Author: lcdelery

To be different these days is to live life to the fullest.  Individuality is seen as the best way to optimize the short time we have on Earth.  While lessons of the past are noted, they are often seen as too distant to apply to where we are now so we must forge our own way.  In a lot of ways this is true – how technology allows us to relate is very different from when the only way to send a message between towns was via a carrier. Where this falls short though is in how we fundamentally think – humans have desired and craved the same things over time such as love, connection and power.

I recently watched the two Fyre Festival documentaries on Netflix and Hulu.  They blew my mind.  Aside from being shocked by the creator of Frye Festival’s actions, the power of social media was astounding.  The social media campaign was very well coordinated but essentially relied on several models posting pictures of a promo trip.  The posts introduced the Fyre Festival (with a call to action to a website), and it was off to the races!  People started spending tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars for a festival on which they saw one website with barely any information. 

The fact that people want a certain lifestyle so badly that they would book a trip with little information was shocking… or is it?  The reality is marketers have been using this trick for decades.  Cigarettes became popular because of promotions by huge actors like John Wayne and Lucille Ball, yet are clearly not a good thing.  So why is it we still fall for the same thing?  The movie Groundhog Day shows the trauma that comes with continually reliving the same moment.  So why do we keep reliving the same moment when it comes to celebrities and advertising?

One of the most obvious reasons is that we idolize them.  To idolize something is to have “extreme admiration or reverence for” or “to have blind or excessive devotion.”  We are devoted to our celebrities and as a result, we follow their lead blindly.  This then leads to us trusting their judgment whether right or wrong.  People typically follow a celebrity because they find them relatable or admirable.  We find they represent an exaggerated or more exciting version of who we see ourselves as. These feelings foster a feeling of trust so when a celebrity endorses something, we assume that if it’s good enough for them, it’s good enough for us.  

Another interesting element at play is that emotional content is said to actually physiologically arouse us.  Say what? A study by the Association for Phychological Science said it activates our autonomic nervous system which makes us have an emotional response.  It’s kind of like how when you are around someone in a good mood, you end up leaving in a better mood.  In the case of Fyre Festival, the feel good nature of the images makes us feel and want that feel good response hence leading us to participate in it.  In addition, it also makes us more likely to share it with our friends, which in this case made the festival go viral.  

Lastly, there is a lot of power in social proof.  Social proof is a psychological concept that says we humans will act as a herd especially when we don’t know how to behave.  What’s interesting here is that it may not always be that we trust the celebrity, but the fact that they have millions of followers who are liking and participating in a post makes us want to do the same.  We conform because we think others know more than we do in a situation and override or skip over internal logic.  

So whether it’s a celebrity or a brand you love, be smart with social media.  Bill Murray got pretty desperate in reliving his days in Groundhog Day,and no one wants that for you!  Remember that social media is a marketing platform… or you may end up in the Bahamas with a cheese sandwich.

I grew up thinking that an ideal world was one in which there is no famine, everyone has shelter, and everyone gets along.  Maybe I watched too many Disney movies, but it never occurred to me that people would enjoy dissonance.  At Columbia Business School, we had “clusters” – assigned groups of 60 – 70 people with whom we would take most of our first year classes.  In addition to getting to know each other from our like schedules, there were competitions across clusters to foster the bond through a common enemy.  Clusters were introduced (I was told) when the school had a lot of sabotaging in the 80s. The school thought that using this known psychological approach would help decrease the negative competition overall.

While trying to beat out someone in a physical battle or through academic wits definitely connects you with teammates, it also surfaces the evil that lives within each of us when there is a scarcity mentality (i.e. only one person can win).  Anger and pride and can bond us just as easily as problem solving and resolve, yet it then does the exact opposite of what creating a common enemy sets out to achieve.  Hannah Gadsby says it well in her standout performance in Nanette:  “Anger, much like laughter, can connect a room full of strangers like nothing else, but anger, even if it’s connected to laughter, will not relieve tension… It is a toxic, infectious tension.  And it knows no other purpose than to spread blind hatred.”

When I set out to write this article, I didn’t realize how much leveraging a common enemy is promoted: divorce counselors, office environments, and parent/children dynamics to name a few.  I’m not a psychologist, but what I read points to this approach as a short-term solution: it relieves some of the initial tension but doesn’t ultimately address the issue that made people disagree or the underlying issues lurking within each person.  For example, when two children are fighting and a parent yells at them, it makes them bond together to defeat the parent.  The children don’t address or try to solve their differences.

The longer term, more effective approach to uniting people is known as a superordinate goal – a goal that rises above and unites people through some ultimate goal, like world peace. This can only happen though if this is something we all truly want, which I’m starting to question.  Our political situation in the US has become so divisive that people are not always rational, only siding with people because that person is AGAINST someone else.  The “Us vs. Them” environment promoted throughout our culture breeds this idea that you have to take a side rather than trying to rise above a situation for some ultimate good.

But it’s never too late – luckily each day presents us with the opportunity to change and turn down a different road.  We can stop focusing on banding together to fight against someone and instead fight together for something that benefits us all.  How do we find this superordinate goal in an environment that seems so divided? As Ina Garten’s cookbook says, we go back to basics.  We respect our commonalities as humans who all were created outside of ourselves.  We dig deep within ourselves and bond over the rights we find each human desires.  We… love.

Even though he runs one of the largest technology companies, Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, has said that we as a society need to be thoughtful with technology:  “Technology is capable of doing great things. But it doesn’t want to do great things.  It doesn’t want to do anything.  That part takes all of us.”  Technology has developed at such a rapid rate though that society’s role in it has never been clearly defined.  Technology companies have kept to themselves for obvious reasons.  Most people find technology confusing or uninteresting so would rather just consume technology and not think about it.  Yet, breaches of our data or use of our data by companies like Facebook make us frustrated.  If we don’t start to take a more active role now, decisions will continue to be made that impact our lives or have big implications for the future.

One of my favorite examples of these types of decisions is from a small study done a few months ago. The study assessed whether scientists can predict (i.e. model) how we as humans make moral decisions – things like whether you would push a stranger off train tracks to save five people you know (which is a common psychological study).  The study is being used for the development of self-driving cars.  Up until this point, engineers had assumed that computers wouldn’t ever be able to model moral decisions such as this so some human intervention would always be needed.  With these findings though, engineers could choose to do otherwise, whether we as consumers want it or not.

Like with other complicated industries such as credit cards, I empathize with people who feel that the industry is too complicated or have zero interest in the topic.  Personally I love talking about both (probably more than people want to hear), but if we were dependent on frogs everyday, I would have zero interest in learning about them.  Nevertheless, just as we wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) take out a mortgage without understanding how it works, we shouldn’t ignore the inner workings of the technology we use.  Read a few articles a week about what technology companies are doing.  Research something that’s been confusing about Facebook or a dating app to find out why it is the way it is.  With the hours we spend on our phone, we can afford to take a little break from Candy Crush to get more educated on what controls 95% of our life.  Who knows, you might even learn to like it.

Double Jeopardyis still one of my favorite movies – there’s drama, revenge and Ashley Judd.  But one scene I can’t stomach is when she is in the cemetery – she’s locked in a casket, inside a mausoleum, and no one can hear her.  She’s yells and screams. Nothing.  Have you ever felt like that in your own life?  You are trying with all your might to get people’s attention yet you are ignored?  I think a lot of people feel this way right now – Colin Kaepernick felt this way so he kneeled during the national anthem.  Women around the world feel this way so are protesting through the #MeToo movement.  In some ways it reminds me of a child who is injured but doesn’t know how to talk yet – you see the child trying to get attention but can’t see the real wound that needs to be addressed.

While I can empathize with what others are feeling, this feeling of silently screaming didn’t fully hit home until I had a near death ladder fall a few weeks ago.  My apartment building in NYC has been undergoing a stairwell renovation in which we only have one stairwell into/out of the building. Aside from the noise and dust, my building management company was supposed to notify us to leave the building on the days when the actual stairs were being replaced so we could vacate the building; however, they failed to do so.  I had to leave the building in the middle of the day, and my only two options were them “holding the stairs” (because the stairs had been completely removed between floors) or using a ladder.  I should have chosen a third option and cancelled my plans, but instead, I chose the ladder.  Stretched almost one full flight in length, the extension ladder brackets came undone as I went down.  A worker named Anthony (shout out cause he’s a rockstar) caught me as I landed on the bottom, so I was only left with bruises, a deep cut, and coping with the trauma.

Before the incident, I had multiple conversations with the management company about how I work from home so leave frequently throughout the day, etc.  After the incident, I’ve upped my communication and tried even harder to get them to communicate better because the construction still isn’t finished. Yet, the negligence continues, and as I try to get NYC to look into this problematic situation via the organizations available to me, I feel completely invisible.  It’s super frustrating. And it hurts.  I feel like no matter how hard I try, the process is set up to favor the side that I’m not on.  And for once, I really understand what it’s like to be in that position.

There are so many people silently screaming nowadays because they too feel hurt.  Maybe it’s for something that happened in history or maybe it’s an incident that directly impacted them.  Regardless of why, it won’t go away if the wounded are dismissed or only topically addressed.  Deep wounds require invasive treatment, and sometimes treatment for one issue reveals that there was a deeper and different problem that is actually at stake.  So if you are the one in that position, keep pressing on.  Take the time to define the vision for where you want things to change, and look for opportunities for genuine discussion with people different from you.  And if you are on the other side and don’t understand why people are so upset, ask.  Explore.  Don’t tell other people how they should or shouldn’t be reacting to the past.  Take the time to truly listen and see how maybe together, we can move from history to the future.

In a world of increased access, quitting is always tempting. Whether it’s a marriage, job, or friendship, when things get tough, the ease with which we can find an alternative nowadays makes it easy to walk away. Companies are focused on getting us information in an easy to understand, accessible way which makes it all the harder to avoid seeing the alternatives. Why work through a communication gap when LinkedIn is emailing you all the companies who viewed your profile? Why stick through a relationship when Tinder’s already shown you a list of five people who might not care about how you floss your teeth? Even our cooking choices have improved. With the option of a hot meal delivered right to your door, we don’t have to “Iron Chef it” and try to make a meal out of corn meal, broccoli and beef. In a consumer driven, technology centered society, we have to be conscious of its impact and how that might be changing our attitude towards trying.

Data across multiple generations shows a shift in attitude that I think could have to do with increased optionality. According to information analyzed by LinkedIn, over the past 20 years, the average number of jobs people have within five years out of college has doubled and the number of jobs people hold five to ten years after school has increased as well. Based on research done by Bowling Green State University, the number of people over the age of 50 divorced in a given year has doubled from 1990 to 2010. Even if you don’t believe these numbers, do a little self assessment: If you are really honest with yourself, how many times have you thought of walking away from something only because you saw another option that looked easier?

Of course there are multiple reasons why people might move jobs or divorce, but the psychology of knowing there are other options does influence our decision to leave. Knowing this, we need to recognize how this could be subconsciously influencing our decisions and whether we are truly giving things our best shot. We need to be excited to take on conflicts that are awkward or seem like they have no solution because there is always a benefit to trying to work through something even if it’s just learning more about you. It’s great technology provides so many options and societal norms embrace changing your mind, but its up to us to put on the guardrails of how to use it.

I heard an analogy once about men and women and how, generally speaking, we handle challenges differently.  It described men as being like a one bedroom – what goes on in the kitchen is not happening in the living room or the bedroom.  Men can separate the different parts of their life – for example, not think about the problems in their home life when they are at work.  For women, it’s different – when something is happening in the kitchen, we can’t separate it from the bedroom or the living room.  When our home life is a mess, we tend to see our work life as starting to crumble, and then we feel like we have no money and hate all of our clothes #lastweekanyone.

While there are obviously exceptions to this analogy, hearing this brought to the surface what I had felt subconsciously when facing problems:  I will perceive them as big or small, life ending or trivial based on how I feel the moment prior.  Take for example crushing it at work – if I go into that workday feeling shameful, then doing a great job at work won’t matter as shame will somehow tell me that I’m still not good enough.  If I go into the day feeling well rested and ready to take on the day, then I will continue that mood after getting praised for something I did.  Rather than wearing glass half full, rose-colored glasses, I wear rainbow colored glasses.

I think everyone needs a little ROYGBIV in his or her life, but I’ve realized that some colors in the rainbow need to be contained.  We need to process our negative emotions when they happen and not allow them to bleed into everything else.  Seeing things from a blue, depressed perspective because we’re feeling blue about something else is actually a form a self-sabotage.  We limit ourselves in that moment (albeit maybe subconsciously) to expecting the worst and thereby actually project that onto our path.  Our mind tries to figure out where we are going as we go so when we’re thinking negatively, we’re telling our mind to go to that place.

The good news is glasses are glasses so you can take them off whenever you want (yep, mind blown). The trick is to recognize when you tend to put them on.  For me, that means classifying emotions into those that I can easily recognize (like irrational anger) and those that creep up (deep seeded fears). The ones that are more conscious I process in the moment and isolate them to whatever brought them about.  For the creeper emotions, because they tend to be emotions that play a much more fundamental role in my life, I remind myself of their presence throughout my day and ask myself how they might be impacting me.  By breaking up which emotions need more or less attention, my glasses are starting to look a little more like Google glasses: clear, maybe ugly and just taking in all the information as it comes.

We are in an age where everyone can share their opinion publically beyond their immediate social circle. The lack of cost of entry to put your opinion out there has changed how people approach giving their opinion. The small number of public opinions used to be limited to experts in a field who were solicited for a specific purpose – a factual article, a story, or entertainment. Most other people (us common folk) would voice opinions via interactions, usually conversations. Now people, not experts and often times barely knowledgeable on a topic, opine on issues or other people’s thoughts on issues left and right.

In a very positive way, it gives people who were previously suppressed the opportunity to have a voice. Barriers that were there before, whether it be the cost or access of publicity, are lessened. The privilege that allowed certain races, religions, or other categorizations to monopolize certain conversations is harder to do with the power of public opinion. On the other hand, it’s created an entitlement that everyone needs to or worse, should, have an opinion on everything. Even in areas where we might not understand the dynamics of both sides or why there is even discussion on an issue, we are compelled to voice an opinion.

It used to be said that if you don’t have anything nice to say, then don’t say anything. So what is our motto now?

Publishing an opinion via any non-live channel is a one-way conversation. Someone gets to state his or her opinion and someone else gets to react. Sure, you can respond and banter back and forth, but the interpretation of words can be very misleading. Without the tone behind it, words, punctuation, even emojis can be misread. I once did a Man on the Street where a guy thought the ‘eye roll’ emoji was someone looking up at the sun. Maybe it is and 99% of us misinterpreted the emoji makers intent #iwantanemojidictionary . Silence can be read as the same thing. Someone not voicing an opinion on a topic could just be that he or she doesn’t feel that the channels available give him or her the option to voice their opinion accurately. Or maybe… gasp… they don’t have a strong opinion.

Whatever it is, to me, that’s ok to not say anything. Sure, there are times we might need to grow up and force ourselves to have an opinion on things when we are just being too lazy to read up (trade wars anyone?). I also think it’s acceptable though to pick our battles and voice our opinions on that which is important and matters to us. Don’t be silent if you have an opinion because you have the option now to share it, but focus your efforts on where you want to make an impact. The silent person standing in a room who then speaks is a lot more noticeable than the one who has been yelling his or her opinion the whole time.

I used to love going to the library as a kid. I got to skim through the books (and yes, I’m a millennial, but we still did this when I was younger), look at the covers, read the little blurbs, and then pick out a few that I could read before the due date. I would sometimes try to read the first few pages of the book to get a better sense of what the book would be like because I didn’t trust the summary. Even as a kid I had some sense that maybe the two minutes spent evaluating the outside of the book wouldn’t lead me to the books I would enjoy the most.

If you haven’t been living in a bunker like Kimmy Schmidt, you’ve probably read or heard conversations about how technology is changing everyone, especially us younger generations. It’s creating an impatience for anything that doesn’t provide instant gratification, and in some ways, changing how people make decisions. We don’t want to go out to meet someone so we go onto an app which provides us lots of instant dating options. We want to see our friends who live in another city, so instead of saving our money and waiting a few weeks or months to go on a trip, we FaceTime. A new song comes out – no more waiting until morning to go buy the CD, we can just download the song.

These aren’t bad things – I love being able to FaceTime my family since all live hours away – but I do believe our tolerance for delayed gratification may be lessening. I’m totally guilty of it myself in a lot of ways. Most recently, I noticed it in my career. I’ve been going on a lot of hosting auditions (which I’m grateful to have) but have been discouraged by the constant rejection. I know that very few people make it in the industry overnight; yet, I see how easy it would be to do something else, and it makes me want to quit. I don’t remember being like this when I was younger. Whether it was piano, basketball, or swimming, I kept at each even when I wasn’t the best, only stopping when I realized that I wanted to move on to something else.

As cliché as it sounds, I know nothing easy comes from that which is easy. If it’s easy to attain, it’s just as easy to lose (and doesn’t my diet regimen know it… three weeks to lose a pound and 1 second to gain it). I could settle for that which is more available and easier to come by, but is that truly the best use of my gifts? So my friends, if you too want to give up on something because it feels too hard, remember the book covers – no book cover tells the end, and what you see now in the midst of your tribulation is not the end, it’s just part of your story.

Recently, I noticed myself feeling a little less confident than normal. Nothing had changed in my life to cause this shift – dating status: single, job situation: employed, fitness level: always dieting because otherwise I would eat an entire wheel of cheese. Yet, I felt self-conscious, hypersensitive, and questioning all my interactions with people. At first, I thought it must be because I didn’t get an audition I really wanted, so I was feeling rejection. I thought I would be a great fit for the role so it makes sense that my confidence would take a hit from not getting it. But after processing the rejection (which I have done plenty of times before and when I worked in the corporate world), the feeling still lingered in a way that I had never felt before. I was looking down on myself and feeling more than just disappointed – I was ashamed.

I had just come back from a girl’s trip where I spent a lot of time talking to new people which usually includes talking about what you do. For me, this involves “explaining” how one makes it as a host. When you are in a creative profession, the first question people always ask is, “Do I know any of your work?” It’s funny to me because when you are in the corporate world having a job seems to be enough (no one ever asked to see my last presentation), but in a creative field, it’s like you have to be known to be real. I don’t think people consciously see how the question feels to the other side, but in my case, I think just being asked it so many times in a short period took its toll. The shame came from hearing my own answer over and over again during a time where I was also processing the rejection of a role I really wanted.

Some shame comes because of what we did to someone or ourselves that is hurtful so we feel remorse – let’s call this moral shame. Feeling moral shame is somewhat rationale because it’s related to an actual or perceived error. The second type of shame, shadow shame, doesn’t always make as much sense. Our emotions make us feel foolish or humiliated when we don’t get the outcome we hoped for and cast a shadow that prevents us from feeling joy or happiness. While it comes from good intentions and a desire to protect – you, a situation, a friend – it really is a reaction to vulnerability or fear. We end up feeling like a fraud or, even though I don’t like saying this term, a loser.

So often, how a comment is taken is the opposite of the intention.

One of the things I’ve realized more and more as I’ve gotten older is how different everyone interprets and perceives things. My mom and I recently had an exchange where I was interpreting her reaction as one of skepticism when she actually meant the opposite. Luckily I had the courage to bring up how her reaction upset me, and we could talk through what she meant. So often, how a comment is taken is the opposite of the intention. The same goes for shame. Shadow shame is all about our interpretation of events. When I thought about the shame I felt, I realized nothing came from a reaction from anyone else. It was all just my fears and a projection of how vulnerable I felt from not having a famous show to link to my name. It was all my view of events and thoughts. So like all imaginary stories, it needed to come to an end. I spoke truth to myself (and continue to do so daily) to not let my imagination take such a strong hold that a shadow of shame hinders my light.

One area I think needs to change is the conversation around the “five year plan.”

Millennials have changed the game when it comes to their careers. Baby Boomers often stayed at the same company their entire life. Now, the younger workforce is moving more often with it becoming more commonplace for people to switch jobs every year or so. These changes require a new way of thinking and managing people early on in their career. One area I think needs to change is the conversation around the “five year plan.”

I used to work at several large corporations and without a doubt, when goal setting came around, my bosses would ask, “Where do you see yourself in five years?” I was a little bit of a punk in my younger corporate career. Four months into my first role after undergrad, I had the courage to tell my boss that I networked in the company and found a new role because I didn’t like my current one. So, when they asked this question, I never let them see the panic I felt inside. Instead, I would confidently talk about managing a team and moving up in the company.

Now, in my 30s (and no longer working for large companies), I can more clearly see this question for what it is and call BS (and I’m not a swearing kind of gal). The question of what you want to do in five years is well intentioned in trying to help people think beyond just what they are doing today (which is a skill that takes time to develop). However, I think it does more harm than good for a few reasons.

If we focus too much on what we said we would do in five years, we don’t give our goals the opportunity to grow with us.

First, it forces young people to take the limited exposure they have early on in their life and determine how they best fit into jobs or opportunities. Second, it limits growth because we are wired to approach the question thinking about what we could accomplish with who we are NOW, instead of who we will be in five years. In turn, if we focus too much on what we said we would do in five years, we don’t give our goals the opportunity to grow with us. Lastly, it’s too big to be effective. Even if the plan contains smaller goals on how to reach an ultimate goal, the plan needs to be shorter term for us to want to work towards it (see this blog post on setting effective goals). While it is productive to have an idea of where you might want to go in your life, getting too specific sets you up to fail as no one can predict five years into the future.

So, instead of sending younger people into a tizzy, which I’ve heard time and time again from folks I mentor, I think we should focus on “What do you want to change or develop yourself in over the next year or two?” Don’t ask about five years in the future directly, help them to think big picture by focusing on the shorter term. Create an action plan to open up their world to new opportunities. Manage or mentor people on what they are facing now and how their decisions now impact their potential options. Help them think about what paths are an option based on what they have developed and could develop. And if you are a millennial and still do get asked this question, don’t worry. Answer the question the best you can at the moment, but remember it’s like what Kate Hudson says in How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days: “Bulls@#!”