Recently, I had a fun and fruitful brainstorming session with a very creative friend. After the session, Mike emailed me:

“Kate, 

Such a delight and great help to get a dose of your perspective and creative energy…After our conversation I realized a big question that I forgot to ask you.  You seem driven and moved by creativity (I love that) -- what's creativity?  

Warm wishes, Mike”

My response:

“Hahahahahaha!

Good question.

Creativity: A generative process resulting from curiosity and play, and devoid of rules and expectations.”

I thought that was the end of the conversation, but no, Mike went further still:

“Great answer. If I can "inspire" a bit further, the bigger (practical) questions for me are how you turn it on and how you recognize you're not there yet. A million answers out in the world....What are yours -- for you -- and for other people you are helping? (Hope that's not too much inspiration!). Thank you!!”

To which I answered:

“Oh, my gosh! OK. So, John Cleese just wrote a book on creativity and I was lucky enough to be at the dinner with him after the talk…

I asked him just that--HOW do you make yourself creative? Was it working alone, at a certain time during the day, with certain people? He told a hilarious story about using the Thesaurus with Graham Chapman to find silly words like “plummet,” which led, of course to sheep plummeting, but really had no prescription.*

However, this is what I would say I need:” Read on…

While studying at the Smith College School for Social Work, we were asked to face, own, and acknowledge the power dynamic inherent in any therapeutic relationship. No matter that we were young-ish, still-in-training therapists, the roles assigned, “therapist” and “client,” create an unequal power dynamic. No matter our age, race, gender, level of experience or education, in that particular relationship, we, the burgeoning therapist, are seen as the “expert.” We have the power, whether we know it or deserve it. At Smith, we were taught to become aware, acknowledge, and work to equalize this dynamic. Our goal was to shift the dynamic as much as possible so that our clients had power over their own treatment.

This week, we broaden our awareness of our own power and seek to find more balance by doing these three things…read on.

Living Colour, the amazing hard-rock band from the 80s, captured me with their song, Cult of Personality. I remember warming up to perform a play at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, roaming the cobblestone streets, my Walkman cranking their album, Vivid.

“I'm the smiling face on your T.V.

I'm the cult of personality.”

Our culture values “personality,” a certain type of loud, big, bold, almost performative presence.  It’s like a fad, in style. The loudest, most expressive voice wins. Not necessarily the wisest, smartest, most creative, most compassionate, most insightful. So many artists, writers, leaders, actors (yes!), are in fact, very shy.   The push to fit into the current love of the “big personality” can increase anxiety, comparison, and even lead to a sense of worthlessness. I see this in my clients who come to me saying they are getting 360 Feedback that they don't have "Executive Presence." When I ask what that means, they say they are given the feedback that they are too measured, thoughtful, listen too much, don’t jump right in.  What a loss for those groups, teams, businesses, who miss out on the brilliance of the shy or introverted or simply thoughtful minds?  

What is one to do if we are not born with a temperament that is naturally big, extroverted, boldly expressive?  Read on…

One of the many things I have learned from Dr. Jim Coan is that, unlike Gottman’s Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, which are contorted anger, direct expression of anger is…just fine. In fact, it is probably very healthy to get angry, directly, rather than holding it in, which can lead pretty quickly to more toxic behaviors like criticism and contempt.

What does direct anger look like? According to Jim Coan, direct anger simply means, “STOP! Enough! Basta! No more!” It is putting up a hard boundary that says, “NO! No more, absolutely not.” Usually this kind of direct anger comes after every other tool in the chest has been used to no avail.

What does it feel like? Read on…

This week we focus on the 4th of Gottman’s horsemen: Stonewalling. Dr. Jim Coan worked with Gottman and said that when coding couples in the “Love Lab,” they would note one partner literally turn away from the other. Stonewalling is when one partner removes themselves from the conflict rather than going towards it. We can see that sometimes this might be the best thing to do—when we are being baited or lured into a rabbit hole. But if stonewalling is a recurring habit, the relationship suffers. Knowing how to recognize and walk away from a rabbit hole or an unhealthy dynamic is vital; stonewalling is only harmful when it becomes our default.

Gottman says that we stonewall when we are physiologically flooded—often as a result of too much of the first three horsemen!

What’s the antidote? Read on…

According to John Gottman:

“Contempt is the single greatest predictor of divorce. It must be eliminated.”

In Gottman’s Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, contempt is by far the most toxic to relationships. Contempt is characterized by being brutally mean in a way intended to make the other person feel “despised and worthless.” Behaviors such as mocking, ridiculing, name calling, mimicking, eye-rolling, sneering, scoffing, all code as contempt. Notice the facial expression in the accompanying photo of Dr. Jim Coan modeling contempt: one side of the mouth is raised in a sneer. There is a sense of superiority and distaste, almost disgust.

Gottman and Coan looked at couples. But we all know that contempt sneaks into the work place, certainly into politics, and more and more into what used to be simple disagreements. If contempt is the most toxic behavior in intimate relationships, it is certainly toxic elsewhere.

What does Gottman prescribe as the antidote? Read on…

We’ve been digging into John Gottman’s work, specifically what he calls The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, or the four behaviors most correlated with toxic relationships.

Last week we looked at Defensiveness.

This week we look at Criticism. Criticism is a global attack, often using words like, “never,” “always,” and often invites defensiveness. Gottman makes the distinction between criticism and complaint: “A complaint focuses on a specific behavior, but criticism attacks a person’s very character.”

I’d like to add another distinction between “complaint” (a specific request) and “complaining” (whining). Whining did not make it into the Four Horsemen, but it sure is a connection killer, if you ask me.

See if you can distinguish between criticism (global personal attack) and complaint (direct request), below. Read on…

In exploring John Gottman’s Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, I begin with Defensiveness mostly because it is the one I find most common in my own relationships and interactions. Yes, indeed. Why? Because I want everyone to love me and I’m always right. A perfect recipe for defensiveness.

Gottman notes that defensiveness is usually a response to criticism (we’ll get to that!).

Importantly, Gottman reminds us that “being defensive never helps to solve the problem at hand.” Defensiveness does not work! It does not solve the problem! It only serves to dig deeper into the conflict.

What does Gottman advise as an antidote to defensiveness?  “The antidote is to …read on.

Though John Gottman’s research focuses on romantic partnerships, I find his work very useful when thinking about all sorts of interactive communications: tense conversations, co-parenting, parenting, facilitation, interviews, community meetings. Gottman’s Four Horses of the Apocalypse are particularly useful; these are the behaviors Gottman has found to most negatively impact relationships. Of course, we all fall into these behaviors sometimes! They key is to notice when they dominate interactions and practice their antidotes when possible. In heightened, high-stakes interactions where we need to influence others, gain momentum, create coalitions, change systems, ignite ideas, or overcome obstacles, avoiding these behaviors is an essential skill.

Gottman’s Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are: defensiveness, criticism, stonewalling, and read on…

In this photo we have the ‘seen’ and the ‘hidden’ ,the sunlit tracks and the mysterious tunnel. In communication we see this dichotomy in the words we use, or the text, the ‘seen,’ and the true meaning, or the subtext, the ‘hidden.’ In a recent post, I talked about how Intention animates language and even changes its meaning; HOW we say something carries more weight than the words themselves. In fact, HOW we say something is sometimes in opposition to the WHAT we are saying. Sometimes it sounds like people are “speaking in code,” saying one thing but meaning another.

What would happen if we answered and addressed the hidden, the subtext, rather than the spoken words? This is fun to play with. Read on…

Just after I posted last week’s blog about generosity (thanks, Jake!), I began to think about overflowing generosity, endless outpourings, infinite neediness, The Giving Tree, boundless desire, the eternal teat, being bled dry. Yes, I am a parent. The expectation of limitless generosity that some of us might feel, is not healthy. For anyone—not the giver, nor the receiver.

So how do we maintain our abundant generosity and our whole selves? How do we balance taking care of ourselves and giving to others?

Read on…

Have you ever watched a talk, performance, or concert that felt like a gift? Like the performer is giving us something precious? Wouldn’t it be amazing if we all could harness that generosity when speaking?

Last summer, while spending the afternoon with a dear friend, writer and musician, Jake Slichter, my son asked him who is favorite musicians were. The first name Jake uttered without hesitation was Stevie Wonder. Luke asked him, “Why?” And Jake answered, “Because he is generous.”

The truth is that Stevie Wonder is always in my top three favorite musicians ever, along with Bonnie Raitt and Everything But the Girl, but I couldn’t contain myself and butted-in, “What about the Beatles, Joni Mitchell, Al Green? Aretha Franklin, Steely Dan, Ella Fitzgerald, Beck, PRINCE!”

Jake agreed that these are all wonderful artists. But to him, the thing that makes Stevie Wonder so phenomenal is his generosity.

Before writing this post, I reached out to Jake to dig a little deeper into his idea of generosity. Here is what he had to say…

What’s at stake when we do not communicate our vision directly? As leaders, it is our responsibility to hold the vision and communicate it clearly and often, while also trusting our teams to be expert in their own realms. If we do not find this balance, we risk misunderstanding, internal squabbles over siloed priorities and resources, and wasted time and energy spent moving in the wrong direction.

As an actor in a play, I see things subjectively, from my character’s point of view. The theater director holds the vision, sees the big picture. They are two different jobs. The director has to allow the actor to discover and develop their character within the vision and world of the play as the director sees it. This is a tricky dynamic, but an important one for all leaders to balance.

Many years ago I was in a profound and disturbing play called Thatcher’s Women about the women who took up prostitution in the 1980s during Thatcher’s reign to support their families. I played two characters, both sex workers. The sets were dark and moody with female body parts protruding. The feeling for the play was bleak, cold, and raw. We did a lot of exploration, visualizations, and exercises to “find” our characters. As my characters revealed themselves, the one who lived on the streets, really came alive for me. I saw her as gritty, messy, punk rock, sassy, sleeping in train stations and waking up with cigarette breath. Maybe not the most original image, but she emerged this way. Despite witnessing my character’s journey in rehearsal, I got the sense that the director didn’t like where I was going. Nothing I offered worked for her, yet she gave me no direction. Her slight look of contempt said it all. I felt negated at every turn, but my questions only received vague hints I could not decode. A week before opening I received my costume: I was to wear bubble-gum-pink fishnets, purple leather shorts, a multi-colored, sequined bustier with my hair teased high, red lip gloss, and an enormous pink bow. Where did this technicolor caricature come from?

Read on….

Ultimately, saying NO is simply setting a clear boundary.

We say no to say, “stop.” We say no to say, “enough.” We say no to say, “this is my time/space/body/voice/energy/priority/choice.” Saying no, is not being mean or rejecting others. It is simply creating clarity. And clarity is good for everybody involved.

There are three different kinds of “no” I want to explore: the Structural No, the Yes-No-Yes, and the Definitive No. Read on to play with saying NO!

My friend, Selena, just sent me a text asking if I’d ever jumped out of an airplane. NO! And do I want to? NO! Do I think she is planning to go skydiving? YES! Absolutely. No doubt.

I call Selena, “My friend who says, yes!”

This week, practice saying YES to experiences, to life, to connecting with others. Read on for more on saying YES!

Next week, Selena teaches me to say “no!”

The theater director and father of modern acting technique, Konstantin Stanislavski, used the term “objective,” to help actors focus on playing an action, rather than pushing for a state of being (“to persuade” vs. “to be upset” see “To Be vs. To Do”).  I like the term, “intention,” rather than objective because I find it more direct. Stanislavski believed that we always have an intention, even if we are not aware of it.  That is what makes us behave in wonderfully quirky, positively human ways. We always want something from the other characters in the play and we always want something from the other people in our lives.  That is our intention. If we do not choose a clear intention, we can default to intentions that are not helpful, undermine us, focus our energy on ourselves, and leave us expressively flat and disconnected.

We communicate our intention, not our words.

This is really important. 

Imagine a person saying, “I love you,” while sneering.  What message do we get?  Read on to learn how to use intentions…

In my last post, I made the case for more you, more people, more human interaction, and fewer slides and less text. Today I add, CAMERAS ON!

We all have reasons that we keep the camera off during meetings:

• I’m in my pjs (robe, undies).

• I’m in my unfinished basement (attic, dorm room).

• My kids (dog, cat, bird) could come in at any moment.

But we all know the real reasons:

• I’m multitasking.

• I’m on screen all day and need a break.

• I’m in the finals of a Clash of Clans tourney.

So really, why meet at all? Why not have a conference call? A nap? Because, when we do meet virtual-face-to-virtual-face, we get a lot more done, we get a sense of our team and how they’re doing, we have an interpersonal dopamine bump, and we are able to be more creative, productive, and innovative.

Use the One-Third Rule: Read on…

This week we talk about using slides in a way that supports, rather than obstructs, our communication.

Anyone who’s worked with me has heard this refrain:

There is a reason that we fly people all over the world in airplanes, put them up in hotels, feed them, host them, give them swag, congregate, meet, and convene, face-to-face.

There is something ineffable about human connection. Do not squander it.

So why then, do we squander those precious moments by turning off our webcam, eclipsing our selves (face, expression, body) with slides? And why, oh why, would we litter the slides with text, which draws the audience towards the written words and disconnects them from the speaker?

Read more on how to use slides so slides don’t hijack our presentations…

It needs to be said: there is a vast spectrum that includes being silent, being heard, having a voice, contributing, listening, supporting, amplifying, interacting, expressing, and dominating. More often than not, I have to remind my clients that speaking up is not dominating. We all deserve time, space, self-expression, and a voice. To be heard. All of us. And when any of us stifle our expression, we all suffer. Voice can mean simply speaking up, being bold, having a say, asking a question, supporting other people and ideas, contributing. And speaking up also includes other modes of expression: writing, painting, performance, photography, dance.

Read more about having a voice…

My dear friend, and friend to many, Deb, said the simplest and truest thing on our walk today. She tossed it away as if this was common knowledge: three things to do in order to make friends. Now listen, I am a big fan of Dale Carnegie and there is a reason his book, How to Win Friends and Influence People is still a best-seller 85 years since it first hit the bookstores. And yet, notice the language, “how to win friends.” For all his brilliance, Dale Carnegie puts me off when he uses the word “win” in relation to friendship. Not to mention the Machiavellian tone of influencing people!

Deb talked about making friends. Reminding us that friendship is built, forged, takes time and attention. ‘Winning’ reminds me of horse races with winners and losers.

Deb said simply, “Everyone knows how to make friends! You just have to…read on!