#Irony: Suppressing her voice on The Voice

There I was, finally on the couch to watch one of my guilty pleasures on delay after two evening conferences as a fully-fledged member of the #zoomnation. Music is a huge part of my life. There has never been the nastiness that seems to typify almost all the other reality tv series on The Voice. I'm an unabashed fan. Corny maybe, but not a crime!

Then, Guy Sebastian, the white-suit-wearing "Climb Every Mountain" singing formerly-afro-hairdo-ed Australian Idol nice guy turned body art-sleeved-muscle-shirt-wearing cool dude, whose team is FULL presses his buzzer for a male vocalist with a genuinely unique voice and then proceeds to pressure Kelly Rowland to take Wolf as her last remaining "artist". Clearly Guy believes Kelly is now/still Destiny's Child (forgive me!). Kelly explains nicely she wanted a female, wanted a singer who touched her soul, wants to reserve her right to choose her own team and gets pressured on national television. Ultimately the hapless Executive Producer, all mic'ed up and I believe (as a student of body language and teacher of strategic influence) genuinely flustered, exits stage right to confer, comes back and says "it's all about the artists". He allows Guy an extra member of his team in clear violation of the explicit rules. The EP adds that three members of Team Guy can battle it out in the next round instead of two which is a clear example of the Japanese management theory "MIUAYGA" - Make it Up as You Go Along. Good for the ratings perhaps in a world where MAFS rates disgustingly well and The Voice is so relatively tame but I had to sit there and think about why it bothered me soooo much. Am I holding on too tight you ask? Probably. But I've worked in EEO and Diversity for 27 years so maybe I'm entitled.

Did Guy 'cheat' or innovate? He didn't have the decision-making authority. The show's producers did so should we give him 10 points for trying? Pushing the envelope on an extra contestant he clearly thought, based on merit was too good to leave behind wasn't exactly playing with the nuclear codes. And I don't think Guy expected to get him. He wanted Kelly to take him. BUT, pressuring, even 'guilting' Kelly to take a contestant she didn't turn for, live on national television, was, for me, disrespectful and manipulative. As we might expect, some people loved what Guy did. I didn't. I have a problem with the mentality that the end justifies the means. That's how we got the GFC.

Perception is (almost) everything. One person's innovation is another's cheating. But in the global village with the power of Social Media, some of which is irrational, hysterical, anonymous and cruel, perception counts for a lot and that's not all bad. Reputational risk drives a lot of good behaviour and sweaty-palmed hard decisions and that's a good thing.

Our intent is not always matched by our impact. I wonder how two of Guy's singers are going to feel when they're chosen to go up against two others instead of one in a three-way knockout round. So there's a tale of unintended consequences. How often do any of us act impulsively based on what feels right without due consideration to how things might be perceived and experienced? How do we reconcile the fact that favouring anyone in a context of limited opportunities disadvantages someone else? We can't. Businesses confront that every day when they have two superb candidates for one job.

The system is rarely fair to everyone even when you strive to make it so. As noted already, the rationale for the ultimate decision by the show's producers was that "it's all about the artist". But exactly which artist? The one on stage right now, or the others who've been disadvantaged, because Guy now has a baker's dozen of singers or the ones who lose out by performing late rather than early in "The Blinds" so that it becomes increasingly difficult to turn a chair because teams are almost full? Is meritocracy a thinly-veiled decision rule designed to preserve the status quo or is it our best attempt to bring about equality over time? I hear both arguments every day; especially in the context of indirect discrimination under EEO law. Life isn't necessarily fair so let's stop pretending it should be whilst striving to redress the imbalance of circumstances every day. I feel grateful and privileged for much of what life has given me and I know I have worked hard for most of it. That doesn't have to make me entitled, ashamed or guilty. But I can and do try to help others achieve the same.

Where does a desire for team balance or personal chemistry stop and discrimination begin? If the show is all about the Voice and these are chosen via blind auditions, is it sexist for Kelly to decide she wants her last artist to be a female? It can appear so, but given all the other members of her team are chosen and she knows she has to pair them for battles, might she want two similar genres of singer to riff off against each other than have to find a song suited to a punk rocker and an opera singer. Some of us will see her decision as sexist while others may see her choice reflecting "the inherent requirements of the job" based on the existing team makeup. Footballers are drafted and teams selected each week on both merit (who's in form?) and for team balance (who are we playing?) even if in footy, this is not along gender lines.

One thing I know. Next season they'll make quite sure that once teams are full, buzzers are disabled in the spirit of "continuous improvement", yet another workplace mantra. What remains to be seen is how Kelly will feel about Guy's attempt to manipulate her and whether some goodwill between them will be lost. But again, this is analogous beyond the Voice stage when we step into any relationship, at work or outside; living with the consequences of our choices and their vulnerability to the perceptions of others. Kelly may good-naturedly decide all is fair in love and war and she's taken poetic licence with the rules before too or the tension may extend beyond the two of them and sour the vibe on set. And how much can that resonate in other workplaces!

So "nice" Guy turns out to be beguiling and competitive, Kelly is made to look like the bad guy and the Voice becomes volatile. Isolation is getting to all of us.

Leanne Faraday-Brash is an organisational psychologist, speaker, coach and media commentator. She is Principal of Brash Consulting, a Melbourne-based practice specialising in organisational psychology, organisation development and “workplace justice” (Equal Opportunity, ethics and employee relations). Leanne is the author of “Vulture Cultures: How to stop them ravaging your performance, people, profit and public image” published by Australian Academic Press. Leanne can be reached at www.brashconsulting.com.au