Executive Vacation During Turmoil? Bad PR Move?

This week as President Obama parks the tour bus and travels to Martha's Vineyard for a break with his family, he is undergoing some criticism. Some question whether the chief executive should be taking a break at all, amid stock market volatility, a "crisis" economy, and dropping poll numbers.

Cheif among the president's critics, of course, are the declared GOP candidates for his job. Newt Gingrich blasted Mr. Obama for taking vacation, as Gingrich himself headed off to Hawaii for a "fundraising" trip. A more credible objection was voiced by the Washing Post columnist Colbert King, who says that the president already enjoys two taxpayer-subsidized residences and should devote his time off to talking with hard=pressed citizens, not rubbing elbows with the elite on Martha's Vineyard.

This "controversy" is probably more about PR than reality. After all, the man's completely accessible, and Congress doesn't get anything done even when it is in session - honestly. Plus, he does have 'vacation' time away from his job. But, it raising an interesting question, should chief executive take time off during rough times? If a company is being downgraded, your customers are losing confidence and your recovery prospects are uncertain do you take a trip or cancel it? Probably not.

Leadership is often conveyed through images. A CEO in crisis shouldn't be photographed in luxury surroundings, but neither should be be seen as desk-bound, beleaguered, or overwhelmed. A strong leader needs to be seen as engaged, committed, but also independent. This says, Rosabeth Kanter in her book Should Leader Vacation?

I think Obama should be able to take a vacation and enjoy time with his family. He is working hard no doubt and he is due for time off. Also, like previously said he is accessible at all times. He never truly tunes out. However, from a PR standpoint, this doesn't look the best and I would advise him to think of a way to do a working vacation in not such a 'wealthy' spot.

Why Woman Don't Get Caught In Sex Scandals

Last week, when yet another male politician/celebrity, Rep. Anthony Wiener, confessed to sexting a young woman among others, the whole situation seemed almost laughable. He confessed his "terrible mistakes" and declared himself "deeply sorry for the pain" he caused. What is with these guys? Do these influential men never think they will get caught? Now we can just put Wiener in the same category as: Mark Sanford, Eliot Spitzer, John Ensign, John Edwards and Bill Clinton to name a few.

It may be easy to simply say this is bad male behavior or to dismiss it as a testosterone-induced, hard-wired connection between sex and power - powerful men attract women, powerful women repel men. And some may say that working women are just too busy to cheat on men.

However, these is substantial evidence that shows there are differences between the women and men who try to get a head in politics. Women tend to join in politics to help a reason they are wanting to change. More of them want to make a difference than men. Men tend to run because they see it as a career path they want to conquer.

Women tend to not want to get involved unless they know it is something they are passionate about. Men tend to just look at other politicians, and say ' I can do that.'

Another reason women may not cheat in politics is that they feel they need to do more to compete with their male colleagues. They feel the pressure to do well is much greater than men do.

I'm not saying that women are immune to sex scandals. I'm just saying that their is a trend with men, and I'm not sure women politicians could overcome these obstacles like some of their male counterparts have.

Whatever the reason for the difference, I think maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to ask more women to join into politics and that it shouldn't be so off balance. I was inspired to write this post after watching the This Week report. Let me know your thoughts please!

Hey, John Boehner: Quit Crying

Is there a difference in how crying is seen between men and women? I say yes. John Boehner, the incoming Speaker of the House, the most powerful Republican in Washington, and a man who is a matter of days will be second in line for the presidency, has twice had an opportunity to introduce himself to the American people. And, on both of these occasions, has cried a lot.

There is a tradition of politics crying in American and it often ends with getting beat at the polls. However, already some of the incoming speaker's supporters are getting worried that the Ohio Republican's penchant for showing his emotions makes him look weak. On the other hand, others have champtioned Boehner for his willingness to be real.

Some have suggested there is a double standard. When Republicans cry, they are "compassionate conservatives" but crying women and Democrats furthers the stereotype that they're weak. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic woman who Boehner will replace has never cried in public. "For men, it is a sign of compassion. For women, it's a sign of weakness. it's the double standard that worries me," said Democratic strategist and ABC news consultant Donna Brazile. When Hillary Clinton cried briefly at a campaign stop in New Hampshire in 2008, she was criticized for manufacturing the tears as a way to appeal to women voters.

Regardless, it's something to think about. I believe that anyone can cry and should cry to work through stressful times or to deal with sadness. I think it's ok for even leaders to show emotion and compassion during a hard time. However, in a professional situation, you need to keep it together most of the time. You can't start crying all the time otherwise people are going to wonder why you're in control.

Palin's 'Sarah Palin's Alaska' Is Interesting PR

I've been holding back writing about this because I'm not a fan of Sarah Palin or her family, but I think it's time to address the PR her show, Sarah Palin's Alaska (8 p.m. Central Time on TLC), is doing. It's clear that Sarah Palin is not going away, even though I hoped after the 2008 election. Instead of falling off the earth, it's obvious that Sarah Palin is running for the 2012 Republican party's presidential candidate nomination, especially with her book launch, public speaking events, tea party leadership and now a reality TV show.

The show was created to build up Sarah Palin's public relations efforts. She's been beaten up many times in the media, and this TV show is suppose to help change that goofy, disrespected image of hers. It allows Palin to work with a controlled media outlet and show the American people what her life in Alaska, and outside of politics, is really like.

The show is a hybrid of adventure travel, in documentary style. Despite Palin's protests, reality TV - the eight-episode series follows Mama Grizzly encountering brown bears, Sarah Barracuda hauling in freshly caught halibut, and Caribou Barbie mingling with moose, bison and caribou.

The show is about halfway through the series, but you can still tune in and check it out. What do you think? Is it a good PR idea for Sarah?

Social Media Use at the Workplace

Local companies are shutting down Facebook access for employees because it's believed they are spending too much time connecting with friends than doing work. The ban of Facebook, along with other social networking sites, is taking affect at TCF Bank and law firm Fredrikson & Byron. No more will employees be able to share news, information or pictures online while a work.

As Facebook reaches 500 million uses, the website has become a conundrum for employers. The behemoth of social media offers and intriguing way to make business connections, but it can also be a major distraction. On recent survey by Network Box found that employees click on Facebook at work more than any other website, including Google.

Google "Facebook at work" and you'll turn up more than 1.2 billion hits. This just shows what a hot-button issue this is. Further, as other social networking sites come about, such as Twitter and LinkedIn, employers are re-evaluating how to manage social media at the workplace.

Some employers are completely open to the likes of Facebook and Twitter and even encourage their use. Others are using the social network strategically to recruit employees, market their brand and serve customers. A third group is trying to figure out what are appropriate interactions on Facebook in the workplace.

Some employers debate whether or not to create guidelines to using social networking sites at work rather than ban it all together. However, debaters on the topic agree it needs to be all or nothing.

Other companies actually greet the use of social media at work, such as Campbell Mithun. There, Facebook and social media networking are greatly encouraged. The idea is that it helps employees understand the engagement on brands they represent, gain firsthand knowledge of the dynamics of these markets and overall understand consumer needs better.

Some workplace development experts believe that the decision comes right down to what kind of environment you want to create, and that the social media debate is the exact same debate businesses had over email at work a decade ago and personal telephone calls at work two decades ago. The question that needs to be asked is, do you want to create a climate of trust and empowerment or do you want to create a climate of distrust, monitoring and control?

I believe that just because companies have the authority to block social media doesn't mean they should.