Stacy Bettison

Stacy L. Bettison is a communications strategist and owner of Bettison Consulting LLC. Stacy focuses on crisis communications, reputation management and media relations. She is also a licensed attorney and has practiced law in both Chicago and Minneapolis.

Posts about Business

Gritty and Great: Candid Business Advice from Great Clips CEO

Posted by: Stacy Bettison Updated: November 19, 2013 - 6:13 AM

For many years, Great Clips CEO Rhoda Olsen followed the business advice of her big sister, a successful, trail blazing, whip-smart lawyer in New York City: Don’t wear pants, don’t have coffee with secretaries, and don’t learn how to type.

But last week, at the National Association of Women Business Owners (MN Chapter) Annual Awards Luncheon in Minneapolis, Olsen acknowledged this advice was somewhat limiting. Despite this, Olsen claims she has become the fastest two-fingered typist she knows.

Olsen’s address was impactful because of both what she said and how she said it: she didn’t offer soft, feel-good, clichéd advice nor did she sugar coat. Honest, forthright and even swearing at times, Olsen opened up, and was authentic on all things personal and business. In doing so, she proved to a packed-to-the-gills ballroom at Graves 601 that unleashing the rough, hardened and gritty parts of ourselves can be immensely powerful, stirring and motivating.

Olsen shared personal glimpses into her life as a child with an alcoholic parent.  She called motherhood “humbling, horrifying and gratifying,” and delved into the challenge of raising her three boys (only “one was good”). She told of how she once winced at a colleague’s proclamation that he worked out 2 hours a day (Olsen: “TWO hours?! Imagine what you could get done in TWO hours – 4 loads of laundry” among a list of 15 other things). Yet today, Olsen acknowledges that taking care of our bodies is the ultimate confidence builder. A cancer survivor, her body is strong again – she does 200 pushups a day (and even beat a man in a pushup contest, topping him at 211).   

Weaving together personal anecdotes and candid observations on business, Olsen’s advice was applicable to not just women business owners, but to men, hopeful entrepreneurs, college students, and everyone in between.

Put aside notions of balance. Work/life “balance” is a hot topic these days, and Olsen boiled it down to this: “Things are going to be unbalanced.”

She shared the story of how she helped one of her sons with algebra from the office. She would receive a fax from her son with the algebra problem, write out the problem showing how to solve it, and fax it back home. Though she wasn’t home helping, she was helping.

Olsen’s advice is liberating. It lessens the pressure that things should be balanced (for women and men alike), and replaces it with permission to pursue a life that is often imbalanced.

Expect of range of feelings. Olsen admitted: “Some days I wake up and I say ‘Move over Obama, I’m ready to talk on the world.’ Other days, I feel like I don’t have the foggiest idea what I’m doing.” 

The range of emotions adds drama to the workplace, especially in hair salons, says Olsen, where salon owners and stylists are dramatic and emotional by nature – they are dealing with the highly emotional topic of hair, after all. Olsen said with so many women in the workplace now, she believes the day has come where it’s really okay to talk about emotions.

The ups and downs of business are as real as the sky is blue. There are no constants, and so too with how people feel about their work and who they are as professionals.  Strong sales growth this quarter, not looking so good for next. Gave a great presentation this week, next month’s presentation has you paralyzed. Nailed the job interview, someone else got the job. The full spectrum is part of the territory. Woman or man, everyone has emotions, and those emotions change.

Don’t get defensive. For Olsen, her ability to get things done is determined by whether she gets defensive. She warns not to take things personally: “Stay calm and keep your mouth shut. Ask for and accept feedback. Learn and grow.”

Olsen admitted to the occasional inclination to get defensive. To manage this during a particular meeting in which she suspected she’d become defensive, she solicited the help of colleague who was to lift his hand discretely every time Olsen went on the defense. Sure enough, he waved at her twice. This kept her moving forward using non-defensive tactics in an otherwise challenging meeting. 

Defensiveness is instinctual and critical to self-preservation. In the professional world, however, it is usually counterproductive. It looks bad, sounds bad and limits the ability to overcome the challenge at hand. Not getting defensive, though, is easier said than done. In that case, follow Olsen’s lead -- find a way to accept the criticism (constructive or otherwise), learn from it, and keep moving forward to accomplish your objectives.

Olsen closed with this final piece of advice: “Learn to listen.  Listening is the most underrated skill in the world.”  

And isn't that the truth? Listening is something they begin teaching in preschool, and something most every successful business person must re-learn every day. 

###

Follow Stacy: @stacybettison

What's missing in women having it "all"

Posted by: Stacy Bettison Updated: March 21, 2013 - 10:44 AM
I was slogging out some miles on the treadmill recently when I got to thinking again about the “Women-Can/Can’t-Have-It-All” debate. On the Lifetime Fitness (LTF) TV monitor appeared a promotional video for “CEO Challenges,” which claims to be a race for CEOs, C-suite executives, and entrepreneurs and promises opportunities for networking and deal-making. In the video, you’ll see only men though. Correction: I did see one woman, though she didn’t appear to be a participant—I think she was handing out hydration drinks.
 
But it got me wondering, did women participate in this event? (I couldn’t find the gym-version online, but here is a similar video. Same idea.)  Discussions about women in the workplace have recently taken on a ubiquitous presence: from The Atlantic Monthly to Time Magazine to MPR (last Friday’s Roundtable), from news about the decisions by Yahoo! to Best Buy to eliminate work from home options. As a professional with three 3 children, I’m inclined to think about this topic a lot anyway, and indeed have given it considerable thought ever since the birth of my first child nearly 10 years ago when I was practicing law at a Minneapolis firm.  
 
Three things come to mind: 1) how incomplete the definition of “all” is, 2) how these issues likewise impact men; and 3) and how lucky some of us are to be sitting around scratching our heads as to how to have it “all.”
 
“All” is incomplete. Let’s be honest, there is more to life than work and children. As we consider whether women can have it “all,” the current discussion is centered almost exclusively on work and kids. This framework assumes that we are two-dimensional—that we are either working or taking care of our families. While many days it may feel that is all we do, the additional challenge is unleashing the other parts of who we are and who we were before work and family became central.
 
Whether its exercise, sports, travel, art, practicing our faith, volunteering our time, we are, in fact, multi-dimensional creatures (or least we used to be pre-career and kids). Creating a life that supports the various aspects of our person is critical. Left to pursue primarily two parts to our lives, the other parts are woefully under-cultivated, resulting in imbalance that promises physical, mental and spiritual deficits. Just as the natural environment requires bio-diversity to be healthy and sustainable, so to do our lives.  Perhaps we call it “vita-diversity”—a diverse life.
 
I know many female executives, including myself, for whom exercise is a very important part of their lives. They, like their male counterparts, thrive on competition, endurance and pushing their own limits. (A nod to LTF here, who, in my experience, is supportive of women in their races and at their clubs. The CEO Challenge is a new offering for them, and I’m sure they’ll figure out how to fine tune its promotion.) Of course, finding the time to train, whether male or female, is probably a bigger challenge than the race itself.
 
Men grapple with similar issues. My husband, an attorney, made this comment after a series of 12-16- hour workdays: “I want to find more time to enjoy my life.”  The operative word: enjoy. A devout fisherman, his challenge this winter was to go ice-fishing more than he did last year (which was not at all). He’s risen to that challenge now twice, with our 4-year old in tow both times.
 
A recent study confirms men stress about the work/family balance too: 50% of men surveyed report that it is “very” or “somewhat” difficult to manage both work and family responsibilities. The discussion of women in the workplace can and should stand on its own, but a comprehensive debate must include the impact on men. After all, they are half the picture, and they are a significant part of our lives, whether husbands (or ex-husbands), son-in-laws, brothers, sons or grandsons.
 
How lucky we are. Finally, let’s recognize there are those women, men and families, whose challenge is surviving life, let alone enjoying it. Getting enough food on the table, keeping the heat on and having access to basic medical care are among their challenges.  
 
Let’s be keenly aware of how incredibly lucky those of us are who wrestle with these issues: “How am I going to find time to exercise today” is a very different question than “How am I going to feed my kids today?”
 
I’m delighted the work/family discussion is present right now. My hope is that it continues, contemplating a broader definition of “having it all,” how men likewise wrestle with these issues, though perhaps in different ways, and how fortunate we are to be having this discussion in the first place.  

 ###

The Unfortunate Irony of Fear-Based Decisions

Posted by: Stacy Bettison Updated: October 14, 2012 - 7:51 AM

I was a bit surprised to hear Tokyo Electric Power Co. recently announced the nuclear disaster resulting from the March 2011 tsunami could have been avoided.  What surprised me was not that the disaster could have been avoided (crises so often can), nor that this contradicted earlier statements by the company that the facility was prepared for such a disaster (differing, later statements are not unusual). 

 
What struck me was the unfortunate irony of this announcement:  the company knew the facility needed improvements, but fear of the political, economic and legal repercussions of making improvements prevented them from getting it done. 
 
Instead of dealing with the costs of safety improvements before the disaster, the utility is now faced with even greater political, economic and legal problems that will last for years—the very problems it was seeking to avoid by not updating the facility.  What’s worse, the cleanup of the nuclear disaster will take decades, and the full effects on humans and the environment have yet to fully seen and understood.
 
This announcement reminded me of the rationale Penn State used for not reporting concerns about Jerry Sandusky—bad publicity.  The sad irony here: the thing Penn State feared most was the very result of its decisions — bad publicity, in spades.  More concerning and tragic, Penn State’s decisions perpetuated a cycle of abuse leaving at least 10 victims in Jerry Sandusky’s wake. 
 
Organizations have a choice: deal with the problems and challenges of your organization now, or deal with them later.
 
Dealing now admittedly involves costs, strategy and planning.  It requires bold leadership that is willing to do what is ethical and in the long-term best interest of its stakeholders, even in face of head-in-the-sand types who ask, “Is this really necessary now?”  It requires strength in leaders to advocate for smart, safe choices today, and make the case for why now costs so much less than later
 
The most important costs organizations must consider for later, however, are not those paid by the organization, but those to be paid by victims. The effect of radiation exposure to humans, ocean and atmosphere is still being fully assessed, but the impact is expected to last decades. The boys victimized by Jerry Sandusky, and their parents, and even their yet-to-be families, are all impacted by Penn State’s concern over bad publicity—and they will be for the rest of their lives. 

Climate change skeptic’s about-face: conviction and ego left behind

Posted by: Stacy Bettison Updated: August 7, 2012 - 8:23 AM
Richard Muller, professor of physics at University of California Berkeley, recently declared himself a “converted skeptic” on the matter of climate change. This news caused me to reflect on what it takes to undertake a public about-face as Professor Muller recently did.  
 
Muller had been a vocal critic of the scientific research suggesting the Earth is warming and that it is human-caused. His announcement last week that his own research shows global warming is the result of carbon emissions required courage to leave conviction and ego behind.
 
Conviction must give way to flexibility. The ability to blaze intellectual trails requires ample mental space. To understand the world better, we must set aside ideological convictions to consider new information, especially evidence that directly contradicts those beliefs.
 
“The Earth is flat” is one of many ideas in history that proved wrong—a development made possible when leading minds allowed conviction to give way to scientific research and observation.
 
Muller was not a zealot on the matter of climate change. Rather, his previous stance on global warming arose from his misgivings about the previous research supporting the occurrence of human-caused global warming.
 
Yet, he didn’t let his convictions that the science was flawed limit his thinking on the issue. In fact, he did the opposite: he conducted his own research focused on the flaws he spotted in existing climate change models, sought additional information, and tested his own models. 
 
His skepticism caused him to inquire further and dig deeper: “I embarked on this analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been answered” writes Muller. 
 
Flexibility allows principled, set-in-stone thinking to be aside so innovative thinking can then flourish. It is the essence of intellectual curiosity and a requirement for advancing our understanding of the world.
 
To “see the light” requires humility. Whether through physics, congressional hearings or focus groups, the study of new information must also be done with a degree of humility. Long-held beliefs may be proven wrong if we are open-minded enough to let them.
 
The well-known story of Saul on the road to Damascus, used frequently to describe this phenomenon in secular contexts, underscores the point. “Armed with full powers and a commission from the chief priests” with the intention to bring back Christians from Damascus to Jerusalem for punishment, Saul came to “see the light.” Saul was humbled, and thereafter became one of the most significant early Christian leaders as Paul the Apostle. 
 
Whether in the New York Times or in the board room, a changed position will nearly always attract a vocal cast of critics making charges of flip-flopping, indecisiveness and even deception. The rotten tomatoes come with the job, but can be deflected with clear, concise communications as to the basis for the change. 
 
New information evolves our thinking, and evolved thinking means we change our minds.    
 
Follow Stacy on Twitter -- @StacyBettison

FDA’s BPA Ban: Little change for consumers, a band-aid for industry

Posted by: Stacy Bettison Updated: July 23, 2012 - 1:52 PM

No longer will parents wonder if the bottles and sippy cups their precious little ones suck and slurp all day are wreaking havoc on their children’s developing reproductive systems.

The FDA settled the matter in last week’s announcement that U.S. manufacturers of such products may no longer use polycarbonate resins containing bisphenol-A (BPA), which some research indicates may disrupt development of reproductive and nervous systems in babies and children. The FDA issued the ban in response to the American Chemistry Council’s petition that sought the ban because manufacturers had “intentionally and permanently abandoned” BPA’s use.

For baby bottles and sippy cups, parents technically haven’t had to worry safety for years, beginning when manufacturers agreed to stop using BPA at the behest of the attorneys general of Connecticut, Delaware and New Jersey in October 2008.

What’s in it for consumers? The FDA’s decision is viewed by many as symbolic and expected to have little impact on the marketplace and consumers.

What’s in it for the BPA industry? The bigger, more subtle impact may be seen by chemical manufacturers who hope the ban will limit the collateral damage that has come to BPA with the negative publicity associated with baby bottles and sippy cups.

BPA by the billions. Every year, 2 billion pounds of BPA are manufactured/imported in U.S., and 1 million pounds are released into the environment. BPA is used in manufacturing polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins, and nearly every industry in the United States uses it.

People are believed to be exposed primarily through food packaging, which only accounts for less than 5% of total BPA production. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, BPA is a reproductive, developmental and systemic toxicant, and as such there are questions and concerns about potential effects even at low doses or concentrations.

Little change for consumers. The new rule will not necessarily improve safety or impact consumer buying habits for these products. BPA will remain in other food contact materials because the agency supports the safety of BPA for products that hold food.  While some see this as a positive step, the basis for the ban was abandoned use, not safety.

The FDA issued the rule because its own regulations allow it to ban a food additive that is no longer in use. Mark Gardner, an attorney at DuVal & Associates whose practice focuses on FDA law, says “The FDA’s job is to protect consumers. If a chemical is no longer used in a certain application, and is even banned in China, then the FDA wants to follow suit. This is a layup for the agency. The PR fallout of not banning it in this case could have been an issue for the agency.

Industry cuts its losses. Why would the ACC seek to ban a chemical it promotes? The ACC is the chemical industry’s largest trade association, and it’s Polcycarbonate/BPA Global Group “promotes the business interests and general welfare of the polycarbonate and bisphenol A (BPA) industry.” The shots that BPA has taken over baby bottles and sippy cups may have caused enough pain for broader BPA industry that the ACC determined it was time to remove the gangrenous limb.

The ACC issued this excerpted news release and statement following the FDA's ban: “Although governments around the world continue to support the safety of BPA in food contact materials, confusion about whether BPA is used in baby bottles and sippy cups had become an unnecessary distraction to consumers, legislators and state regulators . . . . FDA action on this request now provides certainty that BPA is not used to make the baby bottles and sippy cups on store shelves, either today or in the future.”

State legislative and regulatory actions across the country had contributed to confusion about whether baby bottles and sippy cups sold in the United States contain BPA.

Two potential upsides for industry. The BPA industry may benefit in at least two ways from the new ban:

1. States will stop beating the dead horse. First, state legislative bodies will no longer need to pass laws banning BPA now that the FDA has acted. This means no more legislative hearings, no more testimony and scientific evidence about the potential toxicity of BPA and no more media reports involving BPA, babies and baby bottles. A very good thing for the chemical industry.

2. No more need to be “BPA-free.” Second, the ban could ultimately mean an end to the ubiquitous “BPA-free” on every baby bottle and sippy cup sold in the U.S. This, along with an end to the extensive information about BPA by manufacturers at websites may help industry by reducing marketplace saturation suggesting BPA is something to be “free” of.

BPA still has baggage. The baby bottle ban, however, does not end the industry’s challenges. Environmental and health advocacy groups, government regulators and industry will continue to hash out whether BPA should be removed from other food contact materials, including baby formula containers.

What’s more, BPA continues to undergo review and study from governmental agencies, including the EPA, who is studying the effect of BPA on aquatic species, how BPA enters the environment and how to reduce BPA release and exposures. 

ACC has devoted considerable resources to inform and educate the public about the safety and necessity of BPA, as can be seen from a quick preview of the ACC-sponsored websites devoted to BPA safety and benefits: http://factsaboutbpa.org, http://www.bisphenol-a.org/index.html, http://www.plasticsinfo.org/.

By removing this singular occurrence of BPA from the consumer consciousness, the ACC might be able to limit the pervasive message that BPA is potentially harming children and more effectively support and promote BPA production and use.

Follow Stacy on Twitter -- @StacyBettison

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT