PoliticsDoc
Welcome to this site, which focuses largely on politics and communication. Those of you who have read my blogs on Huffingtonpost.com, books or articles (see bio below) will find this site at times an elaboration and extension of some of those views. At other times separate discussions.
INTRODUCING NEW BOOK:
COMEBACKS AT WORK : USING CONVERSATION TO MASTER CONFRONTATION was released TODAY. (links to booksellers in right column) Never be at a loss for words again in those tough situations that we all face at work.
The workplace guide to putting "I wish I'd said" moments in the past
Ever wish that you could have a "do over" after a conversation at work? Do you often find yourself regretting what you've said to a coworker--or kicking yourself for not saying something better, stronger, or more precise? If so, you're like most people, and in "Comebacks at Work," management professor and consultant Kathleen Kelley Reardon, Ph.D., provides the tips and tools you need to know what to say--and how to say it better--next time.
"Comebacks at Work" provides a game plan for doing so and explains: Why some comebacks work, while others fall flat; Why our mind goes blank when confronted, and how to overcome that response; how to determine which comebacks work, and when to use them.
Publisher’s Weekly says “Comebacks at Work” will banish l’esprit d’escalier forever.” That’ that feeling of “I wish I’d said” that we get driving home form work or going over and over something that happened that you just couldn’t handle at the moment. COMEBACKS AT WORK is about making sure that you’re never left speechless or unable to say anything but the wrong thing again.
March 18, 2011
A Lesson From The Devastation in Japan
We live in a meaner, more selfish society than in years past. It isn’t necessarily the case that people are more mean and selfish, but rather communication technology enables instant expression. The admonition “Sleep on it” is nearly passé. We compose and send thoughts without taking the time to consider whether they are formative or final.
A false impression of interpersonal distance comes with communication technology – a sense of “digital anonymity.” And so we neglect to censure ourselves. Callousness trickles down from power-hungry, insensitive bosses, across desperately competitive colleagues, and upward from disgruntled, disgusted employees tired of being treated with disdain.
Far too many of us work or go to school in pathologically political arenas where we daily dodge bullies by remaining “below the radar” – thereby jeopardizing leadership possibilities --or jump into the fray. The result is stress as contagious as meanness itself.
The horrifying experiences of Japan these last several days should remind us that there are things much bigger than daily pettiness. In an instant, life can be gone, leaving families no longer whole. Tragedy can take us today or any day in the blink of an eye, and then it is too late to be a bigger, more generous and compassionate person.
As we watch the events unfold in Japan, whether or not we know people there, are related to them, have ever visited or as humans sense their pain, we might well take away from those feelings a reminder that we can’t afford to allow the demise of virtues like compassion. As Maya Angelou has noted, rejection of compassion, for example, is giving way to degeneracy.
We should criticize those who deserve it and stand up against abuse and exploitation of the less fortunate. We should loudly express our outrage when our rights are under siege, but we should always remember and remind each other where to draw the line.
March 8, 2011
On the 100th anniversary of the International Women’s Day we should take stock of where we are. And in terms of pay and representation in government and high-level positions in corporations it could be much better. And why is it that so many other countries have had women presidents and prime ministers? Aren’t we supposed to be the most advanced country? Weren’t we the ones who obtained the vote for women earlier than most and passed laws to facilitate their equality? So, what’s the problem? What’s the hold up? Sure, things have improved on many fronts, but when we’re still judging female presidential candidates on the basis of their clothing and whether they shed a tear once during a bid for election, you have to wonder if we aren’t all talk and little action when it comes to the advancement of women.
January 9, 2011
I have not written here in a while. On December 23rd I was in a hit-and-run accident. The recovery is slow and painful. But the tragedy in Arizona yesterday provoked me to write. Watching Meet The Press today, I couldn’t help but notice the efforts by guests, particularly congressional representatives, to avoid discussing the sources of hatred on radio and television. In the service of desired increased civility, they are avoiding pointing fingers. It’s easy to understand this approach and it has some merit. But, as we write about in Comebacks at Work, there are times when incivility must be addressed directly or it continues to exist.
We’re all at least 75% responsible for how people treat us, so failing to address vile behavior and identify the sources merely abdicates that responsibility. We essentially convey that to be “nice” ourselves we will not blame anyone. We will not criticize or accuse.
Unfortunately, this unwillingness to be part of the problem actually makes us unwitting participants. It isn’t necessary to be crude or rude to directly address such actions in others. There are forms of comebacks that directly address deception and hateful speech without engaging in those types. It isn’t necessary to act with incivility in order to address and end incivility. Knowing and employing effectively a range of constructive, direct responses to hatefulness and bullying, for example, is the way to bring such vitriol to an end. Avoidance is rarely effective when hateful URPs (unwanted repetitive patterns) have become a commonly accepted method of communication.
Until our leaders recognize this and train themselves to engage in comebacks that bring up short those who would otherwise trample on their dignity and rights in the name of free speech, such ugliness as pathological political sport will continue.
December 17, 2010
Favor Banks and Deception Make The Irrational Rational
There’s almost always a rational explanation for what appears to be irrational behavior. This is one of the cardinal rules of persuasion. An apparent misfit between what is said and done usually indicates that the rational explanation is not the one you had in mind – that the person you’re trying to influence is operating from a mindset different than what he claims.
In the case of our president, as Roy Sekoff put it, he “is just not into forcing the wealthy to pay their fair share.”
He hasn’t been outwitted by the privileged and powerful of America, or seduced by those on Wall Street.
Rather these factors are operating: (1) political favors are still the primary way of doing business in Washington, (2) largely behind closed doors, and (3) it’s okay to make promises as a candidate and then not deliver on those promises once elected. Things haven’t changed. The political change we thought had been ushered in at President Obama’s inauguration is just more of the same.
Passage of the tax cuts for the rich is only counterintuitive if you still believe that a politician’s talk about principles translates into actual behavior. Face facts, what we’re seeing is what we’re getting. Rinse and repeat. Here’s the new boss, same as the old boss, etc. There’s no mistake.
The right, as Paul Krugman points out, has always understood that the game of perceptions is a long game, that you must rewrite history on a sustained basis to shape the assumptions that govern politics.
It seems now that the Democrats are rewriting history too. So many things we heard them say they now deny by word or deed. Of course, there is the excuse of still believing in Democratic Party principles but finding it politically impossible or inconvenient to actually act on them.
And notice that unlike the Republicans, the Democrats have no “holy grail?” If they did, they’d have to tie themselves down to something tangible and undeniable? They’d have to fight for what they believe instead of giving away whatever works for the moment. But that would be inconvenient, too.
Can they turn the page in January and deliver on promises made? Will they go to the mat for people who’ve lost their jobs and homes? I suppose anything is possible. But it’s hard to keep waiting on the dock after all evidence indicates the ship has surely sailed.
December 11, 2010
Favor Banks and Deception Make The Irrational Rational
There’s almost always a rational explanation for what appears to be irrational behavior. What you learn after studying politics is that a disconnection between what was said and what was done usually means that the rational explanation is simply not the one you had in mind.
That’s what we’re observing. There is a rational explanation for the “deal” the president is advocating. Robert Reich offers that both Barack Obama and Bill Clinton are good men. The problem, he explains, is that “they have either been outwitted by the privileged and powerful of America, or seduced by those on Wall Street.”
I’m a Reich admirer. But I think you’ve been too generous this time, Robert.
It’s far more likely that political favors and what politicians justify as for-our-own-good deception compose the rationale behind what appears to the former Barack base as counterintuitive behavior. It’s only counterintuitive if you believe that talk about hope, civility and integrity by politicians translates in to behaviors consistent with those principles. It does when convenient.
Clearly it’s not convenient. We’re witnessing favors owed from the past and favors paid forward for the post-presidential years. And, in terms of deception, we’re witnessing choices far from the relatively benign form.
Deception is a range. Benign deception allows people to be civil. It makes society possible. Strategic deception is where we find most political behavior. And at the far end, malicious deception brings benefits by harming others.
I hate to say it, to throw in the towel on belief in a turnaround, but there are too many signs of pathological politics in Washington. Justifications change day to day. Under such conditions, most players seek ways to survive. They cave convinced that they did the best they could. They become part of the pathology thus perpetuating it. Some walk away unscathed, perhaps with a Noble Prize and a lifetime of speaking engagements.
November 30, 2010
Today’s blog on Huffpo is a about comebacks in terms of the Democratic Party ceasing to run from the term “socialism” when right at their back door is something far more real. It’s about framing too. If we’re on the run from a term, and letting the other side define the debate, we abdicate our responsibility as communicators. In Comebacks at Work we write about how we’re all at least 75% responsible for how we’re treated. That doesn’t just go for individuals. It’s true for groups as well. The Democrats need to stop abdicating their responsibility to own as much of the direction of the debate as possible. They need to open their eyes and see that running away from a frame is not half as effective as substituting your own.
Abdicating To The Right: The Emerging American Aristocracy
Income inequality is about to get worse, according to David Segal’s article in Sunday’s New York Times. Those of us not in the beneficiary column, the article suggests, had better start thinking of which “artisanal services” we can provide. In short, we need to identify what the rich need and start making those widgets toute de suite.
Paraphrasing Professor Caplin of NYU, Segal wrote: “While it’s noble to focus on how to spread wealth around, it might be wiser to think of ways the poor and middle class could cater to the economy’s biggest winners.”
The Republican Party has staked out a position where anything to the left of extreme selfishness is on the slippery slope to socialism. But it hasn’t occurred to Democrats to counter with the more real scenario of creeping aristocracy.
And what do we hear from the White House? Talk about compromise, common ground and caution.
The administration keeps saying that the American people want a meeting of the minds – they want the parties to work together. Do they really think that means at any cost?
The Americans I know want their social security to be there when they need it. They want their homes and their jobs back. They don’t want their kids fighting on foreign soil so they can cater to the “biggest winners” when they get home. And, yes, they don’t want more money going to fat cats in gigantic financial swindles.
If we don’t keep sending that message to Washington, then we will become a country of winners and losers, aristocrats and serfs.
November 18, 2010
If you came by from my blog “GOP Spring Loaded to a Hostile Position: What George Soros Wants” you know that my view is that the president has a limited repertoire of comebacks to the opposition. Even if you believe, as more than a few have mentioned, that the president does not want to come through on his promises, why would he not at least communicate in a way that indicates that he is a leader?
While it’s possible to consider, as he may, that communication and comebacks are issues irrelevant to actual leadership, that what people say, rhetoric, is tangential to effectiveness, those who think this way do so at their peril in politics and elsewhere.
What is a leader who cannot communicate effectively? He or she is not a leader -- only a potential one.
The president may believe so intensely in the value of the intellect that he doesn’t recognize that ideas communicated ineffectively are failed ideas.
It’s perhaps presumptuous to advise a president. But none of us is an expert in all areas. So, I endeavor on a regular basis to provide suggestions. Among them are the ones in the Huffpo blog.
What the president should consider, too, is that anyone who reaches the level he has is bound to be a thorn in the side of many who wanted that spot. When you’re young, cute and little as I wrote about in The Secret Handshake, you threaten no one. They seek to be your mentors. But when you continue in your career, as most reading this know, then others consider you an obstacle. At that point the choices are to fold or to adjust. It’s times for the president to adjust to being president. Those in the opposition are not his friends. They are his obstacles. And it’s time to develop a repertoire of comebacks that make them think twice before they take him on.
Also see Comebacksatwork site
November 12, 2010 (From comebacksatwork.com)
I got a little testy today over at Huffington Post with the blog, "Could This Be 'Learning On The Job'?" But the president doesn't seem to have a repertoire of comebacks for the kinds of bullies he deals with in Washington.
He likes the eloquent statesman approach. I like it too. Who doesn't? But it has its time and place. And the battle over tax cuts is not the time or place to be predictably a pushover.
I suppose I should remember that his field isn't communication. But wait, he was a debater. There are times in debate when the utmost in civility is simply the wrong path to take. Sure, you don't lower yourself to the level of people like Rush Limbaugh, but there's a large range between that and where the president is in his communication.
What else could he say? Here are a few disclaimers he could lead with if direct comebacks are not his style:
"I have learned that being overly polite to people with microphones who don't have the best interests of this country at heart is not productive."
"There are people who shout merely to be heard. I shout when it matters to people who can't be heard unless I do."
"There are always at least two sides to every story. But they aren't always equally accurate."
These are a start. Then he could lead into some pretty firm talking. It would be a breath of fresh air. He'd respect himself more for it. Try it yourself at work. It's better than letting people walk all over you. That's for sure.
November 10, 2010
Today’s blog on Huffpo and over at comebacksatwork.com, I’ve written about compromise. Like many people, I’ve grown tired of hearing this term bandied about Washington -- mostly because as a negotiation/persuasion professor I’d argue that what is being talked about is not compromise at it’s best or even compromise at all. It’s compromise for the sake of compromise.
There is nothing inherently positive about compromise. It’s a strategy. But for it to function effectively both sides should be operating in good faith. And we know that’s not the case for far too many running the government in Washington D.C. now days.
In both The Secret Handshake, where I wrote about a range of organizational political types from mildly political to pathologically political, and in Comebacks at Work where Chris and I laid out how to assess when particular responses “fit” the people and situations in which you’re dealing, one of the main points is that there are no strategies or ways of responding that suit all situations. Compromise is no exception.
I may disagree with Nancy Pelosi often enough, but her unwillingness to hand over the keys to Republicans as if they won a mandate is impressive in the midst of so much cow-towing going on elsewhere. They didn’t win a mandate and they know it. The curtain is not closing and it isn’t time for Democrats to go home with their tails between their legs.
There’s a good deal of wrangling that needs to be done and reaching across the aisle to make Republicans happy is not only the wrong thing to be offering at this time but also clearly something they say isn’t going to work anyway. Personally, this time I’d take them at their word.
Comebacks at Work: Using Conversation to Master Confrontation here
November 8, 2010
In my blog featured at Huffpo today, Waiting for Obama, I expressed some concerns about his communication on “60 Minutes” Sunday. If we were to map out the presidents responses in terms of one-up and one-down moves described in COMEBACKS AT WORK and my other books, Obama’s answers would largely be one-down moves. He rarely challenged and even accepted Steve Crofts descriptions of things, such as the president seeming aloof. If any of us look at our communication and find that what we say in response to someone is largely one-down (acquiescing) or one-up (asserting) then we are in a pattern and that’s usually problematic.
Let’s look at a case in point from the interview with Steve Croft of “60 Minutes”:
Steve Kroft: There is a perception out there that you're anti business.
Obama: Well, I think there's no doubt that the relationship with the business community over the course of the last two years at times has gotten strained. And so I think that we've got some repair work to do there.
Kroft’s comment is a one-up. It asserts. And by the way, this assertion is based on some nebulous assumption. But, the president answers with a one-down response ,which lets Kroft’s “perception” become a reality. He should have said, “I’ve never met a president who is anti-business. And I’m certainly not.” He could have asked, “Where did you get that perception, Steve? Because it’s a bogus one. And I’ll tell you why....” That would have asserted his support for businesses, which hire people, and would have broken the Croft one-up/Obama one-down pattern.
________________________________________
November 3, 2010 TODAYS COMEBACK DUST UP
TODAY’S DUST UP in sports is a case of technology being used for comebacks and making matters worse: Charlie Villanueva, who has a skin condition that causes hair loss, reportedly posted on Twitter that Celtics Kevin Garnett called him a “cancer patient. Villanueva and Garnett exchanged words when they were assessed double technical fouls on Tuesday. Likely few people, if any, know the whole story but Garnett released a response to Villanueva’s Twitter posting:
“My comment to (Villanueva) was in fact ‘You are cancerous to your team and our league.’ … I would never be insensitive to the brave struggle that cancer patients endure. I have lost loved ones to this deadly disease… and have a family member currently undergoing treatment. I would never say anything that distasteful.”
Here we have a case of Twitter and the media being used to extend an argument that started on the basketball court. Now that it’s so public, it will be a lot more difficult to resolve the differences and, in the process, cancer patients have been drawn into the fray. It’s a mess. It’s another example of how technology is used to deal with issues that are better handled face-to-face.
November 1, 2010 TODAY’S THOUGHT ON COMEBACKS
Ted Sorensen, President Kennedy’s Special Counsel and Advisor as well as primary speechwriter, died yesterday. He merged his style with that of the president and wrote some of the most memorable words in history, including “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.” He drafted the letter that brought a halt to a confrontation that could have destroyed the world as we know it. On CBS News tonight a tribute to Sorensen ended with “Powerful men die but powerful words live on.” Indeed, power is merely potential if the words to covey it are absent.
It’s important to mention, though, that Sorensen’s words did not make him powerful in the political sense, especially since he so often understated his role. When pressed to say he was actually the primary author of PROFILES IN COURAGE, Sorensen’s reply, his comeback, was always enough to be honest but no more. It’s a reminder that often those who speak the loudest and insist on credit and attention rather than share it as Sorensen so graciously did, are not the people we remember and certainly not the ones we come to hold in high and long regard.
October 30, 2010 TODAY’S GOTCHA COMEBACK
Karl Rove criticized Sarah Palin’s “reality show” persona as indicating that she does not have the “gravitas” to become president. To which Palin replied on Fox that she agreed about high standards for the presidency, but “um wasn’t Ronald Reagan an actor. Wasn’t he in Bedtime for Bonzo, bozo or something?” She has a point, Karl.
(More of these? Click here for “Comebacks log” page)
________________________________________
October 30, 2010
An off-the-cuff blog on Huffpo about what restoring sanity requires of us, especially in terms of communication.
October 29, 2010
Today’s blog on Huffpo about Jon Stewart’s interview with Barack Obama describes President Obama’s view of change as “inch-by-inch, step-by-step, day-by-day.” You have to wonder if he’d defined change in this way during the election whether he would have won. My inclination is that he would have and, due to a greater connection between promises and delivery, more Democrats would be expecting to win this coming Tuesday as well.
October 27, 2010
Sanity may get a boost this weekend from Jon Stewart but in this era of political polarization it won’t last long if we don’t start looking at the increasing tendency to see people and their views as with us or against us. The gray area is diminishing like the middle class. Debate and civil discourse are becoming lost art forms.
That’s why my first tweet, sent off into cyberspace tonight on Twitter, was about the link between restoring sanity and learning comebacks that render retaliation a last resort. A blog I posted yesterday on Huffpo about the firing of Juan Williams describes how knee-jerk reactions put even people who think they’re doing the right thing in jeopardy of looking worse than the people they considered in error.
The best way to give the opposition the edge is to fail to have at hand comebacks that buy time or take the words of the other person and use them to effectively advance your views -- often without having to devalue theirs.
Consider, for example, you’ve just proposed an idea at a meeting. Someone says, “That’s stupid.” You’re at a choice point. Instead of what you’d likely be thinking, you might say, “I thought so too at first. But innovative ideas often seem that way early on.” Then you keep going. You’ve limited his options by not reacting in kind -- not being predictable -- and by, in a sense, agreeing with him. He’ll likely listen rather than risk looking closed minded and rude.
Restoring sanity will take more than a weekend in D.C. but it’s not a bad start. It’s sure to be fun with Stewart and Colbert. And it may get a useful dialogue going. When people distinguish between accidental offense and purposeful insult and respond rather than react to each in different ways, then sanity is within reach.
October 16, 2010
Expanding Upon President Obama’s Thoughts on Bullies
It was good to hear at the MTV town hall type discussion a calm, empathic President Obama reach out to young people harmed by careless pranks and vicious words. He said it breaks his heart to hear about young people taking their lives because others have belittled them.
The president talked about spending a lot of time with Sasha and Malia talking about how people different from ourselves are still good people. We need to teach our children this. Clearly, though, we also need to teach them how to deal with people who don’t respect them in return.
We can pass laws and implement anti-bullying policies at schools, but sooner or later children deal with rudeness, crudeness and/or bullies. And it’s our job to help them be ready – to know what they can say in return.
First, they need to know that there’s a difference between accidental offense and insult. The former doesn’t call for a relationship threatening response. People offend each other regularly by not thinking before they speak. Communication is far from an exact science. We stumble and bumble, offend and defend often before we’ve had a chance to assess the rationality of such actions We’re creatures of communication habits.
So, when people accidentally offend us, it’s useful to give them a chance to reflect. Perhaps by saying:
“Did I hear you right?”
“That’s not something I would expect you to say.”
But where do we draw the line between accidental offense and insult? And at what point do insults cross over to bullying and harassment? When and how do we stop people from making us miserable?
There’s no definitive line. But when people say or do things that are intentional put-downs, at least we need to know how to give them pause. If there’s a chance that some degree of insult was involved, one of these types of comebacks could prove useful:
“If what I heard is what you meant, we have a problem.”
“We may be friends, but that doesn’t mean anything goes.”
When their words are purposefully hurtful or damaging, then more intense responses are usually required. You have to know the situation and the people involved, but something along the lines of “It must be awful to be so predictable” at least gets their attention. Or there’s the kind of response, advisedly used rarely, that Winston Churchill famously gave to a woman inclined to insult. “Battling Bessi” as she was nicknamed accosted him at a party by saying, “Sir, you are drunk!” Churchill is reported to have replied: “When I wake up tomorrow, I will be sober. But you, madam, will still be ugly.”
Communication is a lot like chess. Each move we make limits or expands the options of the other person. If you become skilled at comebacks, it’s possible to take the rug right out from under a bully without raising your voice.
Some bullies may be deterred by rules in schools and work, but most, and especially the intentional and worst, get away with emotional and mental harm everyday. I wrote COMEBACKS AT WORK with Chris Noblet to help people find ways to respond to people who mistakenly offend us as well as to those who purposefully insult. Many of the comebacks we write about, or versions of them, are useful for young people too.
We need to pass comeback skills on to our children. It’s empowering to know that should you be put on the spot by what someone says, you can handle it by giving him or her a chance to rethink and change an offensive comment. But if they won’t take you up on your generosity, it’s good to know comebacks that make them wish they’d kept their thoughts to themselves.
October 12, 2010
Political Sanity, Jon Stewart Style, Means Having a Comeback Repertoire
Thomas Friedman argues that we’re letting the rest of the world “hurdle ahead on clean tech” and in other crucial races while we’re mired in tit-for-tat political polarization. We can’t even move forward in a crisis – when doing so is good for all of us.
Escalating arguments has become part of our cultural identity. Politics has become vicious entertainment where people get cornered, insulted, abused, teased, and so on and fire back in kind. The result -- little of import gets done. And if it were just the politicians doing this, that would be bad enough. But it’s part of political rhetoric at every level.
Friedman doesn’t suggest that politicians or their constituents all hold hands and be friends. And there are times when you have to give as good as you’ve gotten. But, we need to become much more versatile in how we take on those who attack, demean, taunt, tease, undermine, and diminish, keeping in mind the larger goal of moving the country forward.
Borrowing from Jon Stewart, we actually do need to impose some sanity. And that starts with knowing what to say when.
In New York, Andrew Cuomo is faced daily with that challenge running against Carl Paladino for governor. What do you do when someone out to get your or your job has nothing to lose and everything to gain? You don’t do what they expect. You don’t fight on their turf unless that’s the only option. You bring the ball back to your yard or familiar ground. Otherwise, they win.
So how is this done? The short answer is learn and practice. But there is a place to start.
Here’s a sample of comebacks that buy time. They give the person using them a chance to think while letting the attacker know he or she is out of line. They’re from my latest book, COMEBACKS AT WORK. They deflect, redirect, reframe, or stop political attacks:
“I could take that personally, but I’m in a good mood today.”
“This reminds me of Eleanor Roosevelt’s observation: ‘Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.’”
“Let me take a moment to reconstruct what you just said into something more civil (relevant, constructive, sensitive, tolerable, etc.)”
“Surely you won’t mind waiting while I give more thought to what I’m about to say than you just did.”
“If I said what I’m thinking, we’d both be out of line.”
“This is when most of us tend to respond in kind.”
“Fortunately and atypically, I find myself speechless.”
“I’m wondering if you actually said what I think I heard.”
“Let me just say how little I have to say in response to that.
Dr. Kathleen Kelley Reardon is a Phi Beta Kappa, Professor at the USC Marshall School of Business and for years served on Preventive Medicine faculty. She received her Ph.D. "with distinction" from UMASS, Amherst. She was co-author and researcher of the feasibility study that launched Starbright -- serving critically ill children -- chaired by Steven Spielberg and now conjoined with Starlight.
Books:
Persuasion in Practice
Gift-Giving Around the World used by Chiefs of Protocol to guide presidential and diplomat decisions on gift customs in negotiation
They Don’t Get It, Do They? 1995
It's All Politics (Currency, Doubleday 2005)-"Top 100" -Amazon
The Skilled Negotiator (JosseyBass, 2005)
The Secret Handshake (Currency,Doubleday, 2000) Amazon Nonfiction and Business Best Seller
Dr. Reardon is also the author of the Harvard Business Review reprint bestseller, "The Memo In Every Woman's Desk" and more recently "Courage at Work."
Latest book: COMEBACKS AT WORK: USING CONVERSATION TO MASTER CONFRONTATION (with Christopher Noblet).
She was on the founding board of First Star(www.firststar.org), a nonprofit endeavoring to better the lives of children in foster care and those at risk for abuse and neglect. In CHILDHOOD DENIED she introduced the concept of foster care on campuses where children with no hope of going to college are raised in the midst of them and are guided to further their education after high school and helped throughout their youth to know that they are capable and valued.
Childhood Denied: Ending The Nightmare of Child Abuse and Neglect
(Sage Publications, Nov. 2008) was written with Christopher Noblet and in collaboration with First Star.
Dr. Reardon received First Star’s Achievement Award October 28, 2008 in Washington, D.C.
Her books have been translated into Chinese, Korean, Portuguese and Arabic.
She is a painter of oils and watercolors and has developed a website for those injured in war or dealing with difficult illnesses so that they might also enjoy learning to paint - “Painting Doc” (www.bardscove.com/Site_2/painting_doc/html).
_________________________________________
