Process Connections

Are You a Woman or Are You a Wimp?

Faun deHenry — Mon, 06 May 2013 11:27:00 GMT

I sent a tweet this week from an article about women, leadership, and success (You can find it here). There was a particular statement in the lower half of the article that resonated with me.

What is really going on, as peer reviewed studies continually find, is that high-achieving women experience social backlash because their very success - and specifically the behaviors that created that success - violates our expectations about how women are supposed to behave.

Over the course of my career numerous folks, both female and male, have asked me if I ever felt discrimination in the workplace. My response then was, as it now is, “No, not really.” However, that wasn’t the right question. The more accurate question was: As a woman for whom achievement is important, have you encountered challenges personally or professionally?

My response to that question is a resounding, “Yes!” Further it would be great to be able to say that most of the hurdles were placed by men who were “put off” by my unfeminine traits, au contraire! There have been just as many women who were offended by my focus and determination to succeed.

Before I recount a very few of the incredible statements that have been made over the years, let me share some facts. I am married, and have been for thirty years, with four children — two girls and two boys. I have been in the workforce since I was fourteen, nearly forty years. Despite my drive and efforts in building five organizations — three consulting companies and two software companies — my greatest achievements are not what I’ve accomplished in business. They are the relationships that I have with my spouse, my children, and their spouses and friends.

So on with the comments…

“I understand that you run a business and it takes a lot of drive to do that, but could you please leave that behavior at work and not bring it in to your personal life?” A well intentioned girlfriend said this as a way to help me understand why I had so few dating opportunities.

“Who could have guessed that I would be sitting here talking with my best friend’s little sister about silver prices and the commodities market.” Believe me when I tell you, this guy thought he was complimenting me!

“Little lady, you may wear the pants at home, but here in this office you will do exactly as I say!” This was in response to my suggestion regarding a change to an accounting policy.

“You’ll never amount to anything more than being a technical writer!” This was in response to my announcement that we were going to need a course correction in our software development effort.

“It isn’t enough that you want to run this organization. You want to take over others as well!” This was in response to having worked with a leadership team for a non-profit association and helping take the organization from a cash negative to a significantly cash positive position.

So that you have a sense of time about these remarks, the first one happened in the early 80’s. The last one was shared with me around 2007.

By the way, these comments aren’t the worst that have been said to me or other women who set themselves on the path to excellence.

So the really vital question is: How, in the face of all that hostility, does anyone keep going and achieve success?

I can only share the approach that I have used and that has worked for me.

Believe in yourself

It is essential to know in the very deepest part of your being that whatever it is you are doing is right for you. Now, I’m not talking about extreme or “off the wall” behavior. I’m referring to your vision for your life and believing with every molecule in your body that it is right for you and it’s the direction to take.

Can belief in yourself be shaken? Absolutely it can, which is why you have friends and mentors who also believe in you and can help you evaluate during those critical moments when your faith in yourself is broken.

People who believe in you

I’ve been incredibly fortunate to have encountered really supportive people, both personally and professionally. My stepmother is among the first of those. With all of the really terrible, and funny, stories about stepmothers, mine is a remarkable woman. Further, she was my initial mentor on the path toward excellence. Her attitude was that success means you keep moving toward your target. The only way to fail was to give up. Yes, there were times when I felt like giving up. I wanted desperately to give up.

She would say to me, “Are you a girl/woman or a wimp?!?!?” Well, needless to say, I wasn’t a wimp. So, after those heart to heart conversations, I would put my “big girl” armor back on and persevere. You won’t be surprised, I’m sure, to know that occasionally I say the same thing to my daughters.

When I was starting my first business, there was an attorney who worked with me. It has occurred to me more than once that I could fill a book with all of things that I learned from him. Perhaps the most important was that people talk. That’s pretty simple, right?

His approach to that challenge was a bit more complex. Yes, people talk and what they think about you is none of your business. Penfield was very old fashioned and yet, he understood branding in a way that few people do.

“People are always going to talk. It doesn’t matter what they say just as long as they keep talking,” he would tell me.

It’s impossible for me to count the number times he said those words. Pen firmly believed that people could say whatever they liked, but it was my responsibility to pay attention and take charge of the dialogue.

It’s also important to have a friend who, in addition to believing in you, won’t let you dissemble — who keeps you accountable and graciously holds the mirror to reflect you back to you. If you have a person like that in your life, you are fortunate beyond description. I know that I am.

Success is a journey, not an endpoint

This last essential component is not to be taken lightly. All of us, and I include myself on this, get caught up in the “success is an end” thinking, as opposed to it actually being the journey. How many times have you, or someone you know, said, “If I can just get here (where ever or whatever ‘here’ is), then I will have succeeded.” I’ve said that, only to remember an hour or so later that “here” isn’t the point! “Here” is an accomplishment — a milestone — along the way.

The point is my vision — of the “who” (not the “what”) that I’m striving to be.

The point is that all of us have a unique journey that involves becoming a “who,” and not a “what.” Irrespective of being male or female, it’s that internal drive, or hunger if you will, to work at becoming a better human being. That is my vision!

Is anyone perfect in that pursuit? Far from it, we’re all human beings.

If I am living an active life, I’m making mistakes. Still, my drive and determination to succeed are just the means I use to move toward my vision. I am constantly reminding myself that my “achievements” are way stations on my journey.

Maybe it will be another thirty to forty years before women can exhibit leadership traits and not experience a social backlash. I truly hope that this isn’t the case.

Whether the situation with achievement oriented women and society changes or not, I’m going to continue believing in my vision of the “who” that I want to be. Further, I’m going to encourage my daughters and their daughters to do the same by asking them the important question that was asked of me, “Are you a woman or are you wimp?”

Do You Really Care About Sustaining Change?

Faun deHenry — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:21:36 GMT

As I talk with colleagues and clients, lately there seems to be a constant refrain. From colleagues the refrain comes in the form of a complaint, "I don't know why this client engaged me to help them with this change effort. Management won't complete the activities necessary to make it successful." From clients, the refrain is more of a derisive statement. "I don't see the point in using a change management consultant. It's a waste of moeny and time. We've tried change management programs before and they don't really work. If people don't get behind our new way of doing business, they can work somewhere else."

Now, I understand that some organizations have spent enormous amounts of money on managing change within their businesses without much to show for it. At times, the consultant or consulting team has been responsible for the poor showing. For some efforts, the responsibiity for the failed change effort rests squarely on the shoulders of the organization's management.

While the first issue -- hiring a consulting team that is a poor fit -- can be a serious impediment to a successful change effort, it's the second cause -- senior managements' lack of engagement and follow through -- that I want to discuss in this post.

The components for a successful change effort include:

Leadership
Stories
Performance
Compensation
Peer pressure

The two most critical components in my opinion are leadership behavior and compensation, better described as realignment of incentives. Without these two components a change effort will lose traction and become unsustainable. The "why" of this eventuality is simple. Subordinates mirror senior managers' behavior. If a CEO behaves poorly to his team, those managers will, in turn, behave poorly to their reports, and so on down the line. Secondly, people are motivated by incentives. If a manager is rewarded for good people skills, she will be motivated not only to continue using those skills, but perhaps will seek ways to improve them.

Surprisingly, I learned this in a visceral way by observing parental behavior and seeing the same behavior mirrored in their offspring. Years ago, when my children were small, there was a family in our neighborhood whose children were approximately the same age as mine. I commented once to Mollie how well behaved her children, Ben and Caitlin, were. She told me a very interesting story.

A couple of years earlier Mollie overheard Ben and Caty playing when Ben, who was 2.5 years older, said, "Just shut up, Caty!" Mollie was shocked by Ben's words and tone of voice. Then she realized that he had learned that response from listening to conversations between her husband, Hal, and her. Mollie hadn't been aware that Ben was listening so closely.

Mollie decided immediately that she wanted to change Ben's behavior and the dynamic within her family. Her first step was a chat during "date night" with Hal. After a very and intense discussion, Mollie and Hal agreed that there were certain words and phrases that would no longer be used in their home. Together they also decided upon substitute phrases that were acceptable, such as:

"Please hush for a moment." instead of "Shut up!"
"I disagree." instead of "That's stupid!"
"Yes, and..." instead of "OK, but..."

The next task was for Mollie and Hal to sit down together with Ben and Caty to discuss the "new rules" and the reasoning behind them. Mollie planned the family meeting for a Saturday after soccer practice and before dinner. She wanted to be certain that enough time was available for their family discussion. Also, if there was any drama, Mollie wanted to able to get closure without ruining mealtime.

They had "the conversation" in the family den. At six, Caty hadn't fully internalized the words and behaviors that Molly wanted to extinguish. However, Ben was defensive and Mollie's concern about drama during their meeting was fully realized. Both Mollie and Hal reassured Ben that he wasn't being singled out and these rules applied to everyone in the family. No one in their family was going to speak unkindly to other family members or their friends.

As I recall, my comment to Mollie at this point in her story was something like, "OK, so you and Hal changed the rules, but I'm betting that life didn't change overnight, did it?"

No, it didn't. Mollie set up two jars on the kitchen counter -- one for penalties and the other for rewards. I thought that her approach was quite clever. Mollie stuffed the penalty jar with small pieces of paper that had simple, but onerous tasks, written on them. Every time someone exhibited the "old" behavior or made an unacceptable remark, that person was required to take a piece of paper from the jar and complete the task within the next 3 days.

The reward jar also had pieces of paper in it, but they contained a pleasurable activity on each small paper piece. These fun activities had the same completion window.

For several months, the Smith's house sparkled. Mollie and Hal knew that their responsibility was to model the "new behavior" so that Ben and Caty would understand that their parents were serious. Still, they slipped occasionally. Each time Mollie or Hal slipped, they took a paper slip from the penalty jar and completed the task by the deadline. They also celebrated the adoption of their new behaviors by taking paper slips from the rewards jar.

Ben and Caty were encouraged to help keep Mom and Dad "on their toes" regarding the new behaviors. It almost became a game of sorts with the Smith family, sending the erring family member to the penalty jar for lapsing into old behavior and celebrating when new behavior resulted in a visit to the reward jar.

After roughly a year the Smith family retired both jars as they were no longer needed. The new behaviors and words were fully internalized. It's been roughly a decade since Mollie told me her story. Today both Ben and Caty are college students and really wonderful people. They have solid people skills. I'm certain that they will go far.

Senior management in organizations that want or need to change would do well to follow Mollie's example. Why? It works! Let's review how Mollie achieved her desired result.

Identified the specific behavior (words) that was creating a negative family dynamic and that she wanted to extinguish.
Met with her management peer (Hal) to discuss the change. They reached an agreement about how the new family dynamic would appear in the future.
Called an "all hands" meeting at a non-stressful time in a neutral venue with sufficient time to address the specifics of the change, the rationale, the concerns about changing to new behavior, and the potential emotional responses.
Established a system of rewards and penalties that applied equally to everyone and used it consistently to change everyone's behavior.

Senior managers can use the same approach and tools that Mollie used. By following her steps they can drive an effective change effort in their organization. The most important aspects of Mollie's approach were modeling the behavior she wanted for Ben and Caty and using incentives to motivate them to adopt the new behavior. These are the two components that senior managers forget most often. Without them, change efforts cannot be sustained.

Copyright 2006-2011 by Faun deHenry. All rights reserved.

Do Your Homework!

Faun deHenry — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 14:01:00 GMT

This is an unusual post for this blog. The discussion is framed in terms of searching for a good work fit between you and a potential employer. However, the process of market research is applicable in a variety of situations.

The suggestions mentioned in this YouTube video are pretty good. Yet it seems that many folks don't understand how to take those suggestions and really make them valuable.

The video mentions checking out employee review sites. Yes, definitely visit web sites like thevault.com, payscale.com, and glassdoor.com. It’s a terrific idea. You are investing over 2,000 hours of your time each year to your job and the organization that employs you. It makes sense to find out if the company is a good investment for you, right?

The question is: What do you do with this information? How do you evaluate what you find there? Are there other web sites, places to look, or things that you can do to build a better understanding of an organization?

Believe it or not, the marketing folks at FMTSI use these same web sites to research prospects and clients. Why do they bother? It is standard practice in the company to have the best possible appreciation for a prospect’s or client’s environment before engaging in a conversation. Here are some thoughts about how you might approach researching companies and organizations.

General information sites:

Jigsaw

Each of these sites is useful for gaining an overall appreciation for your targeted organization. In addition to general information, Hoover’s provides a short list of competitors. BusinessWeek includes relevant news and names of key executives along with its company overviews. InsideView’s free subscription plan also provides recent annual revenues and number of employees in its company listings. Jigsaw provides a brief description of the organization along with some details regarding.

If you have a preferences regarding organization size or location, Hoover’s, Businessweek, and InsideView, can help with uncovering that information. If you want to know if the organization has multiple locations, Jigsaw can provide insight into where various employees work. If you want to know about the kinds of job titles in the organization, Jigsaw includes that information as well.

When checking employee review sites, such as thevault.com and others, ask yourself the following questions. How many of the comments are positive? How many are negative? Is there more of one type than the other? How might you validate your perceptions?

If the company is publicly traded, take a look at the most recent 10K filed with the SEC. Compare that data with the company's annual report. If you don't understand financial statements, find a friend with an accounting and/or investment background and ask her/him to walk you through these documents and help you understand them better.

Invest in a paid subscription with LinkedIn and review the company and its employees, current and past. Why? LinkedIn provides a wealth of information for anyone willing to wade through it.

How is the company described on LinkedIn? Look for consistency among the company's web site, employee review sites, LinkedIn, its annual report, and 10K. Inconsistency could indicate a change of direction or could be a "red flag." Do you have any connections with company employees? Maybe you don’t have any direct connections, but second and third degree connections might help you find the information necessary for making a decision.

Look at recent departures on the LinkedIn company page. Who left recently? Where did they go? Is there a pattern to the departures? Also, the people who have left the firm could provide validation for questions or perceptions you develop from your research.

Finally, if the organization is local to you, find a discreet place where you can observe people going to and leaving the office. Do they look eager to get to work or eager to leave? Are they filing out of the building in silence or are various groups having conversations as they exit?

While doing all of this research may seem an undue amount of work, remember that you’re looking for a good fit. You’ll spend more than 2,000 hours each year working with colleagues to further the organization’s mission and goals. I’m betting that you don’t want to waste your time.

If you conduct a thorough survey of your targeted organization, i.e. do your homework, you can develop a decent "picture" of it and whether or not working there would be a good investment of your time.

A Case for Flexibility Over Resistance

Faun deHenry — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 01:36:10 GMT

I wrote a post a couple of weeks ago and sent it to a colleague for review. While he was reviewing and commenting, I happened upon a book that is broadening my notions about flexibility. The book is Brain Rules: 12 Principles for Surviving and Thriving at Work, Home, and School by John Medina. In fact, I sent a tweet asking if anyone had read the book and wanted to discuss it.

So what has changed? I’m more puzzled about the lack of flexibility in our general population than I was before reading this book! Medina talks about Richard Potts’ notion of Variability Selection Theory, which attempts to describe why our ancestors favored flexibility and intelligence. Stop for a moment!

Our ancestors favored flexibility and intelligence. Why? Those traits meant survival!

Now granted most of us work and live in environments that are reasonably benign, i.e. our physical survival isn't at stake. However, if you think about the shifts in thinking, the surges in innovation, and the differences in workplaces happening in nearly every place on the globe, might our ability to be flexible and adaptable still be an important survival trait? Medina claims that history and neuroscience strongly suggest that our brains evolved in such a way as to favor adaptability and handle unstable environments.

… a great deal of the brain is hard-wired not to be hard-wired.
Like a beautiful, rigorously trained ballerina, we are hard-wired
to be flexible.¹

Reading further into Medina’s discussion on the evolving human brain, two questions circle repeatedly in my mind. “What happened to us? How did so many people become allergic to change?”

Have you ever noticed how some folks in your workplace simply dislike change of any kind? It doesn't matter if the change is a switch in office cubicles or a major organizational initiative -- they have something unpleasant to say about the "new way" because it isn't as good as the "old way."

Organizational development experts maintain that there are always people who are constantly resisting change. Further, efforts to manage that resistance are not without challenges. However, I am beginning to consider the wisdom of responding indirectly to resistance, rather than a “head-on tackle” approach. In fact, why talk about resistance at all? Perhaps the organizational conversation should be focussed on flexibility.

The chances of success could be far greater if we offer the benefits of flexibility to counter the force of resistance. Whether it's in a work situation or a change in your personal environment, resistance makes life harder. I'm beginning to think that the opposite of resistance is flexibility. Everyone, including me, can use more flexibility in her/his approach to living.

How much easier is it to resolve a disagreement if you are flexible? How much better will a negotiation conclude if all parties are flexible? How much easier is change, of any sort, addressed if you are flexible?

I'm not talking about a simple "rolling over" and accepting anything that comes your way. This is about actively listening to a new proposition, thinking critically about how it might or might not work with a current situation, and exploring options.

A willingness to be flexible opens a world of possibilities for how you can approach, not only your work, but also your life.

Medina, John (2010-07-06). Brain Rules: 12 Principles for Surviving and Thriving at Work, Home, and School (p. 61). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.

Business Process and More! (eBook)

Faun deHenry — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 18:08:22 GMT

I've had the amazing privilege over these last several months of working with some truly wonderful and passionate folks. All of them are contributors to the spring edition of an eBook -- Business Process and More!

It's been a great experience and I've learned lots from each of them.

There will be another post soon now that I am finished with the ebook.

Copyright 2006-2011 by Faun deHenry. All rights reserved.

Culture versus Strategy

Faun deHenry — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:25:17 GMT

Is it really an “either or” situation? Is corporate culture more important than strategy? Or is it the opposite?

Numerous people have written blogs and articles about this topic over the recent months, including me. “Culture Eats Strategy for Breakfast” was the title of my presentation at Oracle’s OpenWorld conference in October 2011, as well as a webinar topic for my employer in January 2012.

However, Peter Drucker originally made this statement and discussed organizational culture’s ability to impact strategy in the context of discouraging leaders and managers from making radical changes to their corporate culture or implementing strategies that were inconsistent with their existing culture.

Jack Welch said after his experience with GE’s acquisition of Kidder Peabody, “Culture matters!”

In 2003 a group of researchers at Harvard Business School completed a ten year study examining management practices at 160 organizations. They found that culture can enhance or prove detrimental to corporate performance. Organizations with strong performance-oriented cultures witnessed far better financials growth.

We know that strategy matters as well. Companies with good strategies prosper. Those without good strategies perform poorly or, at worst, close their doors.

Bob Frisch in his article “Culture Vs. Strategy is a False Choice” mentions several companies with winning strategies and corporate cultures — Southwest Airlines and Zappos. He also includes companies that are known as strong performers without superior corporate cultures — McDonald’s and Walmart.

However, what about having a strong corporate culture as part of your business strategy? During a recent Twitter conversation Fred Cuellar (@fredcuellar) suggested this to me in one of his tweets. “My money is on culture as a strategy! Environment regulates behavior!”

Leslie Bradshaw, President, COO, and Co-founder for JESS3 said it best in her video for 30 Second MBA as she describes the importance of culture for her organization.

“…[C]ulture is actually the fiber that brings us all together so that we can execute against the strategy once we have it.”

Fred and Leslie are on the right track and it’s similar to an approach that was used by Ken Olsen in building DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation). The company’s strong innovation culture helped propel it to stellar heights during the 60’s, 70’s, and part of the 80’s.

It was also the same culture that, when the technology arena changed, prevented the organization from adopting a successful strategy that would allow it to compete effectively in the new technology marketplace.

DEC’s strong corporate culture “ate” every new idea, proposal, and strategy that didn’t fit its existing paradigm. The result: DEC went into a downward spiral and was acquired by Compaq, which was acquired by Hewlett Packard.

The relationship between corporate culture and strategy goes further and deeper than most corporate leaders imagine. Not only that, but in volatile markets, the connectedness between these two can be fraught with complications.

If your organization is an incumbent in an industry that has a disruptive newcomer, adaptability becomes paramount. Yet, strong corporate cultures are typically less adaptable. To use Edgar Schein’s analogy, strong corporate cultures possess antibodies that protect them from “foreign” ideas or proposals. Therefore, it is critical that leaders heed Drucker’s warning and remember the lesson of DEC as they attempt to change a corporate culture so that it can function harmoniously with a new strategy.

Culture and strategy must fit and work together to move an organization’s performance forward. Without harmony between culture and strategy, the organization suffers and, eventually, dies.

Copyright 2006-2011 by Faun deHenry. All rights reserved.

Business Culture — It Matters More Than You Suspect!

Faun deHenry — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 18:03:52 GMT

Much of my thoughts and conversations over the last year have centered around organizational culture. More and more it's apparent that business culture affects us and our work efforts in ways that we barely discern consciously.

I've worked on business process, business intelligence (data warehousing), ERP transactional system, and CRM transactional system efforts over the last two decades. Most of those efforts included projects designed for "user adoption," "training and acceptance," "change management," or "organizational transformation." Irrespective of the term(s) used, it all came down to getting employees to embrace the new direction for the organization and get on board with whatever new technology that was selected to enable and support the new "order of the day."

Some of these efforts were amazingly successful and others failed miserably. One of the key components of the success or failure involved how senior management addressed and led their coworkers through the organizational change to the new reality.

During each presentation about this topic, at least one person, and sometimes several, have asked the question, "What if I'm not part of the leadership, how can I have an impact on my organization's culture?"

This is a really tough question without simple answers and it's the issue I plan to spend this year pondering and discussing with colleagues.

In the meantime, I continue to speak and write about business process and organizational culture. If you are interested, the venues are listed below.

Scan for free eBook!

Faun deHenry — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 17:32:47 GMT

Balanced Approach to Process Metrics - BPM Institute

Faun deHenry — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 15:24:10 GMT

I am also a contributing writer to the BPM Institute. You can visit there to read additional blog posts.

Copyright 2006-2011 by Faun deHenry. All rights reserved.

About Process, Training, and TSA (Update)

Faun deHenry — Sun, 01 May 2011 23:25:00 GMT

UPDATE!!

I wrote the post below at the end of November 2010. At that point I neither personally knew anyone who had experienced TSA's enhanced pat downs nor had I gone through the "pleasure" myself. The post then was as much my attempt to make sense of health and invasion of privacy issues as it was to share what I had discovered from my research into the matter.

As of 28 April 2011 that has changed.

To discuss whether or not TSA has the Constitutional right to grope US citizens inappropriately, seems pointless. As long as the executive and legislative branches of our federal government support TSA's activities, the enhanced pat downs (groping) will continue. What is more interesting to me as a process professional is the inconsistency of performance by TSA agents among various US airports.

I've talked with several colleagues and friends about their encounters with TSA. There have been a couple of experiences of my own. Also in this intervening time between November 2010 and May 2011, I had a delightful travel experience with Amtrak, unexpected to be sure, but wonderful nonetheless.

One colleague described his enhanced pat down "as thorough as any examination that I've had from my physician during a physical. The only difference was that I had my clothes on." The mother of a friend of mine described her TSA enhanced pat down as very respectful and conducted by the agent using the back of her hand. Further, at no time was this septuagenarian subjected to invasive touching by a TSA representative. Yet another colleague described her enhanced pat down as "uncomfortably intrusive." Of the two pat downs I've received, one was distinctly invasive and humiliating. The other involved the back of a hand and the agent didn't touch my breasts or genital area.

Suffice to say, there is no evidence of a standard process for enhanced pat downs! If you don't believe me, watch this video of a woman describing her two very different experiences of TSA's enhanced pat down process. On a side note I am fascinated that AOL Travel News uses "Rant" in the article's title. Yet watching this video I saw not so much a person's rant as a woman who was crying over the humiliation she endured at the hands of a TSA agent.

Is the lack of standardization due to TSA's inability to manage processes? Or is it an agent training issue? Perhaps it is both. Whatever the problem is TSA has demonstrated, so far, that it is incapable of finding a solution. Instead, TSA has been busy installing flat screens in large airports that play a message from its director extolling the virtues of the full body scanners and the absolute necessity of invading travelers' privacy.

I have made my decision to curtail my travel on airplanes whenever possible. This will require some planning on my part, but for short trips, I believe it will work. In case you're asking yourself, "Why would she do this?" I'll tell you.

Recently I travelled by rail. It was amazing! I showed the Amtrak agent my identification. Boarding for the train was called. Passengers stepped onto the train cars. The train rolled down the track. There were no lines, no full body scanners, no TSA agents waiting to grope me. It was a pleasurable travel experience and one that I am looking forward to having again, just not at an airport.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Published on 30 November 2010

The media has jumped on the flying public's anxiety over the new scanners and pat down procedures with a ferocity rarely seen in recent journalism history. As a result, there is a fair amount material available on the matter. For several days now I have listened to the furor over this issue, read numerous news articles, blog posts, comments to many posts, and watched several YouTube videos. There is no doubt in my mind that we are observing, in a very public forum, the breakdown of a public relations and airport security process.

In case you've been incommunicado with your computer, television, or newspaper for the past several months, the federal government has allowed Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to purchase scanning machines that provide a “picture” containing a high degree of detail about the form and contours of an individual's body, i.e. even though clothed, the image makes a person appear naked. It is possible for a traveler to refuse a scanning experience. However, in doing so, that person tacitly agrees to an "enhanced" pat down procedure.

Discussions have revolved around both the scanning machines and the pat downs. Concerns have been voiced regarding the scanning machines:

effectiveness of the scanning machines regarding airport security
invasiveness regarding the “nude” appearance of
the scanned images
storage ability regarding the images taken
safety in terms of the radiation dosage,
especially for certain populations – pilots, flight attendants, frequent fliers, and others[1]

As for the pat downs, various individuals have commented on the:

demeaning nature of the "enhanced" pat
downs
inappropriate behavior of some TSA officers
necessity of "enhanced" pat downs for children

In addition, many journalists, bloggers, and commenters have raised questions about whether or not these changes in airport security could be considered a Fourth Amendment violation, resulting in unreasonable search.

Effectiveness

Security experts are questioning TSA’s approach to airport security. Take the comment from the Netherlands’ Schiphol Airport Security Chief,

"If you look at all the recent terrorist incidents, the bombs were detected because of human intelligence not because of screening ... If even a fraction of what is spent on screening was invested in the intelligence services we would take a real step toward making air travel safer and more pleasant."[2]

American security consultants, such as Bruce Schneier, have similar observations.

“Exactly two things have made airline travel safer since 9/11: reinforcement of cockpit doors, and passengers who now know that they may have to fight back. Everything else -- Secure Flight and Trusted Traveler included -- is security theater."[3]

Other security pundits cite the Israeli[4]method of handling terrorist risks, i.e., profiling, as much more effective.

Am I in favor of racial or ethnic profiling?

No, it is an unacceptable activity in a democratic society. Do I favor profiling questions based upon an assessment of risk? Yes, remember that Timothy McVeigh was an American white male!

Is my sense of security increased due to TSA’s activities? No, not really.

“The current security system in which everyone is a suspect is bound to be ineffective and burdensome. No system can perform efficiently when one is looking for a needle in a haystack by checking each straw individually.”[5]

Flying is risky, but not nearly as risk filled as driving an automobile. Do I want to be on that single flight that has a terrorist that was missed by intelligence services and TSA? No, I don’t. There are no guarantees in life, nor do I expect my government to provide one to me regarding airport security. In the words of a Thanksgiving holiday traveler,

“I just want to know if the TSA workers actually believe they are keeping people safe by feeling us up if we opt out of the full-body scan,” said Cara Eshleman, a baker from Arlington County who is flying out of Reagan National Airport on Wednesday and plans to opt out if she is directed to a full-body scanner. “It's too bad I already bought my ticket. If I'd have found out about this before, I wouldn't be going anywhere for the holidays.”[6]

Am I willing to trade my civil rights, privacy, and liberty for security theater? Absolutely not! It would appear that I am not alone.[7]Yet, TSA is busy assuring the public that “78% of poll respondents approve the use of full body scanners.”[8] What TSA conveniently glosses over is that the referenced poll was taken in January of this year, well in advance of the new procedures being put into place.

Invasiveness

If I have committed no offense, broken no law, nor behaved in a suspicious manner, how is it justifiable that I should be subjected to a machine that produces an image in which my body appears naked? This is just wrong on so many levels! Although TSA openly admits that the scanners are an invasion of people’s privacy, they justify the necessity by invoking images of bomb carrying terrorists boarding an American airplane.

"I just don't think the government has the right to look under
people's clothes with no reasonable cause, no suspicion other than purchasing a plane ticket."[9]

“I am concerned about the exposure and I am equally concerned that someone saw my precious daughter as if she were naked. I was then put through as well and was humiliated and felt as though I were in a peep show. Before this trip, I honestly felt the scanners were a good idea and a price to be paid for travelling - after living it first hand, I have to say it is flat out WRONG[10]

Some people who experience these scanning machines feel violated. Still TSA basically holds the position that if someone feels violated, “too bad” it’s a small price to pay for security. I disagree. Price of this degree of invasiveness is too high.

Storage

The scanning machines can and do store images! TSA has already admitted that it requires all purchased body scanners to have the ability to store and transmit images for “testing, training, and evaluation purposes.” The agency also contends that those capabilities are not normally activated when the devices are installed at airports.[11] Right! In its reply[12] to the House of Representatives questions about privacy, TSA also states,

No cameras, cellular telephones, or other devices capable of capturing an image are permitted in the image viewing room. Any official or employee who fails to follow these strict procedures is subject to serious discipline up to and including removal.[13]

Given how unforthcoming the agency has been regarding these new procedures, can I really believe that some passengers’ images won’t end up in someone’s private file or on the Internet at a future time? The answer is probably not! In addition, the verbal remarks to buxom passengers attributed to TSA officials don’t fill me with much hope that anyone’s privacy is really respected by the TSA’s employees.

One traveler observed, “I will bet that we will catch more TSA employees guilty of inappropriately forwarding full-body scans of celebrities or attractive women than we will terrorists.”[14]

Safety

As frequent flyer who spends more than 70,000 miles each year, over roughly 45 weeks, in the air, this concerns me enormously.

Over the last several years I have listened to my fellow passengers question whether or not the security measures that the American flying public is forced to endure really work. I fly out of small airports on regional jets most of the time and, due to my frequent flyer status, often sit next to pilots or flight attendants on their way to work. Many of them tell me that I fly more than they do. That being the case, I have a health concern about radiation from a backscatter full body scanner.

TSA maintains that the health concerns are minimal and that most people are exposed to more radiation from their cell phones. This doesn’t allay my unease about the scanners. I want scientific proof! Not only that, but I find the cell phone reference specious, especially since I use a headset to keep my phone away from my head and my phone typically rests on a table at least 3 feet away from my body.

Demeaning Pat Downs

In the few weeks since the policy came into effect, the ACLU has received hundreds of complaints from travelers who have been subject to these invasive and suspicionless searches.[15] Interestingly, the 900 complaints that the ACLU claims to have received exceeds the test sample size of both polls claiming that most Americans don’t mind the scanners but have issues with the pat down procedure.

Below are some of the comments that travelers have reported to the ACLU.[16]

“I am upset, humiliated, degraded and feel abused and criminal, when I am guilty of nothing.”
“In all of these years and the thousands of flights and millions of airlines miles I have never been so humiliated. If my choice is to risk having my genitalia spread all over the internet and my body exposed to unknown radiation or to have my testicles bounced and my buttocks stroked I will not fly any commercial airline.... our humanity and our dignity are being violated. I HAVE HAD ENOUGH!”
“I opted out and was sexually molested in public. The method used to search my body was on par with a sexual massage by a stranger of the same sex. My penis was touched by a man. My anus and groin were rubbed by a man. My scalp was rubbed by the same person. How can this be acceptable...? These TSA agents are not qualified to deal with the psychological or ethical responsibility of this technology.”

In fact, during testimony before lawmakers in Washington, D.C., TSA’s new administrator agrees that the new pat down procedures are more invasive.

“I'm frankly bothered by the level of these pat-downs,” Sen. George LeMieux, R-Fla., told Pistole. “I wouldn't want my wife to be touched in the way that these folks are being touched. I wouldn't want to be touched that way.”

Pistole, who has been subjected to a pat-down himself, allowed: “It is clearly more invasive. But the procedures are necessary,” he said, “to detect devices not seen before.”[17] You saw it, ladies and gentlemen, “…necessary to detect devices not seen before.” Comments like this one have led some
to wonder if cavity searches are next on TSA’s agenda.[18] I wonder if Pistole has children. If he does, what is his explanation to them about a stranger in a TSA uniform that may touch them in private places and that it’s OK? One father said it best.

“We spend my child's whole life telling him that only mom, dad and a doctor can touch you in your private area, and now we have to add TSA (agents), and that's just wrong.”[19]

Inappropriate Behavior

In addition to the flying public and lawmakers’ perceptions that TSA’s new pat down procedures are demeaning and certainly more invasive than the previous procedure, what about inappropriate application of the new procedure by TSA officers?

I was the only female in a crowd of men. Even though I was not next in line, I was called over to the body scanner. As I got closer to the scanner, I could clearly hear him say ‘[G]ot a cute one, some DD's.’ ... I was appalled and decided at that point to ‘opt out’ of the scanner.... I was then put through the pat down procedure which I only can only describe as sexual assault.[20]

“Simply, I was sexually assaulted. My breasts were caressed in an almost amorous manner. And on the second canvassing of my groin, single-finger pressure was applied to my labia majora - the plane of which was near-broken, during which the agent made a wildly off-color remark.”[21]

Standardized procedural, as well as sensitivity, training could possibly mitigate much of this issue. Oh wait, according to a report released by the GAO[22], TSA does not have “a standard process to identify and coordinate the necessary computer support” for its computer based training of TSA officers!23]

Clearly TSA needs not only a better understanding of process and procedures, but also better training and execution.

Constitutionality

In an extremely lengthy blog post an author on Flopping Aces reminds the reader that, according to David Leach (first US air marshal under the Nixon administration), that various U.S. courts have agreed that:

“... yes, it was a violation of the fourth amendment, but it was acceptable to the courts with two provisos. One, that it be applied universally so there’s no chance of any discrimination, and two, that the search be limited to looking for weapons and explosives.”[emphasis added][24]

Let’s look at that first proviso, “be universally applied.” If I am to accept the truthfulness of the complaints registered with the ACLU, universal application of these new procedures is nonexistent. Talk to any private pilot, and s/he will tell you that there is NO screening of persons or luggage prior to boarding a private plane. Further, for those individuals fortunate enough to have access to private aviation, whether through company or government access or due to personal wealth, there is NO screening of anything. Again, I question the universal application of enhanced screening and pat downs.

Summary

It’s easy to say, “You don’t like TSA’s rules, don’t fly. Use an alternative.” According one of the polls[25] taken over this last week, some 48% of the respondents intend to do just that. They are going to stop flying. I don’t believe this is a realistic solution. The disruption to our economy could be serious were people to act on this sentiment.

So far, our elected officials seem to have allowed TSA to issue edicts, in the name of national security, without much discussion or inquiry into preserving the civil rights of the American public. To be fair, the American public, by and large, has unquestioningly followed along with each restriction of rights – until now.

TSA appears to have bypassed the process used by nearly every other federal organization that wants to change regulatory guidelines, regulations, or operational procedures.[26] In doing so, they have lost, not only the willing compliance of many citizens, but the confidence of the American flying public that they are acting in our best interest.

Rationality and a conversation about reasonable risks needs to occur. Why couldn’t we as a society engage in a national dialogue about where we are going to balance civil liberties and national security? That is, in part, the purpose of the Federal Register – to allow for discourse and discussion about federal rules and regulations. We could start there.

[1]http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1777-full.html#203670

[2]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/12/airport_security_scanners/

[3]http://www.schneier.com/

[4]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-harris/what-israel-can-teach-the_b_408720.html

[5]http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/11/22/do-body-scanners-make-us-safer/israel-doesnt-use-scanners

[6]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/23/AR2010112303954_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009122902788

[7]Interactive: 61% Oppose Full Body Scans and TSA Pat Downs; 48% Will Seek Alternative to Flying”

[8]http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-01-11-security-poll_N.htm

[9]Resisting Scanners

[10]Passengers' Stories of Recent Travel/

[11]http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html

[12]TSA reply to House of Representatives – 24 Feb 2010 page 3, question 8, paragraph 3