Obama’s Muslim-Flavored Foreign Policy

He has fed and nurtured the “Arab Spring.” It was his baby. The United Nations, led by a US bombing campaign, overthrew the government of Muammar Khaddafi in Libya first. Then Obama threw Hosni Mubarak, who had been a staunch US ally for more than 30 years, under the bus. Not satisfied with this, he skirted the review of Congress and issued an Executive Order to release $1.5 billion in foreign aid to prop up the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. This same group swore Islamic jihad against the US in October 2010. They never issued a retraction. In August 2012 they issued a fatwa allowing the killing of anyone who protests against Mohammed Morsi (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/08/egypt-muslim-cleric-issues-fatwa-permitting-the-murder-of-demonstrators-against-muslim-brotherhood-p.html). I guess this is Obama’s idea of democracy. It kind of fits with his shielding of birth certificates, sealing college transcripts, having dissenters blocked from websites, etc. Obama’s new vision for America.

During the 9/11 remembrance yesterday, both Libya and Egypt attacked the Embassies of the United States and tried to raise Al Qaeda flags instead of the Stars and Stripes. In Libya they killed the US Ambassador Christopher Stevens dragging his body through the streets of Benghazi. Obama’s first instinct was to be Apologizer-in-Chief: “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims—as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions” (http://madisonproject.com/2012/09/obama-apologizes-to-islamists-on-september-11/).  For someone who prides himself on being a constitutional attorney, I think Obama needs to go back and review the classes he took on the First Amendment. That amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Whether people are offended or not, people in the United States have a right to poke fun or rail at any topic they like. It may be out of bounds, it may be in poor taste, the content may reflect poor citizenship, it might be outright offensive, but in this country we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The US is not a banana republic, and, do I need to remind President Obama, it is also not a dictatorship.  The representative of this country needs to be explaining democracy … not kowtowing to terrorists.

During the Democratic National Convention, Obama in his typically arrogant fashion was deriding Mitt Romney’s foreign policy experience. He focused on his gaffes prior to the Olympics for upsetting the British press. But let’s consider Obama’s record. Just these two nations, Egypt and Libya, have become Islamic fundamentalist since Obama played a key role in funding and overthrowing the governments. Turning his back on Mubarak has angered Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), two other key US allies in the Middle East. His icy relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is notorious. Obama claims to be a staunch supporter of Israel, but it is clear that Netanyahu is keeping his congressional ties current because the relationship is not even cordial. I think most Americans realize that if there was a choice to be made between Israel and the Muslims … Obama would side with the Muslims. Which raises an interesting point: Israel and the United States have always had a symbiotic relationship. Most of the American voting public, Jewish Americans, Christians, military veterans, etc., would back Israel. What happens with this conflicting choice then? 

We all remember the open microphone incident with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and Obama, where Obama told the Russians that he’d have “more flexibility” to compromise on the missile defense shield after the November 2012 election (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/03/26/149404599/gop-seizes-on-obama-open-mic-comment-to-russias-medvedev).  This continues to show that the President is an appeaser ranking right up there with Neville Chamberlain. It would not surprise me to discover that Obama intends to give the Russians top secret US military technology related to the missile defense system in Eastern Europe. In China, Obama has basically stood by as the Chinese have taken a more muscular stance in the Asia-Pacific Rim. He touts the idea of a strategic shift towards the Pacific, but take a close look at what that entails.  Obama has vowed to continue his process of cutting the Department of Defense budget by as much as another $1 trillion. The US Navy has already shrunk from 592 to 283 surface ships, and the US Air Force has less than 6,000 serviceable aircraft available (Naval History and Heritage Command; http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/18/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-us-navy-smallest-1917-air-force-s/).  This means that the US military will be less able in the coming decades to support a Pacific shift despite Obama’s flowery rhetoric, and while he blows smoke China is taking meaningful action to expand and fortify their military. The Chinese have placed a garrison in the disputed Paracel Islands (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3552853.htm); Building J-20 stealth fighters and planning expansion beyond their borders according to a Pentagon report (http://www.stripes.com/news/pentagon-report-elements-of-chinese-military-expansion-are-concerning-1.177571); Constructing the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile with a range of over 915 miles that could target American aircraft carriers, and the Pentagon report holds that China will be able to project and sustain military might around the globe prior to 2020 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/24/us-usa-china-military-idUSTRE77N7YP20110824). China has also become the world’s primary supplier of rare earth elements (REE) that are used in many, if not most, critical electronics systems including US national defense systems. China provides 95 percent of the world supply. They recently imposed an export embargo on these elements in order to impose their own will on the world. The United States, it should be noted, holds 13 percent of these same rare earth elements within our own borders (http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5220/), and at one time was a self-sufficient provider of these metals. Instead of ordering the resumption of mining to become self-sufficient once again … Obama filed a trade protest with the World Trade Organization (WTO) (http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/13/world/asia/china-rare-earths-case/index.html).

When it comes to foreign policy, it is abundantly clear that Obama’s version of “foreign policy” is to genuflect before our enemies. We need a President who understands what it means to be American, what it means to stand tall and bow to no one. We need a President who will restore the military might of America, and the swagger of Teddy Roosevelt: “Walk softly and carry a big stick.” Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement only encouraged Hitler to think that European leadership was weak and compliant. Hitler exploited that, and millions lost their lives as a result. It seems that the more Obama apologizes … the larger the body count gets, too. Rest in peace, Ambassador Stevens. The Apologizer-in-Chief has things under control.

Barack Hussein Obama … "Walter Mitty" All Over Again

We have been wowed in the press for the last four years by journalists enamored with his unprecedented rise to the Presidency, and now we are regaled with stories of President Obama’s prowess in military special operations. It seems that Admiral McRaven has greased the skids for Obama to receive an honorary green beret, and induction into the Special Forces Association (SFA) … a privilege usually reserved for combat veterans (Read more: http://www.duffelblog.com/2012/08/obama-to-receive-honorary-green-beret-induction-into-special-forces-association/#ixzz25WJW2h8a). At a White House press conference to announce the event, a questioner asked if this meant that the President was also in line to get an honorary Navy SEAL Trident.  “The President has in fact already received his Trident from the SEAL community,” said White House Spokesman Jay Carney. “He was honored to accept the insignia during a private ceremony in California, a week after his gutsy call where he singlehandedly took out bin Laden.”  Where Obama singlehandedly took our bin Laden?  Are you kidding me?  This is a guy who has been ushered through the cushy halls of some of the finest college institutions in the country, and refuses to tell us how he managed to do that. This is the same guy who, as Barry Soetoro, was able to attend Occidental College on a scholarship reserved for foreign-born students. He has spent the ensuing years hiding that fact. In any case, Obama never stooped low enough to don the uniform of the Armed Forces of the United States. He never passed through boot camp, advanced infantry training, Special Forces training, or any other special operations training … but he singlehandedly took out bin Laden. I actually think the liberal media is beginning to believe their own swill.

Just today, Obama is complaining to USA Today that the Romney campaign is creating a fictional Obama (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-09-03/obama-interview-convention-speech-campaign/57556318/1). Excuse me, but what do you call this … certified fact?  Are we as thinking Americans to believe that Obama is now this Special Operations whiz-kid? I’m sorry … I served with the 1^st Special Operations Wing, Hurlburt Field, Florida, and am now a disabled veteran. I find it incredibly offensive that this shirker tries to surround himself with the perquisites of power … one of which is instructing military subordinates to induct him into exclusive military organizations. If Obama wanted to be a Special Forces member or a Navy SEAL, he could have joined the military and tried to get through the training. I think America would watch THAT reality series … Obama trying to swim with a regulation field pack; Obama trying to scale a wall or endure a forced march with a full field pack, pugil sticks, etc. What did he choose to do?

Obama chose to go to Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School. He was not in the Illinois legislature for long enough to make a mark before he was elected to the United States Senate. While in the Senate, he sponsored no bills, championed no real issues and stood for nothing of note on a national scale. He has the distinction of being the puppet of liberal scions. Obama could speak well, and so he was carefully ushered through the proper credentials and thrust onto the national stage. The first America saw of him was during his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. Since his election to the Presidency, the political machine has worked overtime to seal his college records, spent more than $1 million to protect his birth certificate, and cooperated with other liberal media outlets to squash dissent.

Obama claims that it is the Republican Party that is creating a fictional Obama character, but the real one provides more fodder than anything the Republicans could dream up. He has spent the last four years in office placing the blame for every failure on President George W. Bush. The fact is that W inherited the intelligence feeds leading up to 9/11 from the Clinton Administration. Post 9/11, President Bush took a strong stand against Islamic terrorism and kept the nation safe. I will be the first to admit that I did not always agree with the way that Bush conducted foreign affairs. I felt then, and still feel today, that the US should have waited to build more of an international consensus before invading Iraq in 2003, just as his father had done in 1991. However, Bush worked with the Congress. During eight years in the White House, George W. Bush only issued 30 Executive Orders as President. In barely three and a half years Barack Hussein Obama has issued 137 Executive Orders … almost five times as many in less than half the time. Tell me which president is working with the Congress effectively?  Obama routinely uses Executive Orders as an expression of executive fiat ... of course, the liberal media will publicize none of this. But there is no question in my mind that President George W. Bush is a man of principle, integrity and honor. I cannot honestly say I believe that anymore with Obama.

The firsthand accounts of his friends at Columbia indicate that he is narcissistic, aloof, arrogant and self-serving. He spent the majority of school years smoking marijuana and identified himself as “white” during those years … denying his black heritage (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/25/david-maraniss-s-biography-spills-on-obama-s-pot-smoking-more.html). This guy is a chameleon. He is a modern day “Walter Mitty” if we have ever seen one. He doesn’t really accomplish anything. He lives through the dreams and aspirations of others … and then claims them as his own. Good luck with that green beret, Mr. President. I hope every time you put it on your heart feels as empty as the bank accounts of the 23 million Americans who are out of work because of your Administration policies. You certainly didn't "earn" it.

Obama, Liberal Media and Loss of First Amendment Rights

America has dropped to a new low.  I never dreamed that I would see this in my lifetime.  Unfortunately, Yahoo!, like the rest of the liberal media, has taken to blocking dissenting voices from posting comments on their news feeds. I guess it shouldn’t surprise me … The far left “wingnuts” don't want to listen to opposing views either. Yahoo has begun blocking conservative comments with the Presidential election cycle. Anyone in the Republican Party who steadfastly writes in opposition to the Obama Administration has found themselves blocked from posting. Yahoo is not alone though in editing out conservative thinking.

In April 2012, Obama circumvented the Congress and released $1.5 billion is U.S. foreign aid to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/295501/obama-funds-egyptian-government-andrew-c-mccarthy). This is the same group that swore Islamic Jihad against the United States in October 2010, and has never retracted any of the fatwas. None of the major networks covered this story. They wrote instead about the deaths of Mike Wallace, Thomas Kinkade, and the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin story in Florida. These were all noteworthy stories, but are they of the same magnitude as the President using an Executive Order to skirt the review of the Congress?  Especially during a time of worldwide terrorism?  Obama shocked more than Saudi Arabia when he played a key role in the US turning their back on a loyal US ally in the Middle East in the person of Hosni Mubarak, and then watched as the government was taken over by Mohammed Morsi who was the Muslim Brotherhood candidate. Now, as I write this, Morsi is in Tehran, Iran attending the conference of Non-Aligned Nations, and he has revoked the Egyptian Supreme Court Order that ruled the stacking of the Egyptian Parliament with Muslim Brotherhood representatives was illegal. To any thinking person, you have to ask … which side is President Obama supporting? Certainly by throwing Mubarak under the bus our other allies in the region know that Obama will show no loyalty to them either. His relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu has been notoriously icy. Obama has weakened our position and influence in a vital part of the world. Egypt moving towards an Islamic regime could signal a major power shift in the region, and the major networks chose to ignore it. Liberal bias.  Providing Obama cover for his foolish acts, and trusting that too many Americans are too lazy to research the news for themselves.

On the other hand, I am a disabled veteran. I defended the First Amendment rights that the liberal media and Obama are now flaunting ...  The very freedom of expression they are trying to keep people from expressing. It is wrong. That is what is wrong about the entire political environment in Washington DC right now, and I am talking about more than President Obama and the Democrats. People are unable to have a reasonable dialogue anymore. There is no room for disagreement or compromise. That's why nothing gets done in the Congress. Both Democrats and Republicans are at fault in this regard. We need to get back to a place where we can express differing viewpoints without being demonized (or blocked!) by the opposing side. The time has come to throw the door open and hear from more than just the major parties. When there is movement to control who can speak, and on what topics and when they can speak ... then the cure is more freedom of the press, and not less.  Our forefathers knew that a free press was the only way that our society could avoid widespread abuse and despotism.

                  Robust political rhetoric has always had a place in our democracy. By shutting down research into his background, and getting media outlets to block dissenting voices Obama is manipulating the media to further his own re-election. What has happened to transparency?  What is going to happen to First Amendment rights in a potential second term when this restriction of freedoms is what Obama is doing now?  It's a scary thought.

John McCain and the Religious Right on CNN

On Wednesday, Reverend Jim Wallis, author of “The Great Awakening,” and Tony Perkins, Family Research Council, appeared with John King on the CNN Situation Room. Both were critical of John McCain, and his perceived unwillingness to bring the Republican Party together as we move toward the 2008 Presidential Campaign. Perkins made the stunning statement that he “was not sure McCain understands American values.” Mr. Perkins … Did you bump your head? Where were you when John McCain was being tortured and having his bones broken by his North Vietnamese captors? This is just one more example that demonstrates why it should be crystal clear to any thinking adult that evangelical churches in America are in decline. The narrow-mindedness that has been inculcated by the Religious Right has become a divisive force in America.

Rev. Wallis and Mr. Perkins, functioning as pit bulls for Dr. James Dobson, misrepresented Senator McCain’s position on Iraq as advocating permanent war. Senator John Kerry, in criticizing Vice President Cheney this week, stated, “I was reminded of what Marine Corps 3-star General Gregory Newbold, the former Operations Director at the Pentagon, said about the war in Iraq: ‘The commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions - or bury the results’." The same criticism ought to apply equally well to these two representatives of the Religious Right. Dr. Dobson and John McCain clearly do not see eye-to-eye personally, but for the representatives of the Religious Right to skew the views of the Republican nominee to further a personal rift is disingenuous and counter-productive. What’s new? What they do not like about Senator McCain is that he has told the truth … they are purveyors of intolerance in American society. Once again, they paraded out their litmus test issues (family, marriage and life), and protested that McCain has not spoken enough about his views on these issues to pacify the extreme Right. Oh, what has happened to the good old days?

Alexis De Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America of a different time in our nation’s history: “There is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America; and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth. I have remarked that the American clergy in general, without even excepting those who do not admit religious liberty, are all in favour of civil freedom; but they do not support any particular political system. They keep aloof from parties and from public affairs. In the United States religion exercises but little influence upon the laws and upon the details of public opinion; but it directs the customs of the community, and, by regulating domestic life, it regulates the state” (De Tocqueville, 183-184). Reverend Wallis, Mr. Perkins and Dr. Dobson, leader of Focus on the Family, are witness of the loss of traditional influence religion has had on the domestic life in America, and so they seek to prolong their impact on our nation by trying to influence the formulation of the laws. I guess some influence is better than no influence. Rather than attacking Senator McCain, why do these ‘religious’ leaders not examine themselves to discover why their brand of religion is having a diminished impact on the domestic life of average Americans? Why is Right Wing extremism increasingly rejected by everyday people?

Americans generally view their religious convictions as a private matter. Whether it is right or not, they want the ability to integrate their faith into everyday life in a manner that is meaningful to them, and most bristle when someone else tries to dictate how they worship. The last twenty years have witnessed the fall of many flamboyant ministries in American culture. To say that this has harmed the perceived moral leadership of the church in our society is an understatement. Those who have been jaded by those dramatic falls respond to the hypocrisy with the words of Jesus in Scripture: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? … First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye" (Matthew 7:1-5, NIV). This goes to the heart of why the Christian Right has lost influence in American life, and why they have chosen to get politically active in order to maintain some relevancy.

Christian churches of many denominational creeds have become hypercritical and dogmatic. Instead of being respectful of our thoughtful differences, too many have become militant, taking a stance in life that is uncomfortable for a lot of people. Age has taught me that there are few things in life that are as black and white as we would like them to be. There is much gray, and, hence, room for accommodation and meaningful compromise. When the Right Wing of the Republican Party professes to know the answer … even before the questions are asked … the vast majority of people just guffaw. The complexities of our times require a more thoughtful and inclusive response. Finding ways to build bridges, rather than enlargen the walls, represents a more accurate view of the current sentiments of American society. For these pragmatists, the Moral Majority and Religious Right have become caricatures. James Dobson, Jim Wallis and Tony Perkins would do well to honor Senator McCain as the national war hero that he is, and express the profound thanks of our nation for the sacrifices that he has physically borne. He has lived the American values they only intellectually profess to hold. I firmly believe that Jesus frowns on the narrow-minded, litmus-test oriented zealots of the Christian Right. You fish with a line instead of a net, and you spend more time scattering the sheep than shepherding them in love and understanding. Shame on you.

©Rev. Gerry Young, MDiv, DD (Hon.), PhD (Candidate), 2008

Shadows on the Wall

Book Seven in Plato’s Republic records a dialogue about cave dwelling people forced by constraints to only look in one direction. The shackles prevent the people from turning their heads to view anything except the far wall of the cave. As a direct result of these limitations, the cave dwellers came to believe over time that the shadows cast on the wall were reality since they could not actually see the objects themselves. America is at a grave crossroad in our history … we can continue on the path of seeing the world as we want, or think, it should be, or cast off the artificial constraints that prevent us from seeing things as they actually exist. The opportunity is there to effect pragmatic, gradual change and build a better world, but it needs to be more than an American world.

Much of the debate in American society right now centers on issues like the war in Iraq, the broader war on terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, and the failures of the Congress to adequately address the ills of our own society. Are we dealing with the realities of these problems, or accepting the shadows cast on the wall as truth? Freedom in our society is a basic premise of our national strength. Attempts by anyone, including the government, to present only one side of a debate constitute an artificial shackle that asks people to only consider the shadow cast on the wall. Intelligent people want more. We are living in a world that is getting increasingly smaller through technology, and the understanding of our growing global interdependence is also blossoming. But in America there is a disturbing trend occurring that is beginning to rankle the thinking electorate: A rigid rejection of compromise coupled with a dogged determination to depict the “truth” of any situation cast only in terms of the conceiver.

Witness the Iraq war. Not only did Iraq not possess weapons of mass destruction, but President Bush impatiently failed to build an international coalition, instead announcing America’s intention and right to use preemptive strikes to achieve national objectives. The decade of unilateralism was born. The veil of secrecy this administration has adamantly used to mask a multitude of activities, including things like warrant-less wiretapping, and a shameless expansion of executive power are both naïve and dangerous. The American people want the presentation of both sides of the argument … we don’t want to be spoon fed what amounts to propaganda, Democratic or Republican. We are tired of viewing the shadows cast on the wall, and being asked to discern the facts behind the shadows. The 2008 elections will demonstrate just how tired voters are of the political status quo in this country. What has happened to the fine arts of diplomacy and dialogue? Why has the American viewpoint become the only one that matters in an ever-shrinking world?

As someone who has lived abroad for several years and traveled extensively around the world, this distinctly American arrogance is doing more to harm our national interests than any single action we might take. When we conduct ourselves as a nation unwilling to dialogue or listen to any view, never mind opposing views, we broadcast to the world that we have the answers. The questions no longer matter … the US has the answers. Yet the rest of the world looks at events like Katrina and New Orleans, the racial injustice underlining the Jena six, the quagmire of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and says, “Physician … heal thyself.” It is this arrogant projection of might that is exacerbating, if not outright causing, terrorism. President Clinton had it right when he said we need to create more friends around the world. As a Republican, it genuinely pains me to say that but we need to look at the world as it is, and not as we wish it would be. The path forward must include diplomacy and dialogue, even with our enemies. This administration has set back diplomacy and the US Foreign Service twenty years. How did we get here?

We have stopped listening. We, through the Bush Administration, attribute the dangers of our current world to Islamic fundamentalism … Centuries old hatred and clashing between Sunni and Shia’ muslims. We have inserted ourselves into cultures much older than our own because we have the answer. Iraq must be a national government, and not regional republics as Senator Joe Biden has advocated because that’s the way it is. It doesn’t matter that these sects have been killing each other for longer than we have been a nation. Americans are going to solve the Iraq “problem” while simultaneously trying to cast a deaf ear to the Arab world when they talk about US inconsistency on the Israeli/Palestinian “problem.” Israel kowtows to the US, so they are a different situation, or so we are led to believe. Happily moving forward despite contradictions in our policies is the legacy of the last twenty-five years. The insidious claims of the religious right and the Moral Majority have created a national environment where there is only one possible answer. Right or Left. Blue or Red. Either/Or. Our viewpoint is the right one, and there is no need for dialogue. The “Contract with America” has become a national nightmare because of the narrow-mindedness it has fostered. The shadows on the cave wall are dancing.

As long as there is no substantive dialogue in our diplomacy or our politics, the possibility for incremental change is lost. Despite the truth that no one will willingly allow someone else to impose “reality” upon them in one fell swoop, the US has scrapped the idea of pragmatic compromise. With the din coming from the red states and the blue states we are losing the voice of those who desire moderation. This is the tragedy of the 21st Century. This is why we have an Iraq. This is why there is growing hatred of the US in the world. Our opinions are not the only ones that matter. There is wisdom in dialogue. There is a growing backlash of moderation poised to explode on the US political scene. We are tired of extremism in all its variations, foreign and domestic. There is more than one answer to the issues we face. Our lives are inextricably intertwined with people in other cultures. We need to hear their challenges, and welcome their ideas. It is time to stop willful cave dwelling, and become citizens of the world. To those of either party who will not listen, this trend to moderation is going to become the US equivalent of a political IED in 2008.

© Gerry Young 2007

The Challenge of Leadership

“A leader is not a person who can do the work better than the followers; a leader is a person who can get followers to do the work better than he or she can, who can bring out the best in people.” -- Fred Smith, Learning to Lead

Achieving organizational goals requires a certain kind of balance – a balance that is tenuous at best and easily disrupted. Striking that sensitive balance, to ensure the right job gets done at the right time, demands commitment on the part of both the leadership team and the workers. By definition, a leader is anyone who has followers … if people in leadership fail to establish the standard in integrity, discipline and loyalty they merely occupy a position, and cease to lead. They cease to lead because no one will follow them.

Some “leaders” who fall into this trap typically resort to what would otherwise be considered to be Machiavellian methods to force compliance based on position power instead of leadership power. Machiavelli was the man who said that it is preferable for a leader to be both feared and loved, but if the leader must choose between the two then it is better to be feared than loved (The Prince). People who appropriate this concept and apply it to the art of management tend to view others as mere objects to be manipulated in the quest to achieve a desired result. While this approach has much to recommend it as a short-term fix, it sounds the death knell for any organization over the long haul. Why? Because it plays on the base fears of people, and will ultimately fail to inspire people to give more than they are compelled to give. It is the path of losers.

Manipulators fail to recognize or acknowledge that people are the most important resource in any organization. To bring out the best in people, the leadership team must convince the workers that they have the best interests of the workers at heart. When leadership becomes self-seeking, sacrificing the workers on the altar of self-aggrandizement, a trust is violated that will not be easily restored. Team chemistry is damaged.

In all fairness, the workers play a key role in maintaining workplace balance, too. One of the knocks against the current generation is that it is solely materialistic … they want to advance directly from the classroom to the boardroom without the benefit of working their way up the ladder. There is a special wisdom and a discipline to be learned in acquiring the knowledge of our jobs from the ground floor up. In this quest for as much as we can get, as fast as we can get it, we can lose sight of the organizational goals. Management is entitled to expect a fair day’s work for a fair day’s wage … whatever the work happens to be. There is a growing number of people in this workforce who feel that certain types of work are beneath them, and yet someone has to do it. What is the most beneficial medicine when your body is ill? Whichever one will provide what the body needs. The same principle applies to our work; if the job that is most needed to meet a deadline happens to be menial work, then that work should not be “beneath” any one of us. There is an appropriate time to subjugate personal wants and desires to team goals.

The key to all of this is mutual goal satisfaction … leaders who look out for the interests of their people, and people who do not lose sight of organizational goals. When both parties are working to preserve that fragile balance, it becomes a win-win situation for everyone involved.

© Gerry Young 2008

The Broken Thread

“Whenever you are too selfishly looking out for your own interest, you have only one person working for you – yourself. When you help a dozen other people with their problems, you have a dozen people working with you.” -- William B. Given, Jr.

Organizations struggle today to build a reputation as a tight-knit company. The fight to secure top resource talent is only going to get worse as a mobile society, coupled with a perceived decline in company loyalty, drives regular job migrations. The better companies sing the praises of the team player, indeed, the nature of business requires team play … the prima donna is, or should be, discouraged. Now, be honest … some particular person has popped into your mind since every one of us knows the type: so consumed with themselves that they spend the majority of their time navel gazing.

While this brand of self-absorption can be relatively harmless, it can also pose a potential danger to the company culture. If their excesses are allowed to continue unabated, unchallenged, teamwork can suffer. Little by little, barriers are erected between individuals, the root of bitterness creeps in undetected, and the team ultimately loses.

The pace of technological change in 2008 continues to quicken. Businesses are forced to face the shifting sands of market pressure, and, at the same time, mitigate risk. Firms need more interchangeable parts … people with the flexibility to move quickly, smoothly from one job to another, and from relationship to relationship. When the office bully is allowed to cast a pall over the work environment that delicate balance is irreparably harmed. Communication that is critical in the fast-paced market is diminished, and this does violence to the bottom line. If we are not watchful, we may be sowing the seeds of our own demise. Henry Ward Beecher succinctly stated, “He who is false to present duty breaks a thread in the loom, and will find the flaw when he may have forgotten its cause.” Poor communication caused by an unstable emotional environment is going to sink the organization at the key moment. It is always best to deal openly and swiftly with workers who bring turmoil to the culture. Remember … bad news does not get better with time. Vigilance is vital in maintaining a culture that breeds camaraderie, and establishing a mechanism that empowers people to police themselves. Remember the broken thread.

©Gerry Young 2008