~synthesis~

humane

What does it take to shape the essence of who we are? For an individual, it is likely to be one or a series of personal experiences. For a community it might be a shared experience, more often than not a calamity of some kind. But for the whole human race? Now that's something else.

Think of what has impacted us on that scale - religious figures like Buddha or Christ or Mohamed; evil figures like Pol Pot or Hitler or bin Laden. And then I think of Gandhi and King Jr. and Mandela.

They have affected me profoundly - not just in terms of who I am, but more than that, the type of person I aspire to be; and if I have one, what I would hope is the nature of my soul. I hope they have in some small way touched the better angels of all our natures.

If you think of the essence of India - Gandhi comes to mind. If you think of the essence of America, King Jr. comes to mind. If you think of the essence of Africa, Mandela comes to mind.

We are so very lucky to have had one of these men inhabit our lifetime, to have personally experienced and been touched by his essence.

As I was driving home today, not long after I heard the news of Madiba's death, I was thinking about my own experiences with racism and intolerance (in my home country of Tanzania, and my adopted countries of Canada and the US); how I acted, and how I wish I'd acted.

I wrote this blog about Madiba a few years ago, it includes the poem (Invictus by William Ernest Henley) that accompanied Mandela during his 27 years in jail. There is immense strength and power in Henley's words, and there is even more in Mandela's actions.

If his death (and life) are to have meaning in our world, then his actions (like those of Gandhi and King Jr.) can not, must not stand alone. We have to walk in their footsteps, to demand of ourselves and of our elected leaders the tolerance and care that goes along with the word "humanity."

Humane is a powerful word. It demands immense things of us; it asks us to transcend our Darwinian urge to survive even at the cost of our fellow man, and recognize that our individual freedom and opportunities for greatness only comes when all in our community are also free and great.

Amandla Awethu.

Is Obama Cheney’s Puppet?

You’re thinking, “That Shafeen’s really gone over the edge. He thinks Cheney is evil incarnate, and he admitted to voting for Obama in 2012.”

Listen to Senator Obama’s 2004 DNC speech, and you can't help but conclude, “This man is the anti-Republican.” He certainly campaigned that way in 2008 and 2012. But actions speak louder than words, and President Obama’s actions belie his rhetoric.

When I think of Little Dick (Nixon was clearly “Big Dick”), I think of a secretive, war-mongering, manipulative person.

President Obama:

Transparency: He promised to be the most transparent President ever.

• This White House has classified more documents as Secret or above than all others. It has used the Espionage Act to not just protect our national security, but to prevent embarrassment.
• Reporters consider this to be the least open presidency in the last 40 years. (And that’s because no-one who covers the White House is old enough to go back further.)
• No White House since Nixon has more aggressively prosecuted leaks than this one. Does he have more to hide than Big Dick?

Peace: When he was elected in 2008, the rest of the world rejoiced in possibility of a less self-centered, less unilateral, more humane partner. He was even awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in anticipation of future actions.

It would be hard to find a bigger advocate of the Bush Doctrine (really the Cheney Doctrine) than President Obama. From his first actions in 2008 (dramatically increase US military presence in Afghanistan), to his lack of action on Guantanamo, to his passion for drone strikes, to his flaunting of the 5th and 14th Amendments (due process), to his persistence in the War on Drugs (Fast and Furious), our President has lived the “do it to them before they do it to us” policy (Cheney Doctrine).

Domestically, President Obama was given an “F” by the Brady Campaign on gun control in 2010. While the rhetoric improved some in the wake of Sandy Hook, outcomes have not.

Genuine: Listening to his speeches (especially during the 2008 campaign), it was hard to imagine someone more genuinely committed to being genuine. I know people who basically worshiped at their Shepard Fairey altars. Their man Barak was going to lead the world to peace and humanity.

But he hasn’t. He has distanced America from world leaders (and citizens) by spying on them; a ripple effect of which will cause American businesses to lose as much as $35 Billion in global revenue by 2016.

Even the President’s signature Affordable Care Act is premised on a Republican model, and his change in stance on gay marriage was forced by circumstances vs. a real belief in the issue.

Little Dick would be proud...

I have often railed against MBAs, accusing them of being the curse of American business success, forsaking macro-success in favor of their own macro-successes. I have similarly accused CEOs that rely on their PR department to craft business strategy based on what will “play best” as being just plain stupid.

If Obama is our Macbeth, then his advisors are our Lady Macbeth. They have subverted his intent, and acted without scruples. It would not surprise me if many of his “people” are MBA/PR wonks, but it does disappoint me. 

When you put expediency before integrity and spin before accountability, there is no high ground. If you look at its work product, this Democrat White House is disarmingly Republican.

democracide

Churchill famously said "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others."

A few months ago, I wrote that a democracy is characterized by the regular, peaceful transition of power based on equitable choice (one citizen, one vote). Voting is the act of choosing the best person(s) to represent your voice in the governing process. Governing is the enforcement of laws and creation of policies that improve the citizens’ wellbeing today and tomorrow.

How naïve am I!

The basics of democratic politics, whether in America, Egypt, Israel, or Russia are simple. The job of the candidate (and their Party) is three things:

1. Find or fabricate a means to polarize "your" people vs. "their" people - make the "us-es" hate the "thems," and create the groundswell (of $ & advocacy) needed to win.
2. Whilst in power, focus ONLY on subverting and diminishing your opponent, and 
3. Altering the rules of the electoral system to assure a win next time, and the time after that.

If you are the leader of your Party, your ONLY job is to assure more wins than the last election. There is no other objective. On the face of it, that seems reasonable - the role of a Party should be to achieve perpetual success. After all, the ONLY reward in politics comes with winning. Unlike sport or business, there is no value, or prize, or credit for being second.

Pavlov showed that a dog can be conditioned to drool (reflex action) via an environmental event (bell ringing). Politicians in a democracy are conditioned to its binary nature. Their instinct/conditioning (and more precisely, their survival) requires that they pursue winning at all costs. Losing is fatal. As is the desire to be a real public servant. You can't serve if you don't win. But once you win, your priority staying "in" - you have to keep winning.

These venal, mercenary politicians (VMPs) also understand Pavlov, and realize that they have to condition the electorate to value (and vote for) rhetoric over public service. In America, the most effective VMPs are the Tea Party; the Democrats and Republicans are trying, but they're not as good at it ...yet. Once the citizenry is conditioned vote based on fear and anger vs informed reason, the game is over.

The game in America is perilously close to over...

The natural behavior of democratically-elected politicians (VMPs) is the willful evisceration of their opponents, in order to perpetually hold power; to achieve totalitarianism. Since it goes without saying that no-one's voting for anything in a totalitarian state, it is thus that democracy leads to democracide.

What would Churchill say now I wonder?

A popular answer is term limits, which does limit the damage any one politician can do, though it has the effect of making the Party more powerful - they are the constant; and as king-maker, the puppet master is running the game, and the politician is but an empty shirt.

Another favorite is election finance laws. While this might curb election "buyers," it does nothing to regulate the candidate selection process (Primaries in the US), which again puts the control of government in the hands of an unelected few. The Tea Party in the US recognized this, and has successfully manipulated the Republican Party through the Primary process, knowing that if their candidates win the Primaries, mainstream Republicans will vote for them because of their fear and hatred of Democrats.

These and other ideas are all similar in that they attempt to fix symptoms, but not cure anything.

Is that it? Are democracies screwed?

To create a government of the people, by the people, for the people, the people must do the work. There is no other way.

Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, and all the others who have caused the tides to rise for all boats have one thing in common. They asked more of themselves (and the "oppressed") than they did of others (including the oppressors). Until we want it badly enough to do the hard work ourselves, we're doomed to voting for totalitarianism.

who is more afraid?

...the student, the parent, the teacher, the principal, the university admissions officer, the employer?

I guarantee that of these six, the one least afraid of anything is the student.

As we mature, two things become very important - change and control. We hate the first and love the second. This is true as individuals and as organizations. Take our education system - it began with apprenticeship, and the master’s need to create a successor. This is the most successful teaching model ever.

Over time, education has “evolved” into a hideous creature that cares not at all about children, creating successors, or even the idea of learning. Instead, it is about building a standardized machine whose mission is put bums in seats, and impose tests on those poor bums that measure nothing meaningful.

The public education system in America is the last place you should look to find evolved thinking or a genuine commitment to give our children the means to be successful as adults. Of course there are (rare) exceptions, some teachers and school leaders do try to give their kids more than our feckless system prescribes; they are heroes, and they are a small minority.

My very good friend Larry Rosenstock (CEO of High Tech High) and Rob Riordan (President of the HTH Graduate School of Education) just published a brilliant and inspired essay entitled Changing the Subject. It, much more eloquently than I could ever, sets out a vision for what learning should be, and what a school ought to look like if we adults genuinely cared about our children.

Less than a quarter of a millennium old, America has accomplished amazing things. But much of the credit for this country’s greatness comes from those of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The late 20th and early 21st century is a nadir - from the Baby Boomers to the Gen Xs, and now the Gen Ys, we have vilified change and embraced control. We have normalized and standardized and homogenized our way into insipidity.

There is a way to climb back up the mountain. Larry and Rob’s essay shows us how to build what our children deserve. It is time.

If we can learn from our children how not to fear fear, we just might have a hope of turning them into the adults we wish we could be.

less walls

An act of God (Sandy) resulted in $billions committed to reparations, many benefit concerts by famous entertainers, and a ton of political action.

What, I wonder will an act of man (Sandy Hook) provoke?

It is not realistic to think that even the slaying of 20 children will create a sufficient change of heart to provoke new laws. So I don't expect this country will suddenly become anti-gun, nor do I expect that America will legislatively and enforcement-wise shift from being the most weaponized country on the planet.

What then is possible? What then is realistic? Many are comparing the regulation of cars and driving to guns, but this doesn’t apply either. There is simply no practical way to achieve this.

A knee-jerk reaction will be a demand for guards, stronger doors, and metal detectors in schools so that students are protected. But this is also wrong - I’m reminded of something I wrote a few years ago:

South Africa is one of my favorite places. In Johannesburg, some people live in beautiful homes but you wouldn't know it, because they are surrounded by huge, thick concrete walls with broken glass on the top and steel gates. Safety is in being inside your jail-like walls. I've also been to Soweto a few times, and there, if there is one at all, the fences are low (3 feet) and decorative. I asked why they didn't use tall concrete walls and was told, "we feel safer when our neighbors can see into our homes and come to our aid if we're in trouble. The bigger the walls, the less safe we feel."

This speaks volumes, doesn't it?

In Soweto, they gain support and security from each other. Together they are stronger than as individuals.

In America, every time people do bad things, we act passionately and aggressively to build bigger walls - from tough on crime to anti-terrorism to anti-lunacy. The reward for every bad act is a curbing of everyone’s freedom. America imprisons a greater percentage of its population than any other country in the world - by far. I imagine we also spend more on law enforcement than anyone else.

I believe all of this “tough on X” bluster actually creates more criminals. That the extolling of bad acts in the media actually spawns more bad actors.

Instead of improving things, building bigger walls has only made us more vulnerable.

I believe our friends in Soweto have it right - in the face of bad behavior, our reaction must be to demand more freedom, less or no walls, and more opportunities to be there for our neighbors; to be able to see that there is trouble and come to their aid. There is no shortage of heroes in our world let us give them a chance to save us.

As ever, I am inspired by Aaron Sorkin and Josiah Bartlett. These 3 minutes and 37 seconds are worth another look.

fatal dependencies = political failure

Marketing exists to grease the skids between the product and the buyer. There are many ways to do this, but in the end it boils down to creating actionable preference.

Because marketing is so visible and so expensive, it is easy to assume a good marketing campaign trumps the product, business process, or customer. We often see senior business executives more enamored with marketing at the expense of the other two. This generally leads to bad outcomes - in business or in politics.

Now politics is perception so marketing (and polling) do play a role. But relying on them exclusively can bite you, as Hilary Clinton learned during the 2007 primaries, despite being a pretty good product.

What can also bite you is believing that midterm (local) wins can translate to national elections. In 2010, the Republicans won simply by opposing President Obama. Their message, “We’ll stop ObamaCare, kill terrorists, hate anything a Democrat does, and lower taxes.”

The product/candidate didn’t matter as long as it could parrot the party line. Win first and worry about governing later, if ever.

Just months later, the Republican Primary candidates went back to the well: vilify the incumbent and make impossible, sound-byte promises that resonate with the base. All talk (spin) no substance (product).

It is hardly surprising that the shallowest candidate won.

But the Presidency is a different ballgame. The electoral college and broad-based support matter more than any one Congressional district. The dynamic is more complex, the scrutiny is greater, and your opponent is no longer a less competent and (even) more buffoon-like version of you.

Now the product matters as much if not more than the marketing. It must meet the needs of a much broader set of customers, it must be real, and it must convince skeptics. A shallow (and hollow) message won’t cut it.

Governor Romney lost because he assumed marketing would take him all the way. He let winning the primary go to his head, did not realize how different the new game was, and how much harder it is to convince undecided voters. He also assumed he and his plans were now fully-vetted and approved by all voters - no analysis or clarity required. “I’m bona fide!” And finally, he believed that the people attending his rallies represented all voters, that what swayed them would sway every voter he needed for the win, and that their fervency reflected their intent to turn out and vote.

The reason your base is called your base is because they love you and your platform, and hate your opponent. The relationship is irrational. Independents are less driven by emotion - they’re trying to make a reasoned choice based on factors matter to them.

The Romney camp didn’t grasp this - they reckoned that mere promises were enough to carry the day. They avoided specifics because they didn’t want to open cans of worms. Non-fanatics saw through it; they wanted:

• Specific, independently verified plans showing how 12 million jobs would be created.
• Proof that you can lower taxes, grow defense, not raise more money, lower the deficit, and allow everyone to take home more money.
• To know why he hated Latinos (and women?) so much.
• To learn Romney’s strategy to work with the Tea Party (something the Republican Speaker failed at), and a Democrat Senate.

These questions (and others) required more than vapid sound bytes, more than “trust me because I saved the Olympics.” The marketing wasn’t holding water.

But this wasn’t their only problem - remember the three elements in the equation - product, marketing, customer. They forgot that the only thing that counts in the end is a person showing up and voting (customer). They assumed that their voters would turn out, but did nothing to assure it. This was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

The President, invested early and extensively at the local level. He was able to overcome a number of setbacks (negative ad campaign, poor debate performance, weak economy, etc.) with his “ground game.” He avoided outlandish promises (12 million new jobs, lowering the deficit without raising taxes, etc.), and his local machine created relationships and helped people come out and vote.

In the wake of the election, the "evolved" Republican strategy for 2016 appears to be:

1. Romney was too liberal - the next candidate needs to have unimpeachable conservative credentials (small government, lower taxes, bigger defense, loves God).
2. Win the Latino and female vote - support amnesty and trumpet Marco Rubio and Susana Martinez, to demonstrate Latino/female kinship.
3. Continue to deny inconvenient facts - the 2010 Republican House was the least functional ever; climate change does exist; lower taxes don’t magically create jobs; there is no fraud - voter id laws are designed to prevent Dems from voting; gay people families are just as normal as straight families. “Hey - let’s not change things too much, after all - there’s nothing wrong with the real us, the problem was Romney.”

#1 & #3 make sense. Republicans have a better chance of wining when they stay true to their roots. There is goodness in authenticity, misguided though it may be.

#2 - well... Latinos and women (and any other “target audience”) are not idiots - they can see through the lip service. If the Republicans truly wish to win over these constituencies, they will have to get over the idea that a marketing/spin campaign is all that’s needed.

Exit polls from the election showed that Americans are:

• 25% Liberal ~ 40% Moderate ~ 35% Conservative
• 39% Democrat ~ 33% Republican ~ 28% Independent

Neither party wins without the moderate/independent vote. This vote is by definition not emotionally attached to a party, and thus makes decisions by observing behavior, reviewing facts, and evaluating policies and plans.

Marketing alone can not convince them. The winning candidate will understand that you also have to show the substance of your product, and you have to directly and genuinely engage your customer.

I am a moderate/independent who will never affiliate with a party. I wanted to vote for Romney - on paper, he seemed the better candidate. BUT in reality, he lacked substance, disdained the voters, and exhibited a shocking lack of integrity. I changed my mind because all I saw was an empty suit whose only interest was self-interest.

To win, Republicans have to get past their Eric Cantorness and focus on the electorate - spin won't win.

debating integrity

In a few short hours, one wasteful, unscrupulous, liar will be chosen to serve as the most powerful man on earth.

This man will have won this right by wasting more than a billion dollars advertising to witless voters; by further polarizing the people against his opponent/party; and by lying.

The level of causticity that permeates politics in America has dangerous side effects:

1. Bifurcation of the populace. Most Americans are so indoctrinated (brain washed?) by this that they not only have an abject hatred for whichever party they oppose, but they also hate their fellow Americans that support that party!
2. America the global laughing stock. As a recent American, and perhaps still an outsider, I can say with certainty that the best impression American politics leaves in foreigners’ minds is bemusement; the typical impression is disdain.
3. Governing is impossible. The Tea Party REQUIRES their candidates to pledge to never compromise with either the Democrats or “unenlightened” Republicans!?!?

We can’t let this continue.

I propose that six days before the next presidential election, the candidates are required to participate in the following debate:

Details:

1. Each party will select three ads authored by their opponent’s campaign, and one ad authored by an outside agency (PAC or Super PAC) and submit them to the moderator six (6) hours prior to the debate.
2. Logistics:
   1. Duration: 90 minutes
   2. Setting: opponents sit across from each other at a table arranged so that one camera can show both faces.
   3. Audience: 300 people - evenly split Republican, Democrat, Independent; each will have a device with which to choose between “Righteous” and “Sleaze Bag.”
   4. Structure: 
      1. eight 10-minute segments for the eight ads.
      2. closing segment with one minute each to "explain."
      3. remaining minutes used at the discretion of the moderator.
3. Approach - a coin toss will choose the first speaker.
   1. Candidate A is given a transcript of one of his ads and required to read it aloud while facing his opponent (one minute).
   2. Candidate A will then have one minute to explain the ad.
   3. Candidate B will have two minutes to rebut.
   4. The Candidates will argue for six minutes (fact-checked by the moderator).
   5. The audience will assess (see 2.3 above) Candidate A, with the results appearing in real time for all to see (including the Candidates).
   6. Repeat for each ad. The Moderator will decide the order of the ads.
   7. Close - each candidate will have one minute to explain themselves.
4. Optionally:
   1. Viewers at home can also add their votes via text, mobile app, or the internet.
   2. Candidates’ seats are metal with electrodes through which voltage corresponding to the level of “Sleaze Bag” as judged by the audience is applied after each segment.

Some might think 4.2 is going too far...

Because the opposing Candidate is selecting the ads, they will be very prepared for the rebuttal. While the choice of ads will be a surprise, the Candidate should know their own ads, after all they approved them. The moderator will have fact-checked the ads and confront any lies.

Impact:

1. The voters will be able to judge the Candidates’ integrity.
2. The Candidates will publicly confront and defend their own lies as, as well as one "independent” lie.

There is no way (given today’s laws) to prevent political “free” speech. But by confronting their own ads in this way, we at least turn them from three-year-olds to twelve-year-olds.

the single biggest issue in this election...

...is not the economy, unemployment, terrorism, reigning in Wall Street, foreign policy, gay rights, or anything like that.

There is only ONE thing that matters in this election and neither the debate moderators, the media, or the candidates will discuss it.

If I were moderating the debate tonight, my instructions to the debaters:

1. You will get as much time as I decide you need. It will not be equal.
2. I will ask the questions, and keep asking until I get satisfactory answers.
3. I have no tolerance for BS.

My first (and perhaps only) question to President Obama:

If you win a second term, you will most likely inherit a Republican House and a Democratic Senate. The last two years marked the least effective Congress/White House combination in memory. You've failed at working with this Congress for two years - how will this change? What assurances does the electorate have that you will be able to get ANYTHING done?

My first (and perhaps only) question to Governor Romney:

If you win the presidency, you will most likely inherit a Republican House and a Democratic Senate. The Republican caucus is dominated by a Tea Party fringe which does not suffer centrists gladly. Speaker Boehner was rendered impotent by this caucus. How will you get ANYTHING done knowing the obstacles you face in a partisan House, and an obstreperous Senate?

This may take a while...

America's greatest challenge is a Congress + White House so infantile that they would make a room full of drooling two-year old pouters and bullies appear coherent, dignified, and civlized.

is foxnews secretly pro-obama?

What if candidate Romney pulls out a miracle and not only wins the Presidency, but also drags a Republican majority into both the Senate and the House?

Whom, in the months to follow is going to be most disappointed and dejected? I say it is FoxNews, and especially Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter (the prince and princess of vitriol).

Why would these two who revel in reviling anything and everything Liberal, who can spin the smallest Democratic act into a demonic plot to strike down all God-fearing Republican Christians be sad?

Because they’d have no-one to hate. The “lame-stream” Liberal media (MSNBC) would own the self-righteous, angst-filled hate advantage, and take over the mantle of official spokesnetwork for the easily-manipulated unwashed masses. Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh and the rest, all ardent supporters of Mitt, the Tea Party, and all things Sarah Palin would languish on their airwaves with nothing to complain about and no-one to insult.

Imagine that.

My assessment of the coverage mix at Fox/MSNBC:

• 5% our candidate/party looking good.
• 15% their candidate/party looking bad.
• 70% analysis affirming how their bad behavior makes “us” look good.
• 10% update (+ lots of video) of brain dead, ultra-tanned mom arrested for bringing daughter to tanning salon.

To fill the airwaves (and garner watchers and advertising $$) the best possible outcome for Fox/MSNBC is a president of one party, and a split in the House/Senate. This way everyone gets to have someone hate-worthy in power, and of course spend interminable hours with sycophantic "analysts" critiquing minutia in order to perpetuate the hatred.

Many think today’s professional athletes sacrificed the intellectual for the physical; that they are largely one-dimensional beasts whose sole focus is winning at all costs and cashing in on that big paycheck. With American Football, it is this plus the desire to physically dominate and punish your opponent in every way.

I was watching a replay of the Giants-Eagles NFL football game last night; these teams are in the same division, play each other twice a year, and typically for one to succeed, the other must fail. A factor that no-doubt contributes to their intense and long-standing rivalry. Suffice it to say, these players get paid to convincingly decimate each other.

One might even compare them to the Democrats-Republicans in politics, though we’d have to recognize that except for Joe the Plumber (assistant plumber turned actual Republican candidate in the 9th Congressional district of Ohio), most politicians have a meaningful university degree (often post-graduate), earned on the basis of intellectual ability vs. physical prowess.

How interesting then that once the final whistle had blown and the high-stakes, intense game had ended, we saw Jason Pierre-Paul (job: pummel Vick) hug Michael Vick, who hugged him back. This is not unusual - if you watch sports at all, you know this type of inter-team camaraderie is common amongst even long-standing rivals.

What does it say about our politicians when these physically gifted, but purportedly dumb jocks are able to transcend the field of battle and recognize that there is a time and place for everything? They compete with passion during the game, but once it ends, treat each other with care and civility, after all, much more unites than divides.

And yet, our better-educated, more sophisticated, and worldlier politicians are unable to overcome their in-election combativeness to do as the electorate commanded - govern.

We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

These are the closing words of Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address. But he had no experience of Fox/MSNBC - a force united to break our bonds of affection; a force stronger even than the Parties' candidates; and a force whose survival depends on discord.

There is but one way to overcome this force. Hmmm... where is that remote?

an imperfect union

A democracy is characterized by the regular, peaceful transition of power based on equitable choice (one citizen, one vote). Voting is the act of choosing the best person(s) to represent your voice in the governing process. Governing is the enforcement of laws and creation of policies that improve the citizens’ wellbeing today and tomorrow.

Seems simple enough. What could possibly go wrong?

Ego.

Today “our” elected officials care little about governing; winning is the only thing, and they will do anything, anything to win.

Why do we tolerate this?

1. We are stupidly easy to manipulate.
2. We have very selective memories.
3. We can’t see past our fears.

Think back to any primary election - did even one candidate treat their opponents with respect? Can you name them? If you can (John Huntsman), did they have hope of winning? What happened?

What does it say when candidates within a Party family so viciously eviscerate each other? Sadly, despite the hate, the “base” rallies around the winner because they've been manipulated into thinking the other Party is even more evil.

Candidates actively avoid “thinking” voters; no one wants an open, cogent discussion on policy bereft of vitriol. Look at the Party platforms - they only come up when an opponent finds a weakness to exploit. They are completely ignored by the candidate.

How to win?

1. Raise a ton of $$.
2. Identify “wedge issues.”
3. Pepper the electorate with abusive ads.

Without #1, everything else is moot - fund raising is THE priority for every Party, even above the candidate. How to raise money? #2. Even the smartest among us are susceptible to #2. (Pun intended.) Pollsters are the most influential people in any campaign; they “help” the candidate focus the message for maximum provocation and agitation, and thus more donations. Evil.

Witness the recent Romney defense of free speech - no coherent person associates the embassy’s actions as siding with terrorists, but then coherent people aren’t the target audience, are they. He just needed to paint his opponent as pro-Islamic fanaticism and anti-America, and thus raise more $$. The President’s reaction was also wrong - why stoop to your opponent’s level? Maybe because that's also your level.

With the secret recording of the Romney fund raising speech, the Democrats (and media) went off on how evil Romney is because he doesn’t care about half the country. Romney was responding to a question about campaign strategy, not governing; he said the pro-Obama 47% will never vote for him anyway, so why bother campaigning to them. I guarantee President/candidate Obama has spoken similarly about demographics and districts that hate him. Romney was pandering to his audience and he chose words that resonated with them; tell me Obama has never done that.

When an election is based ONLY on vilification, both the winners and losers emerge as blood enemies. Their abject hatred prevents any hope of collaboration (governing), and even if they can rise above it, they can’t be seen to cooperate or #1 dries up.

What about the victims of our politicians’ hatred - the Chinese, Latinos, Muslims, Olympics, gays, pro/anti abortionists, etc? Can you guess at their “favorability” towards America, Americans, and the American government??

Are you really surprised that with every election in the last 30+ years, our country has become less happy, less sustainable, more hateful, and more hated? A recent president once said, "Civility is not a tactic or a sentiment. It is the determined choice of trust over cynicism, of community over chaos." Can you guess who it was?

It is time for we, the voters to reject cynicism and chaos, and reform our imperfect union.

my first vote

Yesterday was a good day. I’ve been a fan of the Dallas Cowboys since I was 12 (yes - it was the cheerleaders), and they won their first game of the season vs. the team that undid them last year, the NY Giants. :-)! The Cowboys won because both the offense and defense played well; last year it was one or the other, and they sucked.

I also watched one of the best orators of our time, President Bill Clinton speak at the Democratic Convention. He is masterful. I watched him on FoxNews, and was impressed by how differently they heard his speech vs. those at MSNBC. Their interpretations also differed during the Republican Convention, except the other way.

This is to be expected - elections are a zero-sum game, you either win or die. Fox advocates the right, and MSNBC the left. Their “journalists” interpret the candidates based on the outcome they seek vs. the true nature of the candidate, their platform, their patriotism, or even their record.

The Constitutional framers designed our government (division of power, House vs. Senate, debate procedures, etc.) to create a stilted enough process where as little as possible could get done, where megalomania was less likely, and where government has as little influence on citizens’ lives as possible. This is a good thing - we want government to do just enough so that our country is safe, our infrastructure is reliable, and we have a basic safety net to protect us in tough times.

Because of the complex and convoluted design, effective governing requires that the White House work with Congress; it requires that the House work with the Senate; and it requires that members of the House and Senate work with each other.

When this doesn’t happen, we are destined for dysfunction. Witness the last couple of years.

I have always thought that the Democratic Party is at best a random collection of special interests who hardly agree with each other much less anyone else. That they can never be organized or cohesive enough to stay in power on a sustained basis. The Republican Party on the other hand has always struck me as being both focused and unified - a powerful combination.

I didn’t realize until now that Democrat dysfunction embodies a fundamental principle of democracy - pluralism. Whereas Republican cohesion demands homogeneity. In the former, there are many roads to Rome; in the latter, it’s Caesar’s way or nothing.

When the Tea Party started to coalesce in 2007, they were idealistic about effective, constitutional governing - I liked them then. The 2008 elections were a landslide the other way, and they realized they needed to retool. Their new strategy: gain strength and inertia by co-opting the far right; focus the message (spend less, tax less, grow military, fear God); and, most critically, forget winning elections, just win primaries.

They realized that heartland Republicans vote against what they don’t like vs. for what they do like (witness how fervently they’ve now embrace Mitt Romney, a candidate they disliked intensely during the primary; but they hate Barak Obama more). They also realized their distributed, grassroots nature is ideally suited to placing their candidates in positions to win primaries. Once their person was the mainstream party candidate, all Republican voters would flock to him/her - they didn’t need to worry about the last mile.

This is how they took over the Republican Party in 2010. Ironically, the very adaptability and situational awareness that led them to this strategy has made them ABJECTLY INFLEXIBILE. They will now NOT compromise.

The result - Congressional dysfunction.

It took years of bad performance before the Dallas Cowboys made some tough changes, invested, and are now more balanced than they’ve been in a long while. This balance will hopefully lead to sustained success.

President Clinton’s speech yesterday extolled the Republicans of his time as much as it extolled President Obama. He harkened back to a day when governing took precedence over party, and when compromise took precedence over ego.

Governments are effective when politicians balance leading with winning.

The "new" Republican Party is incapable of this thinking; those that do believe that governing requires compromise know they will be replaced by “righteous” Tea Party candidates in the next Primary unless they toe the line. There is no balance, and there is no compromise.

This is the first national election in which I will be able to vote. As a Canadian, I was always a conservative voter - abortion, gay rights, national healthcare, role of religion in politics, and other social factors are broadly adopted and not up for debate. I care about these issues, but I care also that we have a government that will create a sustainable future for our children. I always believed that the Supreme Court would help protect the former, and a good Republican government the latter.

I must admit, I now have a hard time voting for a party that is so intractable, so absolute, and so opposed to balance and cooperation, that it would allow us to fall rather than compromise.

politics and not getting stoned

The Democratic Convention happens this week; they now get to respond (in kind) to what was thrown their way last week at the Republican Convention.

American politics is full of many things, most are far from honorable. But one thing which is more present than ever in both parties does give me hope. It is not supposed to have a place in government, the Constitution makes that explicit; and yet both parties honor and celebrate it with vigor.

I didn't watch much of the Republican Convention (I missed the genesis of Eastwooding :-(). All I did see was the last of Mitt Romney's speech, and of course the 100,000 balloons + 500 lbs of confetti. Did you see what happened next? The Romney/Ryan families left the stage amid raucous celebration, and suddenly the entire stadium - tens of thousands of celebrants, fell silent. Why? This man came to the podium to lead everyone in the closing ceremony - the shift from partying to praying was remarkable.

This same phenomenon will no-doubt occur at the close of the Democratic Convention - religion is a powerful, powerful force in American politics. But instead of an instrument of spirituality, community, and moral purpose; it is a bludgeon of orthodoxy, divisiveness, and ultimatums.

If I were President Obama, I would ask that the invocation to open the Democratic Convention speak of this passage from the Gospel of John, where the people brought a woman accused of adultery to Jesus, and asked if they should stone her as the Law of Moses commanded. He contemplated this, and then said: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." The crowd then dispersed, and Jesus told the woman to "go, and sin no more."

If you have or know children, I'm sure that like me, you've counseled them with a variation of these words. We do this because we want them to turn the other cheek, and to do to others as you would have them do to you.

These simple yet powerful lessons which every politician has earnestly shared with his or her children, are fervently ignored when it comes to their own behavior.

Imagine how many undecided votes the candidate would attract if they began their convention with the promise that their party would henceforth (through to election day and beyond) act with respect and integrity? What if they would judge the other party only the way they wish to be judged, and seek to create bridges (even during the campaign) with all parties and candidates, for they know that once the votes are counted, all those elected are required to work together to serve the country.

They'd have my vote.

Divisiveness is difficult enough in good times, but in tough times it results in catastrophic dysfunction. We witnessed the invective in Congress and the White House over the last four years, and we have suffered because that made it impossible for them to accomplish anything.

Why can't we the electorate demand and expect civility? I have to believe the majority of American voters seek in their leaders a level of morality that at a minimum reflects what they were taught by their parents.

Religion is not supposed to influence politics but it does. There is no political risk greater than dismissing religious leaders or their opinions. Today, religion influences three issues - reproduction, homosexuality, and Israel.

Why such a narrow expression of religion??

Can we find a religious leader, a peer of Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Pat Robertson and their brethren to advocate cooperation and respect? Can we help this voice become as powerful as those who care about abortion and gay marriage? Can we ensure that this voice is just as vigilant about holding government accountable?

It would be impossible for the Falwell/Dobson/Robertsons, the Democrats/Republicans, and even the left or right wing media to stand in opposition to a moral and effective government. Imagine if candidates had to condemn all forms of negative campaigning because they had to live up a moral standard?

America is a deeply religious state - over 80% of Americans are religiously affiliated, and every one of these religions espouses spirituality, community, and moral purpose. It took less than five years for the Tea Party to go from random disaffected pockets to a major political force. Why can't we create a pro-cooperation movement between now and the 2015 primaries?

Today religion in politics is an agent of divisiveness; whereas religion itself is a champion of community. It is up to us to transform the former into the latter.

a rethink

If I were writing the President's speech at the Democratic National Convention:

My fellow Americans good evening. It is with pride that I accept your nomination to be the next President of the United States. It is with humility that I speak about what must come next -- both in the weeks and months before election day, and in the four years that we hope will follow.

The last three and a half years as your President have been quite a lesson -- we live in a complex, nuanced, and opportunistic society. We each have great expectations for ourselves and our country, but we each see it differently. This is the magic of America, and the challenge of America.

It was easy in 2008 to be on the campaign trail, blithely criticizing everything President Bush had done, and telling you how I would make things better from day one. It is easy because until you sit behind that desk, there is no way to understand how powerful and powerless you are.

Each of us seeks the Oval Office with the best intentions; this time the campaign is between Mitt Romney and me. I will tell you now that I believe 100% that Governor Romney is a person of honor, integrity, and with a profound desire to serve his country. He intends to do his utmost to take our country to a better place. He has articulated a number of policies and strategies that he will enact to accomplish this, and if we took the partisanship out of it, I imagine I might agree with much of what he wants to do, just as I believe he would agree with much of what I want to do.

But in the scheme of things, today’s elections are won not by extolling that which unites us, but rather by objectifying those who divide us.

This colors our approach and vision of campaigning, and causes each of us to pander to fractional but wealthy or influential interests with polarizing rhetoric. The only victim of this behavior is the citizen.

Thankfully, strategies, policies, 9-point plans, and campaign promises don’t amount to much once you get behind that desk. On the day I was inaugurated, I was raring to go, but at every turn, I found myself facing three things - incumbency, partisanship, and complexity. The system didn’t like change at all, and was very effective at resisting it; each side was bent on making the other look bad at all times; and if you did manage to get past these two, you had to appease so many people, cater to so many interests, and account for so many legacy obligations that there was no way to actually get something meaningful done.

Here is what I want to accomplish in my second term, and if you do vote for me, you must do so knowing that this is exactly what your mandate demands of all those who are elected to office this November.

If I were a Republican, I might stand here and say I want a government that is as small as possible; that all elected officials must be completely accountable for their actions; that we must only enact laws that expand freedom; and finally that we must reign in excess taxation.

My friends, I, a passionate Democrat, stand before you to tell you that this is exactly where my campaign and upcoming term will focus. Specifically, I am going to campaign for three constitutional amendments, and ask the American people to only vote for me if they believe in all three.

Amendment A: Election Reform

Elected servants take on a greater obligation than any private citizen, and must operate under more exacting rules. There are three parts to this amendment.

First term limits - Presidents will serve one six-year term; Senators up to two four year terms, and Congresspeople up to three two-year terms. Second, election finance - no private or corporate money may be used by candidates - once a candidate wins their primary, they are allocated a budget of fifty cents per eligible voter in their district. No additional money may be spent. Moreover, third party expenditures will be illegal - we will not allow any candidate to be corrupted by special interests. Third, the accountability - to mitigate corruption, once elected to the Presidency or Congress, the winners are required to publish all future tax returns until they die.

Amendment B - Legislative Reform

Our laws are overly complex, filled with hidden benefits for special interests, take too long to enact, and live forever. We will change this. There are three parts to this amendment.

First, legislative scope - Laws and bills must be written so that five randomly selected high school students can read and explain them in one day; they must only deal with one thing (no riders, addenda, etc.), and identify all sources and uses of funding. Second, duration - ALL laws (past, present and future) will expire after two years; this means that any law passed two or more years ago, comes up for renewal in 2013; but they can only be renewed after being re-written per part 1 (scope); if a law is not renewed, it is eliminated -- this means a lot of Congress’ time will be spent on this! Third, accountability - Congress must pass a budget every year; continuances will not be allowed; failure to pass a budget will result in loss of all wages and benefits for EVERY member of Congress.

Amendment C - Tax Reform

Our tax code is absurdly complex, and too frequently used as a means of catering to special interests. We will simplify the tax code (following part 1 of Amendment B) and make it very difficult to change. This amendment has three parts.

First, scope - we will shift to a flat tax with no (zero) deductions; it will be progressive and deducted at source for individuals, and include all federal income (tax, entitlements, etc.) in that one percentage. Second, personal - the tax rates will be 0% for those earning below $50k/yr, 15% for those earning $50-100k/yr; 25% for $100-200k/yr; and 40% for the rest. Third, corporate - this will be a flat 3.5% on gross income.

These three amendments will assure elected officials intent on public service; clear and active legislation; and a simpler and less costly tax system. I will publish the analysis that shows that the amendments will put more money in Americans’ pockets, reduce our debt, and restore honesty and integrity to the government.

I have decided to suspend my “active” campaign in favor of first publishing the clear and simple amendments and our analysis; and then only doing live and televised town halls to answer questions about these three amendments. I will not spend one more dollar campaigning against Governor Romney.

Does the economy matter? Does the deficit matter? Of course!

Can we fix them? Yes, but not if the White House and Congress continue as we have for the last 10+ years. Our behavior and partisanship are reprehensible.

It must stop. It must stop so we can do the jobs we were elected to do. It must stop so that elections can once more be about public service. We must stop so that governing can once more be about doing good. We must stop or our economy will not improve, and our debt will become untenable.

My fellow Americans - I seek a national mandate to enact these constitutional amendments because without them, America gives in to persistent and reprehensible partisanship; it gives up on one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I will not accept that. As President and your nominee, I will do everything to win this mandate, and I ask you to walk beside me, to pledge your allegiance to the United States of America.

Thank you

spintegrity

As a kid, I routinely proclaimed my innocence when “stuff’ happened . It is possible that sometimes “I didn't do it” wasn’t exactly accurate; it's also possible that had I come clean right away (or even before the “stuff” was discovered), I would have spent much less time being well-grounded...

When I was in that “innocent” moment, I always felt it was possible that the broken fish tank (or whatever) might not actually be discovered, or that I could find a way to not make it my fault.

As in childhood, “stuff” also happens in business; but the consequences are worse than a wet carpet (the fish were saved, though I got zero credit for that). Sadly, the “adult” leaders are often as righteous as I was, and as convinced that they can somehow get away with it.

A teacher I admire recently posted a link on Facebook to a blog by Gary Rubinstein entitled: Why I did TFA, and why you shouldn’t. As a former TFAer, my friend was understandably upset about this. I too am an admirer of TFA (Teach for America), and this article was an eye-opener, it exposed perspectives I hadn’t considered.

Money quote: "Rather than be honest about both their successes and their failures, they deny any failures, and charge forward with an agenda that has not worked and will never work. Their ‘proof’ consists of a few high-performing charters. These charters are unwilling to release the data that proves that they succeed by booting the ‘worst’ kids — the ones that bring down their test scores."

A few months ago, the Susan G. Komen Foundation was accused of politicizing their grant-making (which they denied despite information to the contrary); they were further accused of singling out Planned Parenthood, which the head of Komen, Nancy Brinker also denied. When asked if their reputation was at stake, Brinker responded: “...all I can tell you is that the responses we’re getting are very, very favorable." They reversed their decision 24 hours later, apologized for causing any distress, while reiterating their righteousness.

Like TFA (23 years), Komen has been around a long time (30 years), both are very effective, and widely regarded as resounding successes. They had to overcome huge obstacles; persevere through difficult times; and finally gain traction and slowly win people over. Now, rather than begging to get an invite to the dance, they are the main attraction.

To get to success, it is often necessary to transcend negativity; it is always necessary to believe in yourself, your vision, and your strategy, even (or especially) when everyone else doubts you. This thick skin is critical to progress in the early days, and if you are fortunate enough to "win," it is sadly also very effective at helping you forget who and what you were when you started, and think only of how great you are now.

Humans are designed to forget, minimize, or even romanticize tough times -- I can't imagine a mother wishing to give birth to second child if this weren't true; it is certainly how adults forget the angst and difficulty and complexity of puberty and teenagehood, when they vowed never to be the jerks their parents were.

In life, as we learn and grow, we hopefully never lose sight of the principles and morals that we were taught as children -- these neural pathways were formed when young, and ideally persist and guide us throughout our lives. But in business (and politics), there is no such memory, especially when it comes to leadership. Principles or morals are routinely forsaken in the name of expediency. What's worse, it is the very leaders who were closest to those principles that are most likely to ignore them.

But how is the ideal that caused shivers down your spine, brought a tear to your eye, and drove you to do just one more thing before going to sleep so easily replaced??

I think it happens when you hire two- and three-lettered people - JDs, PRs, MBAs. The "2-3s" are designed to manage situations by respectively telling you scary stories about what will go wrong if you admit things; telling you lies about how great you are, and assuring you about how easy it is to fool the public; and by "helping" you measure success with generally-irrelevant metrics. The 2-3s also help you forget the big picture -- the very reasons your organization exists in the first place.

The result? You've been spun.

Spin is a powerful thing - it is intended to "shape" truth into convenience: "the fish needed a new home anyway, and let's face it the floor also needed a wash." The problem happens when you start believing your own spin. Back to TFA: Education is a difficult, difficult challenge -- we spend $100s of billions on it and are still failing. Rather than admit that some of their efforts have also failed, and help others learn from their mistakes, they're forsaking their original dream -- we can make education better -- for their new mandate -- TFA must succeed at all costs. This is true for Komen, for many large corporations, and certainly in politics.

As Gary put it, “TFA spawned leaders suffer a type of arrogance and overconfidence where they completely ignore any evidence that their beliefs are flawed.  The leaders TFA has spawned are, to say this in the kindest way possible, ‘lacking wisdom.’ ”

When you start believing that your 2-3s can help you hide or spin failures and acts of stupidity, you’re in trouble. When you start believing that these things didn’t really happen, you’re an idiot. And when you start thinking you can now do no wrong, you’re sunk, for you are now without integrity.

The standard to which we hold ourselves is our greatest asset. When we are honest about our successes and failures, we show our humanity. When we are open to external scrutiny, we are worthy of other people’s trust.

prelude to discombobulation

I was reading a speech John F. Kennedy delivered in 1961 to the Canadian Parliament, and struck by this quote:

Geography has made us neighbors. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies. Those whom nature hath so joined together, let no man put asunder. What unites us is far greater than what divides us.

Over the last few months, I've been wondering whether the country President Kennedy represented still exists, whether his half of the "us" can in fact be represented as he did. Is there still a "we" in the "us" or is America no longer one country? Can the President legitimately "represent" US?

I thought the intra-American vitriol had peaked during the presidential election in 2008 - from calling candidates terrorists to questioning their birth and religious affiliation, because in the weeks that followed, it felt like we were moving back from the ridiculous to the sublime.

Wrong.

Today there is NOTHING the Republicans can do that will inspire Democrat support or approval, and vice versa. I bet if Speaker John Boehner(R) were to give money to a homeless person, Nancy (the idiot) Pelosi(D) would find a way to condemn it as a political act aimed at eliminating Federal social programs. Such is the lack of quality, maturity, and civility within the government.

The very concept of governing has lost meaning; American politicians' only goal is to win, and then raise enough money and create enough polarity to keep winning - there is no compulsion to actually do anything (serve) whilst in power, who cares about that!

Whatever "they" do, "we" have to hate and decry, even if we agree (or agreed) with it. If they do something that the electorate thinks is good, we have to spin it as misguided, anti-freedom, anti-common man, anti-jobs, or (last resort?) treasonous.

How did politics become so devoid of honor? I blame Karl Rove, who in crafting George W Bush's candidacy, saw that the only way to win was to target the religious right, prey on their fears, and make them hate, truly hate John Kerry. It was a brilliant strategy, and obviously successful. Now all politicians passionately embrace the low road.

Each side is so effective with their spin, they've erased the essential principle of democratic rule - that the wisdom of the broader electorate will attenuate the candidates' radicalism. When politics comes up at the coffee shop or at the dining table, it is easy to find "regular” people parroting either the MSNBC or Fox argument depending on their bias, and expressing the same vitriol against “them” that they hear on TV and from political talking heads.

The electorate has been manipulated, and can no longer do its job of keeping politicians honest and focused on governing.

The American government divides power among three branches so that no one agenda will or can dominate. But today the President (executive branch) largely controls his party in Congress (legislative), and with a majority in the House and Senate, is able to have his way on most things. The Supreme Court (judicial) is nine individuals with a lifetime tenure and the power to interpret laws as they choose. The current Court is comprised of five conservative and four liberal judges; many 5:4 rulings happen along "party" lines, and while the Court wishes to avoid this, it occurs more and more frequently, especially in cases where the Executives and Legislatives are also divided according to party propaganda.

If Mitt Romney wins his party's nomination (likely), and if he is able to activate the Tea Party with sufficient force to maintain the House majority and also win a Senate majority (possible), he will, with this "friendly" Supreme Court, essentially be a despot.

While he may have been (perhaps still is) more moderate than his rhetoric, he knows how to appease "them that brung him," in order to sustain majorities through the midterm elections, and then get reelected in 2016. Winning = radicalism + fear mongering.

Even within America, does the picture JFK painted still apply? Can Americans of both stripes be neighbors, friends, partners, and allies? Is there more that unites us than divides us? Or has Karl Rove put us asunder? It took a several years to foster the revulsion each feels for the other; I imagine it will take much longer to repair the rift and establish real trust. I do know that the longer we mistrust, the longer it will take to undo the damage.

Not ironically -- this rift was created by our leaders and blossomed with our assent. Not so long ago, a group of traitors wrote these words within a proclamation saying that enough is enough:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Here in the 21st century, the so-called Representatives inside the Beltway might well be worse than the despotic Brits of the 18th century.

So what will this primary and the upcoming election say about US?

Have we endured a long enough train of abuses and usurpations? Have they evinced a desire to once again establish new guards? Or will we just placidly whine about it and order another nonfat decaf half soy latte?

bondage

I spent a few weeks during December/January visiting West Africa - it was a wonderful and enlightening experience. One day while driving on a beautiful road alongside the ocean approaching Luanda (in Angola), we noted how quickly the city is growing (we were stuck in traffic, looking at tons of cranes); how much opportunity there is; and how odd it is that one of the most expensive cities to live in in the world is actually in Africa. Who would’ve thunk it!

This led us to contrast the differences in how business is done in Luanda vs the West. I recall this same phenomenon across much of the rest of Africa, in the Middle East, and some parts of Asia as well. For someone from America, business takes soooo much longer to get going, it moves at a glacial pace, and we feel totally out of the loop. It’s just plain “wrong,” and uncomfortably difficult to “manage.”

We long for the bang-bang-bang cadence so familiar in America.

Hearkening to my days in Microsoft’s HQ, there was an “indicator” that was used to measure process and progress; it doesn’t exist so much outside the West, which seems to throw many “Westerners” for a loop when they are over “there.”

Meetings.

Here in America, if you walk past a person’s office a few times and note that they’re always there and alone, you conclude they’re disconnected, ineffective, and not a team player.

This perception and the corresponding meeting-primacy-sensibility is modeled by the entire executive leadership (GMs/VPs and above) who are ALWAYS in meetings. Scheduling just 30 minutes requires at least two months’ notice - they’re that “busy.” (Doing what, I wonder?)

How much real estate might Western companies save by eliminating all the offices, and “storing” everyone in meeting rooms?? ‘Cause let’s face it, if you’re any “good,” you’re never in your office anyway.

My first job in the Middle East was for an American company. Before leaving the US, I was told that it is different "over there"; things were going to take much longer, business wasn’t going to close anywhere near quickly, and I was not be fooled, because even if progress was made in the first meeting, it wasn’t going to stick.

My first couple of meetings in the Middle East reflected this - the customer didn’t ever want to “get to it” or talk business. I kept looking at my watch, worried that our time would run out. I declined his offer of tea (not wanting to impose), and he seemed upset. My much vaunted Effective Meeting Skills were for naught. Being a good Western worker, I had another meeting scheduled right after, and had to depart abruptly, leaving an important customer with zero progress.

I reflected on this afterwards, recalling that the two customers I had met were much happier when I arrived than when I left. I also noted that “local” executives were much more available than expats, and that the locals seemed to have much lower stress levels that “we” did. Those who’d been around (particularly the locals) were much more effective despite hardly being in meetings at all, and the meetings they did have seemed mostly social and not “business,” but despite all this, their “numbers” were really good.

I reconnected with that first customer, keeping the rest of the afternoon free. We talked not at all about business, instead we drank awesome Turkish coffee and shared school and travel stories - I never once looked at my watch, instead just focused on getting to know him, and helping him get to know me. We met again a few days later, this time over food and did more of the same; we also talked about our families, and about our hopes and dreams for them.

A few days later, he invited me to his home for dinner - I was honored. I met his family, we ate amazing food and just (!) enjoyed each others company. After dinner, when the two of us were alone drinking coffee, he said this:

“Shafeen, we have gotten to know each other, you have met my family, I have learned about yours [I had no family there], and we are now brothers. We have a bond of trust, and I seek success for you just as you seek success for me.

“I also know that you’ve spent time learning my business, know what we are doing, how we are doing it, and how your company can help us do better.

“So my brother, tell me how should we do business, and let us make it so.” 

That last sentence left this unsaid: “because I know you have my best interests at heart and will only do what helps me, for we are family, and I trust you.”

An agreement was struck, hands were shaken, a partnership was forged. When stuff hit the fan, I was on it, and make sure we did right by our partner. We hardly met to check progress, etc., trust replaced that.

More than 15 years have passed, much has changed, but when he calls, I do take that call, enjoy hearing news of his family, share the same of mine. If the conversation includes a request, it will be done. Ours is not (and never was) a business affiliation, it was and is a relationship, one I hope will endure for many moons to come.

Returning to America was weird - meetings were about doing work, and most rooms had more than one clock. Process people drove the agenda, and people left with action items. “Effectiveness” was key, and a “productive” meeting was marked with dense slides, many charts, tables, follow-up activities, and, yes, the promise of more meetings. People are actually measured on how well they “show up” at meetings (not whether the business or customers were benefited, but whether they do good meetings)!!

It is said that matrixed management (still the vogue in the West) is a more efficient [I wonder if we really understand the meaning of that word] way to run a large organization. But fragmentation and zero-sum employee compensation models that come with it perpetuate mistrust among leaders and workers and across organizations. Meetings are the way to ensure your interests are protected.

Accountability, responsibility, and relationships have become corporate collateral damage.

The measurement model for most large organizations intentionally flaunts team performance for comparative individual achievement. I gain strength only if my teammates are weaker; my success requires them to fail; there is no “us.”

Driving along that road as we approached Luanda, I saw once more that the non-Western approach, while seemingly frivolous and hopelessly inefficient, created relationships and trust and built bonds of accountability that resulted in success. It is unthinkable to betray the trust of a brother or sister.

Today I live in Seattle; my work requires me to inhabit a Western business fabric. I have more meetings than I’d like, and sometimes experience a sense of sadness as I realize how little this/our culture values us as people, and how much it values what others can do for us.

I think of my times in the "3^rd world," and wonder how long it will be before we 1^st worlders finally evolve...

feckless

Tony Karon argued yesterday that Israel's 'Diplomatic Tsunami' has arrived, I think he’s right, and it got me thinking about America’s foreign policy.

From Wikipedia, “a country's foreign policy... consists of self-interest strategies chosen by the state to safeguard its national interests and to achieve its goals within international relations milieu.”

For almost a century, America has been the world’s cop, the world’s strongest economy, and even the world’s authority on morality. From protecting Korea and Taiwan in Asia, to helping Japan and Germany with their post-war economic recoveries, to leading the world in communications and high tech and entertainment, to being Israel’s doting uncle, America has been a (really “the”) dominant force in shaping the world’s behavior.

America, the President of the United States, and the American Congress were regarded, respected, and feared as the pinnacle of freedom, integrity, power, and achievement.

When “powerful” is your norm, you assume infallibility and righteousness are forever yours. The most brazen example of this is the Bush Doctrine (aka National Security Strategy of the United States) wherein the American government empowered itself to preemptively strike any entity or sovereign state that it deemed threatening.

American foreign policy is/was not so much a diplomatic process as thuggery; using either the threat of, or the actual act of military or economic retribution to impose its wishes.

Wielding brute force will go to your head; when you have this kind of power, why bother with subtlety? Why waste time on nuance and wit when you own the most powerful one-two punch (US Military, US Dollar) in history? Sure it's dominant now, but time isn’t kind to those that drink too much of their own Kool-Aid; Davids are able to find slingshots, Goliaths are vanquished.

Ten years ago today, America was the victim of a horrible and criminal act, and it reacted with force and anger, some of which was directed against its own citizens, making us a lot less free than we’ve ever been. America is a more intrusive place to live today than it was on September 10, 2001.

That same act also robbed America of its integrity, as evidenced by three words - Guantanamo, Rendition, and Torture.

The American military is without equal in “traditional” warfare; the last time they were asked to fight one of those was 21 years and 40 days ago, and they were victorious. Since then, the “enemy” has been replaced with individuals and small groups of criminals who are inhuman, without honor, and lack any national affiliation. This is a law enforcement problem, not a military one.

Using the military to counter terrorism is like using a gun to kill a mosquito. You make a fool of the weapon, create a ton of random damage, and help the foe look agile and effective. Case in point - Afghanistan, ironically the same place where Americans helped the “locals” defeat the Soviet Union. American power does exist in reality, but in the eyes of the rest of the world, it is no longer mighty, nor is it feared. The thug mind assumed that every problem could be solved with the same weapon, and that delusion made a mockery of both the thug and the weapon.

Can we at least rest on achievement?

Going back to Karon’s article, taking its cue from Uncle Sam, Israel assumed that a powerful military and self-righteousness are all that’s required to maintain the status quo; but they didn’t count on the agility and effectiveness of the mosquito, which took the form of individuals and their desire for personal freedom and justice.

They did count on Uncle S to stand with them and “prevail” on the Turks, Egyptians, and even the Palestinians to respect and honor the integrity of Israel; and of course America did stand with its favorite nephew, but regrettably, with little effect. Nations (and worse, individuals) that once cowered are no longer bowed. They listened politely, but then followed their own beliefs rather than US "advice."

Why? Because today even America’s ability to get it done is suspect - the military will leave its last two theaters of operation without victory; the economy is weak and depleted; the government prefers ideology over strategy.

What was once a majestic and imposing and relentless is tired and fading. The “assets” that America has held dear for so long, it’s military and the all-mighty dollar remain, and remain strong, but only according to the definitions of the last millennium.

While the world moved on, America chose laurels and rest.

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin’
And the first one now will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’
Bob Dylan - The Times They Are A-Changin’

These are harsh words on this sad day; but this is also a day of reflection, when we contemplate not just what was lost, but how we've changed, and what we've become. Reflection must encompass the whole image in the mirror, not just the convenient illusion. Humility always prevails over hubris.

how can you be so obtuse?

Sound familiar? It will if you've seen The Shawshank Redemption, and recall when Andy Dufresne (protagonist) finds proof of his innocence, but Warden Norton (antagonist/scumbag) dismisses it. Andy "knows" he is innocent; the warden "knows" that all criminals are guilty. We are on Andy's side, and appalled that the warden doesn't even consider the possibility of innocence. In the end, the warden is vanquished and Dufresne is free, but both remain obstinately true to their beliefs.

I was reminded of this when reading The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science - a brilliant analysis on the strength of our belief systems, and why persuasion is so difficult. Psychologists use the term cognitive dissonance to explain it - when we are faced with conflicting ideas, we "reposition" things to reduce the discomfort. Like when justifying an expensive purchase - "Sure this is an expensive car, but that's because it's well-engineered, safer, and will last so much longer than that cheap clunker you just bought - you get what you pay for."

Unprovoked, most of us are somewhat open-minded, but when pushed, we forsake reasonable for defensive and obstinate, and that leads to bad decision-making.

As American politics kicks into gear for the 2012 elections, apparently *every* politician feels pushed and under siege, and none are capable of making good decisions. The abject disinterest in governing has never been more present than during the recent debt ceiling and FAA debacles. The good of the nation is/was forsaken for the good of the Party or the individual politician.

Why? Because politics is a zero-sum game - there is only one winner. It used to be that candidates would campaign on the merits of their vision, their ideas, talk about who they were as a person, and "may the best (wo)man win." But as politics has "evolved," they've discovered that it is much easier to make your opponent(s) lose than it is to show why you should win. Rather than being the best candidate, it's about being the one with the best opposition research and counter-marketing.

Bizarrely, this new breed of politician's cognitive dissonance causes them to actually believe that integrity and good is about partisan one-upmanship and not about service and governing.

How can they be so obtuse?

On Friday Standard & Poor's lowered America's credit rating from AAA to AA+; their analysis wasn't based on numbers (i.e. is America actually a trusted investment), but rather on the politics - can Congress and the White House stop the posturing and juvenile finger-pointing, and focus on running the country?

Is this a reasonable basis for judging credit-worthiness? Will a loan officer at a bank decide to lend money to a couple based on the numbers, or on whether they keep bickering all the time? I'm sure the bickering should be a factor, but am not convinced it is the ONLY factor.

How can they be so obtuse?

Having said this, the reaction so far from both the White House and Congress is partisan drivel. The ONLY thing politicians are capable of is showing how the other side is to blame for everything that's bad, and how they are righteous and good (there is no pressure to talk about compromise, leadership or governing). If immaturity and petulance were the only factors, America should receive a rating below that of Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain - maybe closer to that of Syria or North Korea.

A strength of democracy is that the fringes are attenuated by the center; and that effective partisanship impedes government overreach. A weakness of democracy is that it is possible for enough of the electorate to be swayed in the moment, that the most fringe voices are rewarded, and the more honorable and insightful are ignored.

Today the American public is as polarized as her politicians, no-one is considering the ramifications of the downgrade or our economic state, instead we are each bent on making sure everyone knows how screwed up the other side is, and how we'd be better off if they didn't exist. This is our cognitive dissonance, founded on our deepened commitment to the votes we've cast.

How can we be so obtuse? 

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things; and no good thing ever dies." These are the last words spoken by Andy Dufresne in The Shawshank Redemption.

Does good come out of bad? I hope so. Has American been harmed enough by our politicians' failings to demand and expect more from ourselves than angry sound bytes? Not yet, but perhaps soon.

I was listening to a show on NPR asking, "What is life?" I agreed with the NASA definition - life exists when there is procreation and evolution. I was talking to a friend later about the unasked question, "What is humanity?" I think humanity exists when there is empathy and aspiration.

Survival requires community - we must have more empathy for our brothers and sisters, because the community prevails when the least among us survives and thrives. Success requires ability and desire - we must make our children more capable than we are, and we must imbue in them a desire and urgency to be greater than their parents.

Out of all that has happened recently, my hope is that we overcome our cognitive dissonance, and resurrect our humanity.

crossing lines

Over the last couple of days, a question has been bothering me - when do the ends justify the means?

I was driving home Sunday evening, and NPR was a-buzz about President Obama's impending announcement that American forces had found and killed Osama bin Laden. I watched the speech, heard the President proudly state that Mr. bin Laden had been "brought to justice," and saw the wild demonstrations in front of the White House and across the country. Americans had literally taken to the streets, were singing the national anthem, and chanting "USA, USA, USA." The coverage looked just like the demonstrations we've seen on TV of crazed Muslims the Middle East decrying America.

And I keep thinking of this rather crude joke:

A average-looking man walks into a hotel bar, sits beside a very pretty woman, and strikes up a conversation. A couple of drinks later, he asks her: "If I gave you a million dollars in cash, would you have sex with me?" She agonizes over this for several minutes and then says, "OK - let's do it." "Then how about fifty bucks for a blow job?" She slaps him, "What kind of woman do you think I am!?" she demands self-righteously. "We've already established that, now we're just negotiating."

If you draw a line in the sand and then cross it, how different are you from someone else who draws a line in a different place but also crosses it?

How different is America from Al Qaeda? Al Qaeda tortures people, attacks countries, and acts out of anger, all without accountability.

The intelligence that helped locate Mr. bin Laden came from a prisoner interrogation at Guantanamo Bay. Many are using this to justify the existence of Guantanamo, and the methods America used/uses (extraordinary rendition, enhanced interrogation, etc.). Evidence gathered in this way is not accepted in an American court of law.

American forces invaded a sovereign state without the permission of its government to conduct the raid that killed Mr. bin Laden, and yet the US Government is now accusing Pakistan of playing a "double game." Invading a country is a criminal act, how will America be held accountable for that?

The Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the American Constitution respectively give us the right to due process, and to face our accusers in a court of law. Granted these don't apply in the case of a War, but why didn't America take the extra step of capturing Mr. bin Laden alive and trying him in open court? (Had I been President, I would have wanted him captured alive, returned to his native country of Saudi Arabia, and demanded that he be tried in public court in that country, by its citizens.)

Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization that does evil things in the name of religion. Its members are criminals and must be brought to justice. They interpret a book of laws (the Quran) in a way that makes it convenient to commit acts of terror and violence. The Quran does not preach violence and anger - hundreds of millions of peaceable Muslims are proof of that. But it, like the Bible have been selectively interpreted by bad people to justify evil acts.

There is a quote that is falsely attributed to Martin Luther King Jr. but is still worth reading: ‎I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

America is a nation founded by people of integrity - its principles and laws were conceived and crafted by brilliant men who understood the power of freedom, the path to prosperity, and the fallibility of man. The Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written to guide this country towards a future different from the oppressive Britons of that time; one that would form a republic governed by the people, and guided by the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It is an incredible country, which despite its size has been pivotal in shaping the path of this entire planet for decades.

I can't help but wonder if by crossing our own line in the sand, we have turned what was a brilliant beacon of hope into a fifty dollar hooker.

this above all

Seth Godin's post today on tiny media is spot-on. It reminded me of a social media panel I sat on a couple of years ago with the two people who respectively ran John McCain and Hilary Clinton's e-campaigns in the 2007/8 primaries and general election.

Despite having polarized political views, they were totally aligned on web2.0. Paraphrasing: "Everyone needs to jump on social media and web2.0 - if you're not in, you'll be left behind. This is the cheapest and easiest way for you to get the word out - if you post a video on YouTube that doesn't work, it's OK - you didn't lose anything by trying."

My argument: "Marketing is marketing, YouTube, Twitter, newspapers, TV, radio, etc. - are just channels. If your marketing fundamentals aren't strong, you will fail. The advantage of social media is that the channels have fewer gatekeepers. The disadvantage of social media is that the channels have fewer gatekeepers. The impact of social media is that anyone has a voice, and at any point in time, any voice can rise above the fray."

Seth's point - these "tiny media" voices, unlike mainstream press or traditional advertising, are not susceptible to conventional corporate PR machines and can't be bought. While corporations might be used to buying advertising and even editorial, it is impossible to manipulate "any" voice because you have to manipulate every voice. In his words:

If you're hoping that this now important form of media is going to sit there and promote your average stuff for average people made in bulk but pretty cheap product merely because you're used to paying media companies to run ads... I think you're wasting a lot of time and money.

This goes deeper than that. You'll need to take that money and change the product and the service instead.

I agree but I don't think Seth took it far enough. More than product and service, you also have to evaluate your philosophy for the intent to deceive will out. I wrote this last fall in response to a NY Times post about Apple's voice in media:

The reason Apple dominates is that they have no interest in PR per se vs. a fundamental desire to create and achieve incredible and inspiring consumer experiences. Their integrity and authenticity in this is obvious and undisputed. While there are product hiccups (recent iPhone 4 antenna issue), they weather these by staying true to their mission vs. via a well-crafted PR strategy.

Microsoft, Google, etc. on the other hand invest in efforts whose sole or overarching purpose is to drive PR and coverage; ironically making the message the medium. I don’t believe this is authentically who they are, but it is how they act.

Their (MSFT/GOOG, etc.) target audiences and the press can smell this, and obligatorily cover them vs. wanting to be a part of their world because of their products' compelling, profound, and far-reaching implications.

Your organization's purpose is to become a trusted adviser to your customers – a powerful mission to be sure. I wonder sometimes if proactive PR helps or hinders? If your greatest and most visible business successes are measured mostly on PR metrics, you run the risk of pursuing the wrong things, and diminishing your genuine and authentic commitment to the premise that technology can help achieve profound, pervasive, and sustainable improvement.

It’s the difference between doing things that happen to be coverage worthy vs. doing things because they are coverage-worthy…

Tiny media's advantage vs. conventional PR and media: their ONLY currency is integrity and authenticity; the "conventionals" can be bought. Since the former is by definition "any" voice, you can't find it, or buy it, or manipulate it - you don't know which one(s) will surface and be heard. We are increasingly more likely to seek out and believe tiny media because we're tired of the bias and lack of discipline and integrity of conventional media (witness Fox and MSNBC) - this is why I read Yelp reviews.

For "old-school" organizations that count on their secrets remaining intact, and on owning and controlling their image, beware. If your fundamentals aren't sound, and your beliefs and practices can't stand up to external scrutiny, you will be found out. But you won't realize it until it's too late - unbeknownst to you, your own marketing and PR people and agencies are now spending more time spinning you than spinning the market.

kill skills

It's easy to get caught in a rut - the greater the risk or threat of change, the taller the walls become, the harder it is to accept new things, and worst of all, the less aware you are of your self-imposed exile.

When change occurs in a team, or they are asked to rethink their business given new market conditions, rutted people will produce a PowerPoint presentation that references new market research, extensive analysis of Twitter feeds, and select customer quotes that proving that strategy X is exactly what's needed to achieve success.

X is of course the current mission restated with a new team name, new logo, renamed programs, and one or two tweaks that come with incremental budget requests - PowerPoint lipstick on the status quo pig. They will also revamp their "scorecard" with additional rows to reflect the tweaks, and of course the team leader will require a business manager to manage the growing "burden" of command.

Does this sound familiar? Have you looked back after a couple of years of genuinely hard work to see what was really accomplished? There will have been a TON of "busy" results that can be documented in scorecards and spreadsheets (thanks to the now entrenched business manager), but how have you helped the business?

In consulting with organizations, the first question I ask is, "What is your why?" Once we are clear on why you exist, figuring out how you will get there and what you will do are easy. This is a difficult discussion because even CEOs are in a rut of busy work that is assumed to be of value, but rarely mapped back to the why. I wrote a few weeks ago about an organization I knew with ~90,000 employees, and my belief that they could achieve the same results with 30,000 people. One reason is this organization has misplaced its why; there are many brilliant people who are accomplishing amazing things that have little or no contribution to the business and have nothing to do with their why. In fact, I bet fewer than 30,000 could accurately state their why.

The reason clients resist the why discussion is because it leads to evaluating every investment (the whats) vis-à-vis its contribution to why. Many of the investments were created for good reason, but do those reasons exist today? If the what is still meaningful, then its contribution to why must be clear; if it isn't, then why are we still doing it?

Whenever something new comes along (especially in large organizations), if there is an openness to try it, it will never come at the expense of something old. "Without incremental resources or funds, fugedaboutit!"

What just happened? The organization chose NOT to make a difficult decision. "This new what is great, it can and will help us achieve our why. Which of our current what(s) should we kill to do this?" The text in red creates tension, angst, the killing of sacred cows, and a lot of hand wringing and unhappiness, and that is always difficult.

The reason organizations fall into ruts, the greatest impediment to good business is an inability and unwillingness to confront every (existing and new) what with why? Rationalizing ruts is easy; making difficult trade-offs is not. The more you rationalize, the more ingrained your siege mentality; this mistrust makes you think you can't be dependent on "them," thus justifying redundant what's in your portfolio. This balloons rapidly - contributing to the 60,000 excess employees in the example above.

Leadership is not just about the salary, stock options and the big office. If you can't make tough decisions, you are not a leader; the skill to kill investments that don't contribute enough to the why is a fundamental criterion of leadership.

the greater bad

Have you ever told a white lie? I have, many times. We tell them because it's convenient or more tactful than the truth, thinking that serves a greater good.

Saying those trousers don't make you look fat is one thing; claiming that we should invade a country because there is incontrovertible proof (a lie) that they have weapons of mass destruction is an altogether different thing.

Or is it? In both cases the truth was stretched; the consequences (they do look fat vs. thousands dead, $billions wasted) were ignored; and the liars weren't held accountable.

Where should we draw the line? When is it polite or forgivable vs. unethical? Most of us push personal limits, but rarely legal ones - the threat of being caught and the possibility of harming someone prevents me from speeding excessively. What constrains governments?

In democracies policing the government is the job of the opposition party(ies) and voters, though recent history hasn't shown either to be effective. Freedom of the Press is a constitutional safeguard, but most journalists work for news media owned by large corporations (=bias), and others (liberal MSNBC, conservative FOX) are excessively partisan. Plus let's face it, they're not motivated to find truth as much as they are to get elected or draw eyeballs.

Our governments (America, Britain, Sweden, etc.) are conspiring to undermine and attack organizations like Wikileaks, and many are rising up against the government to "fix them." Read for example John Pilger's speech at a recent Sydney Town Hall meeting, where he implores the ~2,000 people that attended to rise up and demand change. Will they succeed?

The ethos of government is integrity, it achieves sustainability through accountability, and its strength comes from transparency. The authors of the American Constitution and the Magna Carta believed this, but time hasn't been kind to our leaders.

Rather than aiming for the greater good, our governments are bent on sweeping their bad acts under the rug. Democratic governments come into power through a process of lies and exaggerations (aka elections); and from that beginning, they have no precedent on where to draw the line once in power. We citizens are so drawn to the political rhetoric that we forgive current and prior bad acts and vote the liars back into power!

Look at China's alternate fuel (vs. oil & coal) investments - they are NOT interested in climate change or reducing greenhouse gasses; they are simply uncomfortable being dependent on foreigners for something so critical as power. Their motivation is energy independence and market advantage; any climate change impact is a pleasant but uncritical byproduct.

There is no greater good, there is only what's good for the government of China, or America, or whomever.

It's naive to think that politicians will suddenly develop morality. Politicians are designed to self-aggrandize, grandstand, and win elections. Serving constituents is a pleasant but uncritical byproduct. Political ethos is tied directly to ego and a compass that points to power and reelection.

Voters are no different - we're self-centered as well. Whatever the situation, most of us will first figure out how it helps or hinders us, and then (if at all) consider societal consequences. We therefore "reward" the politicians that we believe will help us most, or more specifically, help us most right now.

Our elected officials have been conditioned (by the voters) to tell us only what we want to hear, whether that's a promise or a threat (or a lie). We apparently don't care about truth, we're just looking for a good pandering.

Shame on us - the burden of citizenship and the right to vote is enormous and not to be taken lightly. No wonder our leaders routinely aim at the greater bad... we ask them to.

clarity

"You've got mail" was in the vernacular 15 years ago, there was even a movie that used this now quaint Aol phrase. Such was Aol's strength and place in the market that they were able to strike the largest business deal to-date in buying Time Warner in 2000 for $182 billion. Aol's core business was (and still is) dial-up Internet access. They peaked in 2003 with 26.7 million subscribers; today that number is 3.85 million, with earnings of $1.02 billion (and $1.28 billion from advertising) in their last fiscal year. Both were 26% lower than the prior year, despite averaging 112 million visitors/month. Revenues have fallen by 25% for the last three quarters of this fiscal.

With desperation come bad decisions. Aol recently bought TechCrunch for $25m and then Huffington Post for $315 million in the belief that content is the light at the end of their tunnel.

On the same day I learned of the Huffington purchase, I read this fascinating survey whose title says it all: "Executives Say They're Pulled in Too Many Directions and That Their Company's Capabilities Don't Support Their Strategy." My gut response to these executives is: "then you're clearly not worthy, do us a favor and quit."

64% of these "executives" complained that they have too many conflicting priorities; 52% don't feel their strategy will lead to success; and a whopping 66% admit their organization does not have the capability to be successful.

To run an organization, you must have a clear vision; be relentless (dare I say - single-minded) in pursuing it; and you must have the capacity to ensure success. If you can't do these things, you are not a leader - you're at best a mid-level bureaucrat who needs a manual to figure out where the toilet is (and perhaps what to do while there).

In my last post I talked about how team trumps the individual, how success requires a cohesive team focused on the end goal and not individual glory. Executives bent on personal accomplishment to "rise" above their peers create random strategies and priorities aimed only at making them look good.

In the end, these organizations are doomed to fail, they favor spurious action over well-thought-out plans, they jump on random bandwagons, and they don't create a community with a common purpose, where people are valued and team success is rewarded.

What does this have to do with Aol? First:

1. Dial-up - what market segments use dial-up today? I’m guessing it's people who have decided they're too old to change, can't afford to change, or have no interest in change because it's not worth it to them.
2. Advertising - the fact that Aol's ad revenue is falling at exactly the same pace as their subscriber revenue means that most of their traffic comes from their subscribers, and they're doing nothing to hold on to, or expand either.
3. TechCrunch/Huffington Post - including DMG from the link in #1 above (a must read), you might not need all the fingers on one hand to count the number of TechCrunch (nerds) and Huffington (liberals) readers who prefer and use dial-up.
4. I'm willing to bet that Arianna Huffington only sold the Post because she's been promised the CEO-ship of Aol in the next 12-18 months.

Second – one of the most interesting demographics for advertisers is older people; now that baby boomers are retiring by the thousands every day, there’s a lot of $$ available to companies that have access to these very lucrative audiences. Aol's 112 million visitors/month are probably closer to this segment than any other, but have minimal overlap with either the nerds or the liberals.

If Aol has a core competency, it is in provisioning dial-up access and advertising to their subscriber base. Why not buy a cheap broadband ISP that they can use to convert (and maybe even grow) their subscriber base, and focus on delivering (vs. acquiring) content that is meaningful to the customers they already serve?

Tim Armstrong, their CEO was President of Google Americas (US & Canadian ad sales) prior to Aol; there is no doubt that he knows the Internet ad business and how to run a sales organization. He will leave Aol soon, having added M&A to his portfolio.

But sales (and M&A) by its very nature is not a team sport - for you to win, others must lose. Is Tim forging a path for Aol's success or his own?

make tweets not war

I'm a pacifist - I don't believe that civilized people or societies ought to kill. I'm not saying you don't defend yourself, what I am saying is that killing and war perpetuate killing and war.

Take the situations in Tunisia and Egypt today - these are largely peaceful actions (the protesters in Egypt are actually searching fellow protesters for weapons to ensure this!), where the people in interest of self-determinism are asking their current leaders to step aside in favor of a new, populist government. Americans know this all too well, for this is how the US was founded. Democracy at its best.

Contrast this to Western attempts to impose democracy on Iraq and Afghanistan by invading these countries, killing soldiers and civilians alike; destroying lives, property and infrastructure; perpetrating corruption on a massive scale; and installing ineffective, destructive, corrupt and lawless governments.

Lest we forget, this has cost Western citizens $TRILLIONs and achieved nothing. The two countries are more violent, anarchy reigns, and the terrorists are stronger and better funded.

We can hope that as with America in the 1770s, Tunisia and Egypt will emerge as sustainable, vibrant, pluralist, democracies, simply because their motivation to change came from within. We can hope that their actions will lead other countries around the world to embrace a similar path to peacefully oust oppressive leaders in favor of government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Rarely if ever does imposed rule prevail over self-imposed rule. In Tunisia and Egypt, the most powerful weapons used were Facebook and Twitter, the military stood by and watched. Imagine the outcome if these had been weaponized protests - more deaths, military suppression leading to Martial Law and more deaths.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution says that A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This is generally interpreted to mean, "we never want to be controlled by other nations or their armies - we have the right to create our own military to ensure our security." I couldn't agree more.

Oddly, many interpret the Second Amendment as an imperative to bear arms, where every American must be weaponized to ensure freedom and peace. It is this ethos that led to the many wars America has unilaterally declared on everything from drugs to terror to sovereign nations. It is this same ethos that has made the NRA such a strong political force in this country, and that created SCCC - Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (formed after the April 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech University), boasting over 42,000 members and chapters on > 350 campuses across America.

Civilized behavior requires that we exercise judgment, that we think and then act, and that we choose paths that lead to better than worse outcomes. Humans are not (yet) civilized - how often have you reacted without thinking? How often have you followed the crowd in a frenzy of emotion? Have you ever regretted things you have done as a result? Take a look at this video of a 15-year-old burglary suspect being assaulted by police officers in Houston, Texas. I bet these officers deeply regret their actions.

Houston police officers are carefully screened, evaluated, tested (polygraph, drugs, etc.), and trained for one full year (6 months each in the Academy and on the job), before being "given a badge." And yet they were unable to control their actions in this, a situation where they were not in danger (actual or perceived), and where they outnumbered the suspect 8:1. According to the SCCC, to carry a concealed weapon in Texas, you must be 21 or older, not have had trouble with the law, be of sound mind, attend 10-15 hours of training, pass a written test, and successfully shoot 50 rounds at the gun range.

I'm thinking back to how "civilized" I was at 21, or how much I retained from my driver's education classes (about 15 hours in class), and whether I might be suited to carrying a concealed weapon in the name of "personal protection"??

One of the rights of being an American citizen is that you get to vote; the 2008 national elections enjoyed the highest voter turnout since 1968 - 56.8%. This means that 43.2% of eligible voters chose not to participate, and yet there are five Constitutional Amendments + the Constitution itself that expand voting rights!!

Just because you can do a thing doesn't mean that you should. "Shoot first, ask questions later" is not the mantra of a society aspiring to be civilized.

real service

During elections, candidates will tell you that their primary motivation for entering politics is to serve. They are called to a higher purpose, and wish to devote their time and energy to public service. Hmmm... I'm thinking "No..."

Paul Krugman's latest OpEd suggests that the only motivation Republicans have is to benefit wealthy people at the expense of the poor. Krugman thinks the new Republican House is bending their own rules to repeal the Health Care Reform Bill "because it would cover the uninsured — and that’s something they just don’t want to do."

In the wake of the killing spree in Arizona, Democrats also feasted on the militaristic attitude of Republican campaign tactics aimed at stirring their base into a frenzy of fear and anger and frenetic action at the thought of a Democratic leadership. This story was almost as big as the actual shooting - "political rhetoric caused that idiot to arm himself and shoot people." Of course the Dems sought to mark the Republicans as the instigators. For shame!

Both sides are seeking to paint their opponents as evil, misguided fools, ostensibly in the hopes of getting them to see the truth, and come around.

But I think we're being naive - Democrats and Republicans exist neither to create a gay loving, baby-killing Socialist state, nor to create a redneck, gun-toting military state. They simply wish to win; to beat the other party and win.

It turns out governing is almost like the tax they have to pay for winning. I used to wonder how politicians ever work together following campaigns that have so much vitriol. Imagine for a minute that Sarah Palin had run for Congress in 2010, and been voted Speaker of the House -- how might she have "partnered" with Nancy Pelosi to create a bi-partisan Congress? To steal a quote from one of the best movies of all time, "Inconceivable!"

Hence the benignly-titled "H.R. 2: Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act." It aims to paint the opponent as "job killers" in the lead up to the 2012 election. It isn't about governing or improving health care, or even about creating jobs, it serves only to position one side as job creators and rescuers of the American worker, and the other side as misguided wrong-doers. A good marketing strategy at least.

Surely not all politicians are bereft of the desire to truly serve? Will voters ever prefer a genuine commitment to representing the electorate? Will there come a point in our future when people look back on idiots like Palin and Pelosi and wonder what the hell we were thinking?

Survival (or getting reelected) is the basest of motivations - the system requires politicians to be in constant campaign mode or they die. We live in a very connected world; to rise above the noise and become the preferred candidate, you need to raise and then spend a ton of money promoting yourself and de-positioning your opponent. The economics make actual governing an afterthought.

Can we fix this? What if we limit the President, Senate and Congress to only ONE term, and also ban private campaign spending. Each candidate gets a fixed amount of public money to spend on their election. This might make a difference, but it doesn't eliminate the D vs. R vitriol.

What does? The real problem is not the candidates, it is the electorate. They choose not to engage, hold their representatives accountable, or take the act of voting seriously. Until the right to vote is not given but earned, it will be squandered, and the voters will continue to suffer.

anger

Does it feel like the world is angrier today than ever before? Perhaps it's just that communication is so easy, that every action (more often every bad action) in the world is made more visible. But I think it's more than that.

A 22-year-old man shot a Congresswoman in Arizona. There are violent clashes in the Sudan during a referendum that will decide whether the country should be split in half. A few days ago, Salman Taseer, the Governor of Punjab, Pakistan was assassinated; his death was celebrated by a segment of the country that decried his moderate views. The assassin was showered with rose petals and garlands during his appearance before the court. What provokes all this anger?

Extremism exists in every community - that's reality. The "edges" have historically not been as visible to the middle, but the media in their relentless quest for shock-journalism are changing that. Once they become visible, it's much easier for the edges to collect fellow extremists, and wannabe extremists with the tools the Internet makes available.

What were scattered, random, disconnected micro-freaks are finally able to coalesce into much larger, more coherent, better funded, and very real threats to the mainstream. Of course the media will now shower ever more attention on these now macro-freaks, and in doing so, legitimize them (can you say, "Joe the Plumber"???). This is when things get scary.

Being legitimized means that you are accepted as part of the zeitgeist - you are now acculturated, and scarily you are a "respected" force. Look at Moktada al-Sadr who recently returned to Iraq from exile - originally a cleric in a small town, he became political by weaponizing his community, and inciting them to resist. He became a force when CNN and the US Army began to pay attention to him, and this enabled him to recruit more micro-freaks to the point where he went macro.

The scariest part is when a mainstream player decides that to become even more "main," they must incite the fervent and freakish edges to their cause, thus expanding their base with people more driven to act (donate, vote, rock the vote, etc.). Frenzy is currency is politics - the ability to drive your constituents into a frenzy is considered a good thing (for any party); it is defined as:A state of violent mental agitation or wild excitement; temporary madness or delirium; a mania; a craze. Is it hard to picture violent acts resulting from this? If you can drive your constituents into a frenzy against your opponent, your chances of winning have gone up significantly. Honor and being honorable are seen as weakness.

Going back to the Arizona case, the same NY Times article talks about how Sarah Palin's Facebook page contained a map where every "enemy of Palindom" was identified with cross hairs. It's interesting that she just chose to take this down now, in the wake of the Arizona shooting (the Congresswoman is one of the "targets" she identified). Is that an admission of guilt?

I wrote a post after the US Midterm elections last November questioning whether Democracy is simply the lesser evil, and that there must be a better form of government that is at once both pluralistic and of integrity.

No doubt there are horrific examples of wanton violence in non-democratic states around the world, and when they occur, the "voting" countries all rise up to condemn them. And yet more and more we see horrible acts of violence in the name of winning elections in democratic countries, yet no-one rises up to question that.

Campaigning and then governing based on anger is no different than despotism and fascism when it comes to the price exacted on humanity and integrity. In fact, the advantage with despots and fascists is at least you know what's coming and can, to an extent, steel yourself. With democracy acts of anger are random and spurious, and always catch you by surprise and unprepared.

Until politicians (and voters) can agree that winning with integrity is preferred to winning at all costs, acts of anger will occur even more frequently - this isn't the last time a 9 year old girl will be killed by politics.

goog-up

If money is the ONLY reason someone is working for you, do you really want them in any kind of role, much less a “mission-critical” one? Aren't they then really a vendor/ consultant vs. an FTE?

When you start a company, everyone is connected to the vision, shares the passion, and is there with you to create something great. When you're small enough and young enough, this common thread amongst all employees is intrinsic, and management is almost not necessary. As you grow, you must create the conditions that naturally attract those that must work with you, and repel those that shouldn't; your values and integrity must be intrinsic and permeate the whole company. This is the best of management.

I recently wrote about how I thought Google might implement a growth strategy that would be more in keeping with its original premise and the ethos of its founders. Over the last five years, they've grown more than seven (7) times in revenue, and their employee base has grown almost five (5) times to 23,000+.

Impressive! There is no arguing their success in advertising, email services, video provisioning and of course search, and there is no arguing their competence in these.

Sadly, success has a price (especially for American companies that wish to play in Europe, and eventually other regions); but it can be avoided. They have to be open to growing by becoming smaller, recognizing that spinning off little "Googlets" can enable both the organization and its people to progress and achieve; and they have to be committed to great management.

When Brin and Page (Google founders) wanted to hire a CEO, they needed someone who spoke their language, that had chewed the same dirt that they had; otherwise they wouldn't be able to relate to, or trust him. They found Eric Schmidt, a fellow-nerd. Of course there are other critical functions (HR, PR, facilities, etc.), but they were viewed by the nerd collective as "non-core," nothing more than corporate overhead, and there was less focus on hiring in these areas.

In some high-tech companies, HR/Operations, etc. are roles where executives are relegated (penalty box), or where "core" people are assigned because there are no other (real) senior openings. Since these roles are "different" and aren't valued (or understood), there is a tendency to not only not pay for, but mistrust really capable outsiders; so if at all, these roles are filled with inadequate leaders. You can't be cavalier about any management role.

Now we read that Google is struggling to retain their employees (ConnectCV, NY Times), and the risks of not caring about "non-core" things like effective management surface. I'm singling Google out, but this is true of most (all?) high-tech companies. When asked about their recent brain drain, Schmidt's response was "the company’s attrition rate for people it wished would stay has been constant for seven years."

My interpretation: "We think of our people as numbers and don't regard or value them as individuals with unique abilities, gifts and interests. Our numbers are consistent; we don't suck any more than we used to, and we don't see a need to change." What do you think that response says to the 23,000 people that stayed behind and still work for Google?

This answer was not crafted by anyone that cares about the people of Google, it was written by a PR person whose job is to spin a story and control the message. It speaks volumes that Schmidt was quoted saying this. Alas - most high-tech leaders blindly parrot PR/HR talking points.

If it were me: "Of course it hurts when people like Lars or Matthew leave - they are amazing and talented, and this is our loss. But I am excited about people like XXX and YYY who are doing fantastic things; and we just recruited ZZZ and QQQ who are brilliant and passionate, and already making a difference. Our strength is that no one person is Google; together all of us are Google. I wish Lars, Matthew and everyone else who has worked at Google the very best in their futures; we are proud of the fact that Google 'graduates' are sought after by other companies; it's a compliment to the great people who work at Google now, and we are honored that they chose to spend time here and make a difference with us."

A statement like this must be a genuine reflection of management's philosophy and approach. When senior executives companies so obviously feign knowledge of their own products and customers, or worse knowledge of their employees or interest in their well-being, it's time to short the company.

Google recently gave all 23,000 employees a 10% raise; from the NY Times article: "The motivation was, in part, the “war for talent,” Mr. Schmidt said. People who have other job offers have been persuaded to stay with seven-figure bonuses. Google says 80 percent of people who get a counteroffer stay put."

The interpretation is either "Doh! We suddenly realized you're underpaid!", or "When we learn that you're not happy, the only thing we can think to do is buy your loyalty." Neither is a message I want to share with current/future employees or investors. What kind of people does this say Google is recruiting? Those bent on creating profound impact, or those just looking to make a buck?

Goog-ups (high-tech screw-ups) happen when you grow to a certain size (when leaders no longer personally know all the employees), but because you're still "small" (~250 employees), you feel that it's "frivolous" to burn valuable FTEs on mere people management. Here is my corollary to the Mythical Man-Month - a well-run and well-managed company is much more sustainable and likely to succeed than one that is lean but un- or badly-managed.

Goog-ups only value "core" skills. Everything else isn't just overhead, it's commodity. Or in the old IBM parlance, plug-compatible - anyone can fill those roles, and they're utterly replaceable. A mature player sees and appreciates the whole chess or Go board, and plays the whole board, not just that one pawn or stone.

According to a Feb ‘09 survey, the top three reasons employees stay are: good relationship with co-workers; job security; and desirable commute. The top three reasons for leaving are inadequate compensation; inadequate professional development opportunity; and insufficient recognition. High tech compensation is already excellent, but rather than focusing on why people stay, and optimizing for that, most obsess only with why people leave. Addressing the latter is about sucking less. Addressing the former is about being the place people would work for free. Which would you prefer? Which is more sustainable?

A well-run company has the maturity to look at the whole board, and plays not just to win today, but to keep winning always.

reinforcement

How do we regard and celebrate good behavior? What are our expectations of people and how do we help reinforce what we want?

What would have happened during the 1992 Democratic Primary if Bill Clinton had said: "You know, while I'm devoted to my wife, I view sex as something altogether different. My wife and I have an arrangement, I do and will have other women in my life, but that in no way compromises my leadership."?

He would not have won the Democratic Primary, he would not have been President, but he would have been truthful (something we presumably value). Clinton is not the only politician to have ever strayed; one might argue that faithful politicians are the outliers. Do voters want to know about these affairs? Or would they prefer to assume goodness, hope the infidelity stays hidden, and then be self-righteous if it comes to light.

Of course infidelity is not particular to politics; it happens in sports, religion, business, and in everyday life. Despite this, "customers" - fans, congregants, employees, media, partners, friends, etc. - are always shocked at the behavior, wonder what mysterious and diabolical circumstances contrived to make it so, and wonder why these people are unable to "control" themselves?

What's more, by turning a blind eye to any one "bad" behavior, are we not tacitly sanctioning them all? Having "gotten away" with the fidelity lie, is it any wonder that President Clinton claimed not to have inhaled? Sure eyes rolled at that, but in the end, there was no accountability for either smoking pot (not that that really matters) or lying about it. There are many other peccadilloes that human nature says are within us, yet we persist in expecting people to transcend their genes.

Taking this to the next step, if we expect and forgive lies, surely we can't expect the lies to be limited to meaningless acts like smoking pot or having an Oval Office "O"? What else might a dishonest President lie about??? Are we ready to accept that?

In the business world, a smart company will under-promise and over-deliver. They do this knowing the value of setting clear expectations and the cost of failing to meet them. If the company develops a reputation for always achieving or exceeding expectations, they know that that currency is worth something - it could be a premium at the point of purchase or market value or even more critical, customer retention and loyalty. Equally, a smart company will not make a promise it can't keep. They will not set an expectation knowing that they can't meet it. This is good business. In both cases, the rewards are clear and the company benefits in the long run.

Facing your truth and setting the right expectations is what we should all aim to do; but our society doesn't want this; it prefers the illusion over reality. Look at Enron or Bernie Madoff or every too-good-to-be-true diet program, and the fact that people will flock to the next Enron or Madoff or diet pill to know that we prefer to gamble on goodness or outlandish promises despite the history or the massive odds against success, believing that this time we will buck the odds and find the one honest politician, or win the lottery. Either way, we mostly end up disappointed. And because we keep coming back for more, there is no shortage of predators creating "disappointment opportunities."

I think this phenomenon contributes to the downward morals/ethics/behavioral spiral. In the old days, we lived in (and were known within) communities. The community - your neighbors and friends and family helped ensure a broader ethos using both active and passive reinforcement; we don't have that today.

Instead the precepts of society and the canon of law expect us to fail; they spend all their energy anticipating and policing these (potential) failures, and publicly "recognizing" the miscreants with trials and the like. So what behavior is modeled for impressionable minds???

Are there societal examples where good behavior is rewarded (i.e. "Congratulations!! You get a free petrol/gas coupon because you adhered to the speed limits!")? I can think of two - first where good students or talented athletes (or both) are able to get scholarships to reduce higher education costs, and second, reduced prison sentences for good behavior.

So other than helping convicted felons reenter society early (a rather ironic incentive), when does society actively reward positive behavior? I did a quick search to see what I could find, take a look for yourself - it's not pretty.

Isn't it a shame that there's so little we do to reward ourselves when we've achieved more than expected? If human nature is so filled with "vices," why shouldn't Clinton have gotten some kind of reward for being honest and admitting that he's a horny old man, but still a good leader?

Instinctively, most parents (or pet owners) know that positive reinforcement leads to better (and more sustained) behavior in children or young animals than negative reinforcement. Why do we flip that as we become adults? Science tells us there is a big difference between telling someone "Don't forget to pay the rent" and "Remember to pay the rent." The parts in bold are the most likely outcome.

It is this simple - we must expect more of ourselves, and we must encourage others to do the same; we can do this by taking the energy we invest in finding and showcasing failure, and putting it into rewarding success.

unjust disparity

Bob Herbert wrote A Sin and a Shame in the NY Times, where he argues that over the last several years, corporations have used the "desperate times call for desperate measures" sentiment to lay people off, even when their economic situation didn't really require that dramatic a reduction in workforce.

The "surviving" employees feel they have to double down and work much, much harder to keep their jobs. The result is even more profitable corporations (profits up $572 billion, payrolls down $122 billion), whose cash positions have improved (now $1.84 trillion, a 27% increase from 2007) dramatically, and an employee base stressed to the limit.

Here's the real killer - from Q4-2007 to Q4-2009, real GDP fell by 2.5% while payroll fell by 6%. This is big.

Two questions:

1. Why is this bad? Is it wrong for corporations to be as lean as possible, to have their employees be as productive as possible, and of course to be as profitable as possible? Isn't this how we judge corporate performance?
   
2. How will this end? Will they relent, reduce profitability, hire back, and expect less? Will people grow to love the idea of being this productive and want to keep it going? Is people's ability to contribute at such a high level sustainable?

Nowhere are desperate times more felt than in the home. It's not as difficult for a company to lay someone off as it is for that person to actually be laid off. For the company it's simply a numeric exercise; for the employee it's about a roof over their head and food on the table. So how do the employees react?

Things don't suddenly hit the fan; there is a lead up that gets to the point when people, despite the risk, say "Enough." It is at this point that revolutions are born, that causes are formed, that the Man is made to pucker.

As the unjust disparity grows, the people's desire to hold on to the status quo shrinks to the point where what was once unthinkable becomes thinkable.

Unjust disparity is the gap between being controlled and being in control. [I just made this up, and I'm sure there are other more "official" terms for it, but this is mine. So there. :-)]

This is not about wealth vs. not-wealth - there is tolerance for this, especially now (with sports and music) that so many once-poor people have struck gold. It's about hitting some kind of personal limit. This is about a more fundamental, and intentionally-created inequity. I'm reminded of the first time I heard Meat Loaf sing I'd Do Anything For Love (But I Won't Do That) (my emphasis); coming from a man who called himself "Meat Loaf," that seemed like quite the repugnant thing.

To the two questions above, corporations must be successful it's what their shareholders expect; the issue is their ability to sustain it. What the leadership does to achieve that is the that that will damage organizations that choose corporate bulimia (purging employees) as an effective strategy.

Of course there are moments in business when extreme effort is required, but they are moments, not months, and they are not sustainable. Greed combined with corporate myopia will take the productivity peak achieved in crunch time and turn it into the worst kind of backlash. There is a progression:

1. Those that can't handle the stress begin to fall over or leave
2. Those that can handle the stress, but have a sense of moral purpose and the knowledge that they are employable (even in tough times) begin to leave
3. Future stars that are now forced to pick up the slack of the current top talent (#2)'s departure begin to leave (this is disaster)
4. It goes on...

Smart organizations are actively recruiting disaffected #2s, and one of their selling points is that they won't do that. They are also networking with #3s, knowing that they are much more fickle and open to change. This is not good for those that did do that.

Organizations where HR/Legal/PR rule, where there is a feeling of soullessness, and where management has no empathy or visceral understanding of how the employees feel, will suffer. Their management is so reliant on reports and analysis and McKinsey-type presentations, that they view their people as things, and have little or no sense of what's really going on, be it within their walls, or in the minds of their customers. Good leaders don't allow knowledge to be filtered; they most certainly want to be connected to their people and their customers. Those that claim that it's not possible to manage without the filters are the ones the Board needs to replace.

The unjust disparity is never more clear than when we choose the company over the individual. You can't sustain success when it comes before those that create it.

standard deviance

"The idea that you are a faceless cog in a benevolent system that cares about you and can't tell particularly whether you are worth a day's pay or not, is, like it or not, over." So wrote Seth Godin a few days ago.

There's a lot in this - and not just about work. We are, each and every one of us, unique. The way we look, the way we think, the way we dress, the way we work, the way we play - we are unique.

At first, I wondered if this was something that we did to ourselves - do we each need the comfort of being a cog because standing out makes us uneasy? Or are there other forces at play? (And if there are, how long have they been "playing" with us?)

In my limited experience, most parents of young children look to correlate their child's progress to published norms. They want to make sure s/he is at the right percentile physically, behaviorally, and intellectually. They may want their child to be at the "upper" end of the scale, but "normal" is just fine. Even the doctor's goal is to map every child to an expected norm.

Once in school, the measures become more tangible since we explicitly assess performance vs. set of pre-defined standards/expectations. We should of course note that these standards most closely resemble the management structure that Henry Ford implemented to build his Model T with one notable and evil addition.

Success for Ford was setting a standard of consistent, prolific production - millions of cars, all identical in quality, capability and performance. At that same time, kids were "institutionalized" to both manage the child labor problem and create lots of future factory workers. The schools adopted a similar approach to standards, with the shared goal of burping out millions of children, all identical and drone-like in knowledge and skill.

As factories have become a smaller and smaller part of the employment base, the need for hoards of similarly-skilled workers has also fallen. Whilst "they" do pay lip service to the idea that each child is unique and must be treated in accordance with their specific needs, capabilities and potential, actions speak louder than words. And just as in the 19th century, schools continue to have one standard, one set of assessments, one curriculum, and one teaching approach.

Even the latest "innovations" in learning embrace this idea of normed achievement. You might know that Common Core Standards were published on June 1 (2010), and have been heralded as a tremendous step forward for American education. As ever, success according to "them" is about burping out hoards of like-minded and like-abled drones. The only thing that's changed is type of drone. How sad.

The evil addition? The Bell Curve. In an attempt to patch the genericness, many schools (still) grade on a curve so they can normalize the results and create an achievement blend (say 20% great, 70% average, 10% poor).

In essence, we're assuming that everyone contributes (and must contribute) in an equal way - that there is only one meaningful measure of attainment as a student, and that nothing else matters. If a student doesn't measure up, it's the student's failing, and like at Henry Ford's plant, those cars don't graduate to the showroom. But unlike Ford (and this is the evil part), the curve implies that we can only have so much greatness; the rest of you are (whether you are or not), normal or failing.

Ironically, this implicitly limits a school's ability to graduate more than the specified number of great students, or less than the specified number of failing students!

As Seth pointed out, norming doesn't end when students graduate. The world of work is also normed - from recruiting to training ("on-boarding") to performance management - most organizations operate on the basis that all employees in a given level or role stratum are essentially equal; their contribution should be compared relatively, and they should be graded on a curve (a zero-sum game).

In each instance, we've bizarrely ignored our real and true instincts. When a child is born, it is (and forever will be) the most beautiful person their parents know. Their light will shine above all others, and remain brightest ...forever. When a parent looks at their child in school, some part of them has to want them to be the best, perhaps not the best of all, but certainly the best of themselves.

Surely every teacher, every principal, every minister of education wishes their education system to be the best, that it not be limited by any norm, but rather perform with excellence and graduate brilliant students. Surely there's no such thing as a good (and successful) business leader who aspires to not suck, or to not lose, or to be average, or not rise above the fray?

So if these leaders all expect the best of themselves and their organizations, how do they justify embracing standards that require the people they serve or the people they employ to be merely average? Seth is urging us to rebel against the system, to proclaim individuality in the face of facelessness. 

Bravo.