When you work hard on a project that you’re proud of, it’s uniquely frustrating (and stressful) when someone else on your team gets the credit. That’s especially true for women, whose accomplishments are all too often overshadowed (or absorbed) by those of their male colleagues.
Research out of the University of Delaware found that men are given more credit than women for saying exactly the same thing. There’s even a term for it: “hepeating.” And when women have to share credit, they’re usually short-shrifted: A Harvard study in 2017 looked at 500 tenure decisions over a period of four decades and discovered that women who co-authored most of their academic papers got tenure 50 percent less of the time than their male counterparts.
Amy Gallo, a contributing editor at the Harvard Business Review and author of HBR Guide to Dealing with Conflict, urges us to challenge credit-stealers, especially when bias is involved. “Given that research shows women are less likely to get credit, when a man gets credit for the work a woman has done, it’s extremely important to speak up,” she tells Thrive Global.
While it may feel awkward to call someone out for pawning your ideas off as their own, Gallo offers solutions to gracefully set the record straight — compassionately and directly — without damaging your relationships.
Steady your emotions
Whether it was intentional or accidental. when someone takes off with your idea, it can feel blood-boiling. But simmer down a bit before you approach your offender. “We don’t make rational choices when we’re angry or upset,” Gallo points out. Once you regain your cool, concretely outline what you contributed and what was miscast as someone else’s accomplishment. You need to be clear in your own mind about what exactly you’re upset about before you can have a productive conversation.
Create an open dialogue
Don’t be accusatory. It’s possible someone genuinely isn’t aware that the concept they’ve cast as their own originated with you. A ton of ideas are typically exchanged throughout the day in meeting after meeting, and it’s easy to jumble things up in your head. You might even broach the subject with your colleague by prefacing it with, “We ideate so much, so I know you may have forgotten, but I actually originated that idea you presented in today’s meeting.”
If your boss is a chronic thief, focus the discussion on your concerns around how not being able to sign your name to the bulk of your output will thwart your career growth, rather than assigning them malicious intent. “It’s important to remember that it is your job to make your boss look good, which is mutually beneficial,” Gallo says. Sometimes it’ll behoove you to let small swipes go.
Find an ally to rally for you
Seek someone out, preferably in a position of power, to speak up on your behalf, Gallo recommends. Having a colleague highlight your work will help you reinforce an ethos of giving proper credit, which helps promote an honest and direct workplace.
When all else fails
Sometimes a head-on collision (looping in HR) is necessary when you’re getting repeatedly ripped off. But before you escalate, make sure you have a paper trail that supports your assertion that you’re the real architect of the work at hand.
To protect yourself from credit-stealers, Gallo recommends creating visibility of your efforts along the way. “Really document what role you’re playing by sending weekly updates to your boss outlining exactly what you’re doing,” she says. That’ll make it much harder for someone to take credit for your work.
Follow us here and subscribe here for all the latest news on how you can keep Thriving.
Stay up to date or catch-up on all our podcasts with Arianna Huffington here.
Stephanie Fairyington is a senior staff writer at Thrive Global. A New York-based journalist, her work has appeared in The New York Times, The Atlantic (online), The New Republic (online), The Boston Globe, and several other publications. She lives in Brooklyn, NY with her spouse Sabrina and daughter Marty.
Like this post? Spread the word and share it on social media.
House Speaker Paul Ryan does not hold traditional town-hall meetings. The Wisconsin Republican is so frightened by his constituents that he now opts for restricted events where the questioners and the questions are screened. But the frustration with Ryan has grown so great that the restrictions are no longer sufficient to shield this political careerist from scrutiny.
When Ryan participated in a “CNN Town Hall” last week, the questioners from Racine and other communities in his district asked tough questions, as did moderator Jake Tapper.
One line of questioning was particularly devastating—as it revealed Ryan’s startling ignorance regarding not just poverty but the antipoverty programs he seeks to diminish and dismantle.
Good evening, Mr. Speaker. I know that you’re Catholic, as am I, and it seems to me that most of the Republicans in the Congress are not willing to stand with the poor and working class as evidenced in the recent debates about health care and the anticipated tax reform. So I’d like to ask you how you see yourself upholding the church’s social teaching that has the idea that God is always on the side of the poor and dispossessed, as should we be.
Ryan answered with a spew of right-wing talking points about how historic antipoverty programs have supposedly failed.
The status quo isn’t working, Sister, and what I think we need to do is change our approach on fighting poverty instead of measuring success based on how much money we spend or how many programs we create or how many people are on those programs, you know, measuring on inputs. Let’s measure success in poverty on outcomes. Is it working? Are people getting out of poverty?
To bolster his claim, Ryan announced that “we’re in the 32nd year of the war on poverty. Trillions spent, and guess what? Our poverty rates are about the same as they were when we started this war on poverty 32 years ago.”
No one except Paul Ryan thinks the war on poverty started 32 years ago. 2017 minus 32 is 1985. That’s the middle of Ronald Reagan’s presidency.
The war on poverty had its roots in the administration of President John Kennedy, when he and his aides took an interest in Michael Harrington’s groundbreaking 1962 book, The Other America. In that book, the prominent democratic socialist explained that it was practically and morally wrong for a nation as wealthy as the United States to look the other way while close to a quarter of its population lived in poverty. Kennedy’s successor, Lyndon Johnson, used his January 8, 1964, State of the Union address to announce a war-on-poverty legislative agenda that proposed a variety of education, health-care and community-action programs to address economic inequality and injustice. “Our aim,” announced Johnson, “is not only to relieve the symptom of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it.”
So Ryan got the most basic math wrong—more than two decades wrong. In so doing, he displayed startling ignorance of issues that he should know well. Ryan’s is a dangerous ignorance. The proof of that came in his repetition of the lie that says the antipoverty programs that were launched in the 1960s did not work. In fact, according to the Center for Poverty Research at the University of California-Davis,
Historically, the official poverty rate in the United States had ranged from a high of 22.4 percent when it was first estimated for 1959 to a low of 11.1 percent in 1973. Since its initial rapid decline after 1964 with the launch of major War on Poverty programs, the poverty rate has fluctuated between around 11 and 15 percent.
The official poverty rate is currently in the middle of that range, around 13.5 percent. So, in addition to getting the timeline wrong, Ryan got the measures of results wrong.
Poverty dropped dramatically when antipoverty programs were initiated in the mid-1960s and it has not returned to the levels that existed before the launch of the war on poverty. Should poverty rates be lower? Absolutely. But it is not war-on-poverty programs that keep the rates from dropping. It is the failure to maintain the commitment to “curing” and preventing poverty that LBJ and the Democratic congresses of the late 1960s evidenced.
Republican presidents from Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagan to the Bushes dialed down the fight against poverty—and the Democratic presidents who followed LBJ were too cautious about dialing it up.
Paul Ryan, with his proposals to gut the Affordable Care Act, and with his long history of looking for ways to undermine Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and nutrition programs, has got the calculus exactly wrong. Despite the evidence that federal, state, and local action to address poverty works, he wants to weaken those programs.
Ryan missteps were noted by the crowd in Racine. They booed him frequently as he attempted to answer the sister’s questions with economic fantasies.
For her part, Sister Erica Jordan was unimpressed by the speaker.
“I think he is really naive,” she said. “Trickle-down economics has never worked. The budget is cutting programs in a way that hurts the poor. I wonder how often he talks to poor people. I don’t think he has much opportunity to really talk to people who are struggling.”
The nun was having none of Paul Ryan’s preachments.
“It’s unconscionable that our elected officials feel free to do what they’re doing right now taking away health care, threatening Social Security and Medicare,” the sister explained to Commonweal magazine in a thoughtful conversation with John Gehring, the author of The Francis Effect: A Radical Pope’s Challenge to the American Catholic Church (Rowman & Littlefield, 2015).
It is just wrong. Speaker Ryan is a leader and he seems to be totally complicit in this way of thinking. I want him to really think about my question. I’ve been so distressed by this Congress and going through what we did during the health-care debate. There is such a disregard for the common good and the poor. It makes me angry. I do believe he is a man of faith, but I think he is misguided.
“Misguided” is a very polite word for Paul Ryan. But the sister can be polite. She won her debate with the Speaker of the House—on moral and factual grounds.
Like this post? Spread the word and share it on social media.
A surprise move by a group of House Republicans to gut an independent ethics office caught leaders flat footed — and sparked a national backlash.
Just hours after Republicans voted to gut the House’s independent ethics office, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s phone started lighting up with calls and texts.
The California Republican had tried to warn his colleagues about the political risks of defanging the Office of Congressional Ethics during a closed-door, secret ballot roll call Monday night. And after that vote, a number of lawmakers who agreed with McCarthy raised serious concerns about approving the controversial pitch in a public vote the next day.
By early Tuesday morning, McCarthy, Speaker Paul Ryan and the rest of GOP leadership realized the proposal was about to tank the entire House rules package — and implode the first day of the GOP-led Congress. They convened an emergency closed-door conference meeting around noon to discuss removing the ethics provision — but it was too late. Donald Trump had tweeted his disapproval, and the public outcry had risen to such a crescendo that all anyone wanted to talk about was an obscure House office few people had ever heard of just 24 hours before.
“We shot ourselves in the foot,” said Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), who added that the ethics snafu was an unforced error. “Sometimes people have to learn the hard way.”
House Republican’s push to neuter the OCE on the first day of a new Congress turned into a major public relations fiasco after the press, the public and president-elect himself came out against the move Tuesday. Trump, after all, ran on a platform of “draining the swamp” of an all-too-cozy Washington — a pitch that didn’t mesh well with the proposal to rein in oversight of lawmakers’ ethical issues.
So the opening of the 115th Congress, which was supposed to center on Obamacare repeal and GOP unity, ended up being being overwhelmed by another issue. That Ryan was re-elected speaker on the same day with only one Republican defection — a positive sign for a GOP leader who’s faced restive conservatives in the past — became a mere afterthought, for example.
Republican leaders vowed to revisit the issue over the summer, although Tuesday’s problems could provide a lesson. Given that they control all of the levers of power in D.C., Democratic resistance won’t provide the political cover it used to over the last eight years. Washington belongs to Republicans — the good, the bad, and the ugly.
“I think a move in that direction would be bad policy and bad politics,” said Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.), who blasted the refoms. “It’s probably not the way you want to start out [the new Congress].”
A number of Hill Republicans have been seeking to curb the powers of the ethics watchdog for years. Privately, they say the office is too aggressive, pursues baseless anonymous tips and has become an unfair burden, both financially and politically, on lawmakers. Each time members approached ex-Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) about the matter, he deferred, saying this is something that should be done a bipartisan basis. But bipartisan reforms never materialized.
So Goodlatte, backed by a group of lawmakers who felt they had been wrongly accused by the OCE, devised a plan to rein in the office. They worked in secret for weeks, making sure word didn’t leak out to Democrats or the media. Then, just before House Republicans met to approve their rules package for the new Congress, they unveiled their amendment to scale back the powers of the OCE and put it under the House Ethics Committee’s jurisdiction.
The gambit caught leadership flatfooted, and Goodlatte’s side triumphed in the closed-door GOP meeting, but problems quickly developed. Democrats blasted Republicans for jamming through something so sensitive as their first act of the new Congress. Congress had created the office in the wake of Jack Abramoff scandal, which included the GOP lobbyist’s admission that he tried to bribe lawmakers. At the time, lawmakers hoped to stop anything like that from ever happening again.
Following a barrage of negative stories on Monday night, lawmakers were bombarded by a wave of phone calls to their offices criticizing the move. Republican leadership tried to change the narrative the following morning, although they never embraced Goodlatte’s proposal. Ryan put out a statement saying OCE was still independent despite the rules revisions, and McCarthy tried to argue the same during a press conference with reporters.
But that around the same time, Trump called out the proposal on Twitter.
“With all that Congress has to work on, do they really have to make the weakening of the Independent Ethics Watchdog, as unfair as it,” Trump said in one tweet, adding, “……..may be, their number one act and priority. Focus on tax reform, healthcare and so many other things of far greater importance! #DTS.”
Those tweets, on top of the thousands of phone calls and the wave of negative press, sources said, were the nail in the coffin. Republicans who had supported the idea the night before started to second-guess themselves.
“I don’t think there was any problem with the merit of the policy that needed to be changed. I just think it was how it was done,” said longtime Trump supporter Lou Barletta (R-Pa.) “The perception is not good.”
Barletta said Trump’s tweets at Congress are going to send “some shockwaves through Congress”— and they should probably get used to it.
“It’s going to send shivers down the spines of some members,” he added.
Democrats, meanwhile, decided in a closed-door meeting that they would protest the OCE change when the rules package came to the House floor Tuesday. They were readying a plan to pull out their cell phones and start livestreaming a demonstration on the House floor — something that irked House Republicans during the June “sit in” on gun control. (Republicans also included a provision in the rules package to fine members for violating the prohibitions on photos on livestreaming specifically. )
Just after 11 a.m., GOP leadership met in the speaker’s office. By then, everyone was on the same page: It was time to strike the ethics change. Leaders convened an emergency conference, just hours before members were sworn in, to try to convince their colleagues to take out the OCE language.
McCarthy told Republicans they did not run for Congress to fight over an obscure office but to repeal Obamacare and do tax reform — and it was time to scuttle the rules change. He gave them an option: vote now to strike the Goodlatte amendment, or he would offer an amendment to do so on the floor himself, taking the fight into the public sphere.
He met some resistance. Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), who’s been under criminal and ethical investigation for years, was irate that leadership wanted the conference to back off. Young, as well as Reps. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) and Raul Labrador (R-Utah) tried to get leadership to commit to reforming the office by a specific future date. GOP leadership would not.
Other Republicans said Trump should not have gotten involved in the matter to begin with. Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) stood up to say Trump should not be meddling in internal House matters, according to several sources in the room. Shuster’s spokeswoman Casey Contres denied that he used those words, but acknowledged that he “did express, however, the importance of separation of powers and Congress establishing these rules — not the executive branch.”
In the end, even Goodlatte backed leadership’s propose to strike his provision, blaming the press and his adversaries for “gross misrepresentation” of his proposal.
The day left some members shaking their heads. Many, including Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.), left the chamber Tuesday night crossing their fingers that the drama of the first day would not foreshadow the next two years to come.
“I think that there is going to be a lot of tough votes we will have to take and this wasn’t one of the toughest ones, so, I think we should learn from this,” he said. “Once you launch that ship, you’ve got to keep going… We need to go forth with more sense of purpose and direction.”
The amendment was proposed by Republican Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte
This move would weaken ethics oversight in Congress
Washington (CNN)House Republicans voted Monday night to gut Congress’ independent watchdog on the eve of a new era.
Republican members voted 119-74 — breaking with party leaders — during a closed-door meeting in favor of Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte’s proposal, which would place the independent Office of Congressional Ethics under the control of those very lawmakers, a move that outraged Democrats and outside ethics organizations.
The change in rules carries the appearance of House members taking power away from the office that can investigate them for misconduct, at a time when Republicans are about to have control of two branches of government with a mandate for shaking up Washington.
The proposal would bar the panel from reviewing any violation of criminal law by members of Congress, requiring that it turn over complaints instead to the House Ethics Committee or refer the matter to an appropriate federal law enforcement agency. The House Ethics Committee would also have the power to stop an investigation at any point and bars the ethics office from making any public statements about any matters or hiring any communications staff.
And the ethics office would no longer be able to accept or investigate any anonymous reports of alleged wrongdoing by members of Congress.
The full House of Representatives will now vote on it as part of a larger rules package up for consideration Tuesday.
Currently the ethics panel operates as an independent, non-partisan entity that has the power to investigate misconduct against lawmakers, officers and staff of the United States House of Representatives. Originally created by Congress under Nancy Pelosi’s speakership in the wake of multiple lobbying scandals, it continued to act as an independent body under then-House Speaker John Boehner.
House Speaker Paul Ryan and other top GOP leaders opposed the change to ethics rules, but rank-and-file members disregarded their views and voted to approve the new structure for ethics reviews going forward, according to a senior House GOP leadership source familiar with the closed-door discussion.
Members of both parties complain that panel often takes up matters based on partisan accusations from outside groups with political motivations, and once they launch a probe members have to mount expensive defense campaigns.
Pelosi slammed the move.
“Republicans claim they want to ‘drain the swamp,’ but the night before the new Congress gets sworn in, the House GOP has eliminated the only independent ethics oversight of their actions. Evidently, ethics are the first casualty of the new Republican Congress,” she said in a statement Monday following the vote.
Pelosi added: “The amendment Republicans approved tonight would functionally destroy this office.”
Pelosi Statement on Republicans Destroying Office of Congressional Ethics in Rules Package -…
Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement after the House Republican Conference voted to include the Goodlatte amendment in the House Republicans Rules…
Goodlatte defended his proposal in the wake of the outrage Monday evening, telling CNN that the move “will make sure that work is properly done,” but “will also make sure that people who are wrongly charged have an opportunity to protect themselves.”
“There should be no entity in the entire federal government that doesn’t have review by some committee of the Congress so that’s all it sets up is oversight,” he said. “It still has its designated statutory responsibilities. It has some new rules that it has to follow but it still is empowered to take complaints from individuals as it was intended to do and investigate those complaints but every agency of the government whether it’s executive, legislative or judicial should have a committee that reviews it’s work.”
GOP Rep. Hal Rogers, the Appropriations Committee chairman, told reporters he backed the proposal because “it’s the right thing to do.”
Rogers said there were “numerous examples” of members “who were falsely accused by this group who had to spend a fortune to get their good name restored so I think there’s been an abuse.”
Texas Congressman Bill Flores also backed the change, saying the panel is “out of control, we don’t even get constitutional rights, constitutional protections. They don’t tell us who accuses us and they leak the data — they are out of control.”
Outside ethics group point to the ethics panel as the only real entity policing members and argue its independent status and bipartisan board are an appropriate way to oversee investigations.
“Gutting the independent ethics office is exactly the wrong way to start a new Congress,” said Chris Carson, spokesperson for League of Women Voters, in a statement. “This opens the door for special interest corruption just as the new Congress considers taxes and major infrastructure spending.”
Norman Eisen and Richard Painter, of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonprofit watchdog group, said the ethics office “has played a critical role in seeing that the congressional ethics process is no longer viewed as merely a means to sweep problems under the rug.”
“If the 115th Congress begins with rules amendments undermining (the ethics office), it is setting itself up to be dogged by scandals and ethics issues for years and is returning the House to dark days when ethics violations were rampant and far too often tolerated,” they said in a Monday night statement.
Eisen served as the top ethics lawyer for President Barack Obama and Painter held the same job under President George W. Bush.
CNN’s Tal Kopan contributed to this report.
Like this post? Spread the word and share it on social media.
A high school teacher in Oklahoma sparked a controversy at his school when he told students in a discussion of race that “to be white is to be racist, period.”
“Am I racist? And I say, yeah. I don’t want to be. It’s not like I choose to be racist, but do I do things because of the way I was raised?” the unnamed teacher says in an audio recording made by one of his students who was offended by the lecture.
Some students, like the one who made the recording, were upset by the class, and Norman Public Schools Superintendent Joseph Siano said the situation was “poorly handled.”
“While discussing a variety of philosophical perspectives on culture, race and ethics, a teacher was attempting to convey to students in an elective philosophy course a perspective that had been shared at a university lecture he had attended,” Siano said in a statement, the Huffington Post reports. “We regret that the discussion was poorly handled.”
Other students, however, have begun demonstrating in support of the teacher, or at least in support of his attempt to tackle thorny issues.
“What has been reported in the news doesn’t accurately portray what happened in our philosophy class, nor does it reflect what we believe in at our school,” a student who attended both the class and the demonstration said in a statement to The Huffington Post. “The information was taken out of context and we believe it is important to have serious and thoughtful discussions about institutional racism in order to change history and promote exclusivity.”
Like this post? Spread the word and share it on social media.
This incident happened in 2014 and I feel a bit of shame that I don’t even remember this incident. Have there been so many since then (police officers being the bad guy) that it just faded into the blur? I am not a person that technology has ever smiled upon, this is why I have such a simple blog. This is also why I copy pasted the address above to what I was reading so that if you wish you can go read the story yourself.
This former officer disgraced the Uniform, the Badge, and himself with these actions. Many people in our mainstream media are digging for a big story and it seems that race is the issue they have decided to be their chosen venue to fame. There is a much bigger issue within American Law Enforcement Agencies than the race issue. I am not trying to downplay the race issue, it is a huge issue in some people’s hearts and Souls. But what I am saying is that there is one issue that is an even bigger problem than some people’s own racism whom happens to be a cop! Was this issue in the Reuters story a race issue? The former officer has a Hispanic last name and the victim did not?
Here is what I am getting at folks, it is my total belief that the biggest issue isn’t the occasional shooting of an unarmed or very lightly armed Black male. What is the biggest issue is the cover-up mentality of politicians, D.A.’s, and police departments and some of their own Unions, worse is the very obvious thought patterns that tell many Officers that it is within their rights, to act like the criminal. In Chicago the Cop who chased that young Black man down (the one who had a knife in his left hand) and shot him 16 times, most while he was motionless on the ground. Folks, his local Union is supporting this mans legal team. If you are guilty, you are guilty, and this Officer totally crossed the line of even human decency! Any of his fellow Officers whom are supporting this cold-blooded murderer as though it is some kind of honor code is in fact showing the world that you by your association in a case that is so well caught on film as this one, that you are just as evil as the one who pulled the trigger. You know how it is said that Doctors will not turn against other Doctors when it comes to ethics that they can be trusted to handle any problem Doctors among themselves. Police departments around this country have to fight all the human elements that make us frail of mind, body, and of ethics. Better ethics, better morals, more maturity, who knows, if we all tackle these issues maybe we would all have better, less racist Police Officers. Who knows maybe it would work to help make a more pleasant citizenry.
Like this post? Spread the word and share it on social media.