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

Patriotism is Merely Convenient for Some

“Patriotism” is Merely Convenient for Some

I have to laugh whenever the political campaign season begins. Everyone becomes a veteran, and the candidates inevitably trip over each other in asserting who will make the best Commander-In-Chief (CINC). Where were all these candidates when it came time to swear the oath, don the uniform and stand to post? Sadly, besides Senator John McCain none of the other major candidates condescended to military service time. I guess actually bearing the hardships didn’t look too glamorous then. I can already hear the chicken hawks protesting … “there is more than one way to serve America, we don’t need to have served in the military.” The curious thing, though, is why the politicians clamor to be Commander-In-Chief. Why don’t they maintain their fitness to lead the Red Cross or run the Peace Corps? One of the cardinal truths in the military is you cannot ask someone to do a job you are unwilling to do yourself. It’s called leadership. In the midst of all the campaign rhetoric it is plain to see that for some … patriotism is just another card they pull out of the deck, another rabbit that jumps out of the hat. Leadership may be feigned, but to those who have served the counterfeit is obvious.

Look at the Clinton campaign for a moment. You’d think from listening to Hillary Clinton on the stump that she actually respects the sacrifices borne by the military. The record seems to indicate otherwise. Just ask the military attaches who served in the Clinton White House. Air Force Lt. Colonel Buzz Patterson wrote that Hillary banned military officers from wearing their uniforms while in the White House (Dereliction of Duty, Page 93). Funny … I don’t remember that being a part of her stump speech. If she wins the 2008 Presidential election, I wonder if she’ll ban the wearing of the uniform again? Of course, by then the campaign will be over. Presumably, no one will care. For those of us who have worn the uniform with pride and honor it does matter, it will always matter. Throughout her campaign, Senator Clinton has sought to have veterans from the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) in the photo opportunities for her self-serving sound bites. This is supposed to make her look presidential. It would have been more presidential if members of the Armed Forces did not have to duck into side offices so First Lady Clinton did not have to see them in the halls of the White House. Her “leadership” on the Senate Armed Services Committee shields her personal disdain for anything military, and service members know it.

Military veterans are tired of the lip service we receive from the government we have sworn to protect and defend, and from sycophant politicians who assume we are dumb enough to support them simply because they drape themselves in the flag during the election campaign. Banning the military from wearing the uniforms of our service in the chief house of our representative speaks louder to a veteran than any stump speech Hillary will ever utter. Don’t drink the Kool-aid that says Barack Obama is vastly different either. Michelle Obama may have slipped when she said that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of America … because Barack was running for President. One slip may be understood, but what about when you add his comments about “typical” white people? How are we to understand the words of the pastor whom Obama has sat under for twenty years when he says, “God damn America” (Newsweek, 3/24/08, 50)? Are you kidding me? Rather than being verbal slips brought about by the rigor of a too-long campaign season … we are witnessing the unraveling of an adult lifetime lived in contempt of the ideals veterans have sacrificed and died for up to the present moment. How dare you cheapen that sacrifice with your lies? Obama prides himself on speaking truth to power. How about this truth … while you got a free ride through Harvard Law School, men and women were dying to bring peace to Bosnia and Kosovo, restore sovereignty to Kuwait, and rid Iraq of the maniacal Saddam Hussein. While you were working on a sweetheart real estate deal with Tony Rezko (Newsweek, 03/10/2008, 40), thousands of our troops were dying in Iraq and Afghanistan from IED blasts because the US Congress failed to provide proper vehicle and body armor. Senator Obama now touts his “judgment” in having opposed the Iraq War from the outset. What about the judgment that prevents him from recognizing the blessings of freedom he has enjoyed at the cost of someone else’s blood? Doesn’t that lapse in judgment and basic ingratitude disqualify him from leading our Armed Forces? Many of us believe that it does. Now, I know that it is unrealistic to expect that every Commander-In-Chief will have served in the military, but you’d think that after 230 years of our Republic we would be smart enough to preclude those who despise military service and disdain our way of life. Such “leadership” makes me ill.

Gerry Young
MSGT, USAF, 1979-1990