken to, the feedback made no sense to him.  Later conversations with the female manager (no longer with this vendor) indicated she saw exactly what we referenced, but made no headway with her colleagues who thought the engineer’s behavior was “charming.”

Should we have allowed this meeting to go forward?  Should we have allowed ourselves to continue with the vendor?  It’s a tough call because they had a really good product for us. We ended up moving forward, but having the individual removed from the account. However in retrospect, I should have asserted for myself (and my female colleagues) on a more serious level throughout.

Supporting Others: This one really sticks in my mind because I truly wish I had acted differently.

I was in a minor car accident and had the insurance adjustor meet me at the body shop.  He and I had just come to my car and were starting a conversation about the accident when he grabbed a female employee of the bodyshop by the arms, kissed her forehead, and released her.  He then explained he’d trained her in the business and she was like a daughter.  It bothered me, and I saw the client she had been walking with look askance at the interaction.  However, I basically looked at him and said “y’know, it’s kind of weird, but if that’s what y’all do…”

Throughout the 1 hour I was in the offices, I saw him interact with her several more times, and in each interaction, he was clearly acting with some affection, but everything he did was undermining her.  He seemed to want her to take care of anything he needed done regardless of if the work was assigned to a colleague, and seemed to expect her attention/special treatment based on their relationship. It also became clear that she was both very accustomed to this, and quietly frustrated by it.  Yet it clearly seemed as if he was in a power position where she was not comfortable telling him to knock it off.  In my observation she was one of the most competent and senior people in the large shop, but his behavior regularly undermined her by treating her as less.

And I said nothing.  Why?  It seemed not to be my business.  I don’t know her, I don’t know him.  I don’t want to make trouble for her. Also, he was the adjustor on my claim and could easily have made my life harder as well.  But was staying silent worth it? In hindsight I should have spoken.

Now, do I think that if I had said to him that he was undermining her to clients and co-workers, and probably her boss — if I had said that he never would have done these things to a man he trained — do I think he would have understood or come to agree?  I’m pretty sure he would not have.  I think he would have said it was me who didn’t understand.  But I’ll never know because I didn’t say.

My promise: next time I will, and the consequences be damned.

As women we know we’re strong. We know we’re capable. And we know the women around us are as well.  But sometimes we don’t own that.  And as women we are more likely to either destroy each other, or silently allow damage to occur than to make things right. For myself, I’m drawing a line.  I already try to support the women who work for and around me, and the women in my life. I try to be a door opener for everyone whose work I respect regardless of their demographics.

But I’m not going to quietly stand for these things any more.  I won’t yell and scream, but neither will I accept.  When someone asks me what I did in the “war on women”, I want my answer to be that I stood up, that I did not back down, and that I expected fairness and equality and to be treated as a capable professional and I supported the women around me and did not allow them to be ignored, overlooked, or subtly abused. And yes, I will continue to call and write my congresspeople, to vote and encourage candidates who support these views, and write, and take part in orgs that support equality, diversity, and the strength of women.  But I will expect better, and live beyond my comfort zone.

In my professional development reading I came across this: To Find Meaning in Your Work, Change How You Think About It by John Coleman [HBR]

While everyone may not handle situations of life and death at work, we each do serve someone in what we do. Teachers can see every day the young lives they are shaping — and visualize the lasting impact they may have on the young lives they touch. Corporate accountants can connect themselves mentally to the larger work of their organizations and take pride and purpose in the customers they help. Who do you serve? Connecting our day-to-day jobs — consciously and concretely — to those we’re ultimately serving makes completing that work more purposeful.

Just this morning, I encountered the news of Ajit Pai suddenly cancelling his trip to CES.  I shook my head at another example of a public official serving in a government “by and for the people” ducking the very people they were meant to serve. Then I had a gut check moment.

I run an IT client service organization with substantially demanding clients.  I meet with people often, partner together to find solutions.  Many problems and complaints also come to my door, and not all are presented kindly.  There have definitely been times when I have not thought respectfully about a client or a situation, I’m human after all.

But am I a person who might sometimes be running or hiding from the people I serve?  And if I am, what can I do about it?

I considered this carefully and have concluded that while I am not actively hiding, I am not opening myself enough.  I am not conflict opposed, I have thick skin, and I am happy to talk and find a solution to any frustration.  But I have been in my community as a problem solver for some time and that does allow history to build. It’s natural to allow walls to form. In order to truly serve my community, I need to open myself more and encourage contact and discussion in different contexts.

As to what I can do…  I can ask a few more people to lunch or coffee.  I can make sure I schedule time to work and be approachable in public spaces and even let people know when I’ll be there.  I may consider a listening tour of a sort. But I must work on reorienting my frame.