reputation

What can we learn from Senator Barbara Boxer and her interaction with Brigadier General Michael Walsh?

1. Defend your personal brand.
2. Ask to be treated in a way that reflects who you are, what you have accomplished, and what you stand for.
3. To do anything else is to allow your personal brand to degrade.

Boxer and Walsh are said to have “clashed” during a hearing on Tuesday about the New Orleans Flood Protection and the work of the Army Corps of Engineers.

As described by Patricia Murphy, a columnist at Politics Daily:

During a terse exchange, as Boxer pressed Walsh on why the levees in New Orleans are still not repaired nearly four years after Hurricane Katrina, she said to Walsh:

“Could you say ’senator’ instead of ‘ma’am? It’s just a thing. I worked so hard to get that title. I’d appreciate it.”

The general’s response? “Yes, Senator.”

Why should she care? Because titles help to maintain personal brands.

Both Senator Boxer and General Walsh have reputations that they have earned over their years of public service. Both also have titles, also known as honorifics. These titles indicate to everyone the place that each of them has earned within their specific ‘industries’. For example, Boxer is not only a senator but also the Chair of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

For the Senator and the General, their titles are part of their personal brands.

Both parties deserve to be called not only by the titles they have earned, but also by the titles they prefer. Beyond being simply polite and respectful, the use of the appropriate honorific has a purpose for personal branding. The honorifics are an important shorthand that allows all participants to keep in mind the status and reputations of the parties involved. And, where one person’s formal status is higher than another’s, using the honorifics helps to organize the rules of engagement.

Was Boxer “rude”?

Boxer asked for the appropriate honorific (title) to be used. The general complied. Boxer used his title to refer to him, he (ultimately) used her title to refer to her.

After looking at the video of the interaction itself and also of the entire meeting, it seemed like a reasonable request. Boxer was direct, straightforward, specific, and NOT bitchy.

So, why is it that when asked to evaluate Boxer’s request that her formal title be used, over 75% of respondents indicated that they thought Boxer’s request was “rude”?

To answer that question, let’s take our own quick poll:

Why did some people think Boxer’s request was rude?

(1) They think personal brand and reputation are not important.

(2) They think that earned status is not important.

(3) They think that a woman’s personal brand is less important than a man’s personal brand.

if you didn’t choose option 3, go read the nearly 2,000 comments on Patricia Murphy’s post.

Maintaining personal brands is harder for some groups of individuals than for others.

Any time individuals are in a subordinate social position, whether they are the junior partner to the senior partner, the salesperson to the buyer, the woman to the man, or the minority group member to the majority group member, their personal brands are more vulnerable.

One of the perquisites of power is the ability to define the situation, and one of the easiest ways to define a situation to one’s own advantage is to diminish, disrespect or disregard the personal brand or reputation of less powerful parties. Thus,

Defending your personal brand is more important for women than it is for men.

As contrasted with men’s personal brands:

• Women’s personal brands are more likely to be intentionally disregarded.
  
• Women’s personal brands are more likely to be unintentionally disregarded.
  

And, as General Walsh’s efforts demonstrate,

• Women’s personal brands are more likely to be disrespected even by those who intend to respect women’s brands.

Personal brands, gender and race

Promoted by a conversation with Terrill Welch, a leadership coach and consultant, I’ve been doing some research on issues related to personal branding and women. (Despite my many reservations about personal branding as an implicitly politicized approach to finding personal voice and crafting personal reputation, I agree enough with the true intent of personal branding.)

I’ll write more about personal branding, gender and race in the next several weeks, so in the meantime keep your eyes open for situations where personal branding works differently for women than for men.

You’ll be surprised by what you see, and not always in a good way.

Take it from me, Ms. Professor Dr. Harquail.

Thanks for joining us. If these posts intrigue you, why not subscribe to AuthenticOrganizations and get posts by email? Add your email to the blue box on the upper right sidebar, and you're all set!

{ 9 comments }