24 January 2014

This is too important to get wrong.

Earlier this week I wrote about the conflict between Dr. Henry Gee and "Isis the Scientist" and the resulting fallout.  My update noted that Dr. Gee removed his account on Twitter, and I speculated that apologies and statements were forthcoming.

Dr. Gee wrote a blog post in which he directly and publicly apologizes to Isis and provides more details and his perspective.  Nature Publishing Group also issued a statement.

These statements occur in a larger context.  The following is my meager attempt to address the individual, interpersonal, and institutional issues in play, and why getting this right is important.

Some caveats -  I'm neither a scientist nor a science writer. I am a communications strategist who tries to connect the dots between science communicators and other communities.  Of course, I benefit from my position as a straight white man, so I have no personal experience with the challenges so many people have faced.  (Seriously, for me, waiting on hold for technical support is a "hardship." Life is that good.) I try to see things from the perspective of others, but I'm aware I can't fully grasp what it's like to be someone else.

Further, I have no real "inside info" and like everyone else I'm commenting on what I see - there are no doubt many details that haven't been shared.  As a "PR guy," this is part of what I do - review the public details and assess their impact on the reputation of individuals, institutions, and systems.  Finally, I'm no better than Gee, than Isis, or anyone else when it comes to pretty much anything.

So here goes.

INDIVIDUAL AND INTERPERSONAL ISSUES

I think this is what most people think about and talk about when we talk about sexism.  (It's also what we tend to focus on when we talk about racism.) The conflict between Gee and Isis seems to live here, even though Isis at least is raising issues that go beyond a specific person.  While I don't know Gee and can't speak to anything beyond what he's written, there are things in this post that confuse and trouble me.

First, I want to recognize the good.  Gee apologized and expressed regret, and that's the right thing to do. Further, Gee mentions that he has struggled with depression.  This is not a trivial thing.  Depression still carries some stigma, and it's nice to let others with depression know they're not alone.

Aside from these things, It appears to me that Gee's blog post is more about justification than apology.

Gee accuses Isis of "a campaign of cyberbullying against me" since 2010.  That's obviously a loaded term. I have no doubt Gee felt uncomfortable, but the term implies that Isis held some kind of power over Gee, and leveraged that power to intimidate, threaten, or otherwise extract some kind of bounty.  Based on the publicly available information, I'm having trouble identifying what power Isis, who Gee described as an "inconsequential sports physiologist" in the United States, held over a senior editor at Nature. Isis was definitely critical, obviously pointed, and arguably rude. I haven't seen anything that looks like a credible threat.

Gee seems to be focusing on the idea that he's personally not a sexist - with a curious construct, "I am, philosophically at least, a feminist." I'm not sure what to make of this. I don't know how you subscribe to a theory if you're implying you don't follow it in practice.  He cites a charitable donation he makes to an organization that helps educate girls in developing countries.  In the context of an apology, such an assertion is gratuitous.

Ultimately Gee is suggesting that Isis is in large part responsible for his behavior. "The unjustified insults heaped on me by Dr Isis took their toll, and I snapped."  Candidly, that disingenuous statement isn't befitting a man of Gee's position. It's all too familiar to far too many women.  Isis herself took exception to it.
Ultimately, if Gee's intent was to protect or defend his reputation with this post, I think he missed the mark.

From a PR perspective, the goal of an apology is to re-establish credibility by demonstrating you know what you did wrong and signal how you aim to fix it. It represents the beginning, not the end, of a process.  When you add details and "explanation" that shift blame, you distract from the goal and you often find yourself worse off.  You may be protecting yourself from a financial or legal liability perspective, but not as far as your reputation is concerned.

INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

Gee says he "outed" Isis partly because he thought Isis blamed him for an action taken at Nature.  Arguably, the history of their conflict concerns a single issue - which ideas and viewpoints deserve to be promoted on Nature's huge platform, and which ideas and viewpoints don't?

Nature Publishing Group has been around since 1869.  The company has grown into a huge network of journals and popular publications. They employ hundreds of people and publish the work of thousands more. NPG represents so much to those who work in or admire science.  The people who lead NPG today really are the stewards of a spirit of discovery and curiosity and rigor we just don't see very often. They represent the best of what we aim to do and what we aim to be. There are so many good people working there and so many more good people affiliated with them.

Those who lead NPG must feel very strongly about protecting the institution.  To them, I'm sure it's akin to protecting science itself.  So while the editors review and publish content, the rest of the organization focuses on remaining financially solvent and eliminating any distractions from its core purpose. The company has grown and thrived for over a century because its management style arguably resembles the scientific process it heralds - cautious, deliberate, methodical, and ultimately conservative.  Shielding what they do from outside influences or confounding factors. Establishing a consensus.

In a word, slow.

Put yourself in the shoes of NPG's corporate communications office last week.  It's been a rough few weeks in terms of the company's reputation on gender equality. Then out of nowhere, a senior editor makes a serious mistake on a social media platform that compounds the problem. You are undoubtedly furious - certainly because you know what the guy did was wrong, but especially because he distracted the institution away from its core purpose. What do you do?

At Nature, you probably do what you always do: you wait.  You wait for the relevant decision makers to free up their schedule to get on a call.  You get what facts you can.  You assess the risks and costs of litigation. You decide if an action is warranted.  You deliberate what type of action.  You draft a statement.  You "gang edit" the statement ad infinitum.  You run the statement by legal.  You edit again. You make sure people know that whatever happened here, you had no active role in it and you're not liable.  That said, you protect your asset - specifically, your senior editor - because that also protects the flagship institution and the tradition and the heritage and the mission of discovery and all that.  Sacking your editor leads to more questions, more distractions, and maybe even a lawsuit or two.  Standing by him means the core purpose of the institution remains completely intact.

So two days later you produce a statement that is consumed by passive voice and doused in platitudes. You don't even mention the name of the senior editor, even though you name the target. You probably tell the editor to apologize on his own blog (you know, the site that specifically says Nature isn't responsible). And then you announce you're done talking about it.

In short, you accept that you're coming off as a clueless, faceless institution that doesn't give a damn about what really happened, even though you may personally care a lot.  You decide to take some lumps and get back to the business of publishing the highest quality science you can.  And you tell Gee (and everyone else) to STFU.

Of course, this institutional system and culture is creating some serious problems.  It's the hyper-cautious system that removed a Scientific American blog post first because it wasn't about science, then it was too personal, then for legal reasons, but never for a good reason.  (It's also the system that has protected the identity of the person that first "flagged" that blog post.)  It's the system that didn't want distractions, so it dealt quietly with bad behavior from a key employee until that behavior became widely known.  It's the system that gives editors a lot of freedom, but protects their identity when they publish misogynist correspondence.  And now it's the system that would rather take public criticism than sacrifice a key asset like a senior editor.

That's four "crises" in a few months. Each situation had an opportunity for NPG to step up and take a stand against inappropriate, misogynist words and behavior - and even advance the cause NPG says it supports.  Each time NPG was slow on the uptake and failed to seize the opportunity.  In only one of those situations has someone stepped forward to both acknowledge a transgression AND accept very significant consequences. In all the others, no one has had to face any consequences from NPG. Two haven't even been identified.

This tells me NPG's systems make it harder for people there to do the right thing in these situations. NPG's culture and processes (methodical, deliberate, consensus-driven, etc) aren't overtly misogynist, but as they apply to individual behaviors and interactions, it's clear who benefits in this organization and who doesn't.

WHY IT MATTERS

NPG is by no means unique.  Women are still under-represented and valued less in science because they are under-represented and valued less in virtually all the fields that have influence over our society.  The concerns of women in science are echoed by women in finance, law, politics, technology, health care, entertainment, communications, and pretty much everywhere else.

But to me, the stakes are higher with science.  As I've said before, science is hope.  Scientists are my heroes. They are the ones who will solve the world's greatest problems, not bankers or lawyers or PR flacks.

The single greatest threat to humanity isn't climate change or antibiotic resistance or even war or poverty. The biggest challenge we face is overcoming homophily - specifically, it's having a group of leaders who only understand a single perspective because it's the only one they ever see.  Right now the leaders of science are basically a bunch of white guys in their 50's and 60's. They look like each other, act like each other, and think like each other.  They spend a lot of time with each other, and that serves to reinforce their own perspective.  And frankly, as Dr. Gee shows us, they don't like it if someone challenges their position.

I'm not the first person to say this. Diversity improves decision making.  Bringing in more women (and people of color) to leadership positions in science will bring new perspectives and new questions, and will encourage more careful consideration of other ideas.  It can inspire more creativity and create more avenues to explore.  Diversity will lead to better science and more solutions.  It will be noisy and messy and feelings will get hurt and people will make mistakes, but we need it more than ever.

And frankly, we need proud institutions with enduring legacies like Nature to lead the way.

21 January 2014

Goddesses, editors, and owning your words

UPDATE: It appears as though Henry Gee has deleted his Twitter account.  I wonder if some sort of official statement from NPG is coming, or if we will see some kind of apology from Gee. 

Ironically, perhaps the best advice on apologies I can find come from two of Gee's critics - Janet Stemwedel and Kelly Hills.  The Harvard Business Review Blog has a good primer.  In my line of work, Shel Holtz is known as a smart guy and has had something to say about this as well. 

The best piece of advice on apologies I could probably give NPG right now is to make sure they include an of act of contrition.  Or as they say in Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood, "saying I'm sorry is the first step.  Then how can I help?" 

I'm  grateful to the community of online science writers because I learn new things from them almost every day.  Of course, lately those lessons have very little to do with science. I had no idea this community was such a fertile source of public relations case studies.

In recent months, the topics of evolution and exploration have taken a back seat to stories of power dynamics, personal insecurities, and institutional inertia.  From my virtual vantagepoint as a "PR guy," it's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.  Here's the latest.

"Isis the Scientist" describes herself as an "exercise physiologist at a major research university."  She is a passionate and provocative feminist and an active blogger with many friends in her community. She focuses, understandably, on the challenges women face in science and academia. She doesn't use her real name online.  She's good at getting under the skin of people who don't agree with her. Also she has amazing taste in shoes.   

Henry Gee is an author and senior editor at Nature.  He is known for his scholarship, his fiction, and his provocative comments as well.  Isis has criticized him in the past, as have others.  Few people can match his passion for the books of J.R.R. Tolkien.

A few days ago, Isis made a back-handed "subtweet" (actually, opinions differ about what a subtweet is) about Gee.  A day later, Gee responded on Twitter by revealing Isis' name and professional affiliation several times, calling her "inconsequential" and sarcastically suggesting Nature was "quaking in its boots" because Isis wouldn't read the publication.  He then sent a few messages to others on Twitter suggesting he had been the victim of ceaseless harassment from Isis that took a significant toll on him and others.  Isis responded by essentially taking the high road

Clearly the two have some sort of history, though as PZ Myers notes there isn't much to see publicly.  I have no idea what has gone on behind the scenes. 

First, the issue of transparency and "outing" or "doxing" people.  I've been pretty consistent about this issue, even when it applies to science communication. One example of my thoughts comes from 2011: 
The one quote that still resonates with me from #scio11 came from Steve Silberman at the panel on “keepers of the bullshit filter.” He said you can’t call bullshit on someone if you’re anonymous. I know this is a sensitive topic for many in the science blogsophere, and some of my favorite science bloggers don’t use their names. But as a PR guy with a political background it’s so important. It goes to the heart of credibility. It drives me nuts when I see so many political ads out there funded by people who don’t want you to know who they are. If I tried to hide my identity or my interests while speaking for a client I’d be slaughtered for it, and rightfully so. If you want to influence people with your writing, I think it’s important to be transparent and to own your words.
I have long thought it's important to reveal the identities of people who use anonymity to help them harass or attack others without accountability, to hide a conflict of interest, or to conceal an obvious and harmful hypocrisy.  But I also know that transparency is easy for me.  I can own my words and share my opinions without much fear of reprisal.  If I'm attacked, a formal and an informal system is in place to defend me.  I'm given the benefit of every doubt.  I'm a straight white man with an education and a job.

What happens to women who voice opinions (or even facts) under their own name?  Ask Amanda Hess or Amy Wallace or Adria Richards or Caroline Criado Perez or countless others.  If you're a woman and you're just talking about general stuff, you can expect someone to invoke your femininity as a reason to not take your thoughts seriously.  If you  have something to say that challenges the existing power dynamic, you can expect rape threats, death threats or worse.  Some women can take the abuse, some women can't, but one thing is certain: no one should have to.

Was Isis a bully, or was she trying to call someone on their crap? Opinions clearly differ.  What I've seen publicly leads me to believe she's more of a cultural whistleblower than an online thug.  She doesn't deserve the abuse she knows she's about to take - much of it directed toward her newly-known professional address. No one does.

One thing is certain: Isis now has to own her words, and there are a lot of them.  It seems as though she's prepared a least a little for this; she says her closest colleagues know her identity already.  I expect she may have an uncomfortable moment or two if she's suddenly reminded of a smug insult she threw upon meeting her target.

Of course, Gee has to own his words as well, and right now he looks petty and vindictive.  He claims Isis is "inconsequential" yet seems to suggest he still isn't over an argument he had four years ago and says the psychological pain he's felt is "huge."

Perhaps Isis has sinister, Hannibal Lecter-esque powers that allow her words to drive people to insanity or worse.  Maybe she's jealous of Gee and lashed out at him because she has horrible self-esteem. Perhaps she led a years-long campaign of torment and bullying and threats that only a public outing could stop.  Stranger things have happened.

Or, perhaps Gee is just another one of those entitled brats who, despite obvious intellect, can't discern the difference between intent and impact. Maybe he thinks he isn't about to be lectured by anyone on right and wrong, especially some mid-career Shelia who doesn't have the guts to use her real name. Or maybe he just can't get over the time someone got the best of him in an argument.  Stranger things have happened.

More importantly, however, Gee isn't the only one who now owns Gee's words.  Nature does as well, thanks to three things: his obvious and public position, the lack of an appropriate disclaimer on his Twitter bio, and his mention of his employer in his tweet.  If Gee thinks it's obvious he was only speaking for himself, he needs a lesson in public relations.

Wherever you go you're a representative of your company's brand, especially if you're a senior-level employee.  When in public (or online) you have to conduct yourself appropriately.  It's generally not wise to generate a series of tweets that look like the script of a soap opera.  It's one of the reasons we have disclaimers - such as the one Gee has on his personal blog. If it's on his blog and not on his Twitter account, it's easy to assume one is personal while the other is not - especially if your job title is "Senior Editor, Nature."

What's more, Journalists know that "outing" someone has to be done carefully, with significant preparation and consideration for the ramifications and safety of the person in question.  I don't know if Gee warned Isis privately that outing her was a possibility.  As an outspoken feminist it's clear Isis would be subject to hateful abuse likely up to and including rape and death threats, and it's just as clear Gee either didn't consider this or thought it wasn't as bad as the "hurtful untruths" he experienced.

Additionally, Something Isis and Michael Eisen mentioned is very important. Nature uses a peer review process that keeps the identity of reviewers confidential, apparently to protect the integrity of the review and to prevent "score-settling."   One of the senior editors has now demonstrated he is willing to reveal someone's identity to settle a personal score. As digital life continues to blur the lines between the personal and the professional, I'm not sure how Nature can credibly preserve their process without removing Gee from it.

Finally, all of this happens in a particular context.  This is just the latest in a string of unforced errors that demonstrates Nature Publishing Group's lack of situational awareness on inequality issues.  This simply reinforces the perception that when it comes to gender equity issues, NPG either doesn't get it or doesn't want to.

And if you think it's bad for them now, just wait for someone at NPG to decide to stand up to defend Gee.

09 January 2014

This one kinda stumps me

"I worked the cones"
UPDATE: Governor Christie held a very long press conference to try to address the issue, and it made things worse for the Governor.

Christie effectively rebutted the claim that the staged traffic jam was in retaliation for the Fort Lee Mayor's decision not to endorse the Governor. This of course led to a search for a more plausible motive - and a very strong one emerged. (seriously, watch this video if you can.)

The retribution was directed the morning after a contentious decision by Governor over the nomination of judges to the state's supreme court. Specifically Christie withdrew the nomination of a judge after it became clear the nomination would be challenged by Senate Democrats.  The nominee was married to a member of the Governor's staff.  In announcing the decision, Christie referred to NJ Senate Democrats as "animals" and said, "as for the ramifications for that will be going forward... they should have thought about before opening their mouths."

The leader of the New Jersey Senate Democrats?  The state senator from Fort Lee.

As far fetched as it sounds, this seems plausible to me.  After all, we're talking about the spouse of a key member of the Governor's staff.  This one was personal to the Governor and to the people who worked so closely with him and each other.  But since Christie hasn't spoken with his now former deputy chief of staff - the one who sent the email the next morning saying "time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee" - we get to have another round of stories and investigations on that.

Further, since the Governor was so obviously personally invested in this issue, it's more likely he was aware of more details earlier on. This is going to cost more people their jobs, and possibly their status as non-felons.

Worse still for the Governor, he can't fix this anymore; he can only limit the damage. If everyone shares all the details now, he can limit the story's length and may still get some credit for taking his lumps and leading the way out of it.  If his administration continues down the path they're on, the story will go on indefinitely, and each successive revelation will have an impact far beyond its actual weight.
--------------------

A smart lawyer once told me, "never assume malicious intent when simple incompetence will do."  However, I'm having a lot of trouble trying to figure out how profoundly incompetent you have to be to close lanes on the George Washington Bridge to get back at a mayor who wouldn't endorse your boss.

If you haven't followed this over the past few months a decent tick-tock is here, and if you're looking for the best coverage I'd look at the Bergen County Record.

If you're not patient enough to read it all, here's the skinny.  Governor Chris Christie, a Republican, was cruising to an overwhelming victory for re-election, and was trying to gain endorsements from Democrats in the state.  One of his targets was the mayor of Fort Lee, Mark Sokolich.  The mayor decided to endorse his fellow Democrat, Barbara Buono.

In what appears to be an attempt at political retaliation, the Governor's allies allegedly plotted  "traffic problems" in the offending mayor's city.  Governor Christie's political appointee (who is also Christie's friend from high school) running that section of the George Washington Bridge and the Governor's deputy chief of staff decided to close all but one of the traffic lanes in Fort Lee that go to the bridge.  The resulting huge traffic jam came without warning and lasted for days.  Fort Lee children were late for their first day of school.  Police were hampered in their search for a missing 4-year-old child.  Emergency responders were late in reaching at least four people who needed them, including a 91-year-old woman experiencing a heart attack.  That woman died soon after, though it's not known if the delay was completely responsible for that death.

For months the Christie administration has been stonewalling any investigation of this petty stunt.  First they claimed the closures were part of a "traffic study" for which there was no documentation.  Then they sued to avoid subpoenas and resisted releasing any information while they mocked the media for suggesting this was a story in the first place.  They may have broken the law in the process.  The governor himself called New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to protest Cuomo's desire to investigate the situation (New Jersey shares jurisdiction of the bridge's governance with New York). Then documents revealed how "high up" this plot went, and suddenly the Christie administration isn't as cocky as it was a few months ago.

And now we get to play another round of everyone's favorite scandal game, "what did they know and when did they know it."  So here's my best guess, based only on what I've read and my experience in politics and communications.

I don't think Governor Christie new any of the specifics of this ahead of time, and I don't think he "ordered" anything specific.  He gains nothing from that.  I think it's possible (but not probable) that Christie said something general and negative about the mayor, and others may have taken that as a directive to do something.

I don't think Christie's chief of staff, director of communications, or general counsel knew ahead of time. I don't care what your politics are, no lawyer would ever sign off on something like this.

I do think they all knew what was happening well before yesterday.  It's simply too easy to uncover the details.  Anything given to the media via a public records request was retrieved at least a week before it was released and reviewed.  Likely much longer than a week.   There's no doubt in my mind the counsel's office and the chief of staff knew what happened more than a week ago. I think it's likely they knew something was wrong months ago, and they've had all the specifics for at least two or even three weeks.

I think it's possible that some attempt was made to keep the Governor out of the discussions, to give him some semblance of "plausible deniability."   I think we're playing legal ju-jitsu when the Governor said it was the "first time he heard" about this.  He may have just been given one specific detail yesterday, but he's not stupid.

This whole sad episode is an example of what not to do in crisis communications.  It's obvious the Governor's team circled the wagons and adopted an "us vs. them" mentality. It's obvious they decided to conceal as much information as possible for as long as possible, while staying within the technical boundaries of their opinion of existing law.

This posture has led to a drip, drip, drip of details that has turned a mildly embarrassing three-day story into a seriously damaging three-month story.  This posture put the Governor in the evasive position of throwing his staff under the bus instead of demonstrating a strong, "the buck stops here" style of leadership.  It will likely cost thousands in legal fees and invite more scrutiny and more questions - has this ever happened before? Are others involved? And now people are saying Governor Christie's presidential ambitions may be over.

All over a traffic jam in Fort Lee, New Jersey and a meaningless political endorsement.