Kids These DaysTM

Today's rant is on a phenomenon I like to refer to as Kids These Days, or KTD^TM . KTD^TM refers to the fact that most modern philosophers, thinkers, gurus, shaman, rabbis, priests, lamas, high school principals, and prophets have a tendency to state that things are worse than they've ever been, that people are more unethical, have worse values, talk to each other less, eat worse food, fornicate more, kick more puppies, and generally suck more than ever before in history. And the fun thing is at every point in history the KTD^TM phenomenon has been along for the ride.

I don't buy it. The world has changed technologically, yes. But I don't think people evolve or devolve that quickly. It takes tens of thousands of years for species to develop, and I think human history is pretty damn cyclical. So you think civilization is collapsing because there's a huge gap between the rich and poor (and this has never happened before)? French Revolution. Reign. Of. Terror. Look it up. My favorite sign of the impending apocolypse is the spawning of tons of mean-spirited reality shows about lame, stupid people. But the ancient Romans really came up with the whole bread and circuses, opiate of the masses thing.

Is technology and the infernal interweb ruining our ability to relate to each other and destroying the fabric of society? Consider what Mark Twain had to say about telecommunications in the year 1890:

"It is my heart-warm and world-embracing Christmas hope and aspiration that all of us, the high, the low, the rich, the poor, the admired, the despised, the loved, the hated, the civilized, the savage (every man and brother of us all throughout the whole earth), may eventually be gathered together in a heaven of everlasting rest and peace and bliss, except the inventor of the telephone."

Testify, M.T.

If gluttony (which we call the obesity epidemic), lust (promiscuity and the ensuing STDs), avarice (corporate greed), wrath (violent crime), pride (Paris Hilton), envy (coveting your neighbor's BMW), and sloth (damned video games) are particular problems of the twenty-first (or twentieth, or nineteenth) century, why Dante know so much about them? The Buddhist-based book I talked about recently, Healing through the Dark Emotions started to piss me off for the same reason. If people are really especially escapist and immoral and without compassion in the modern era, why did the Buddha need to spend all that time under the bodhi tree figuring out how to let go of attachment and be compassionate and teach others what he discovered?

Could it be that the human condition has always been pretty much the same? That we suffer and feel joy, we cause pain and we feel compassion, and that perhaps we could learn from our history instead of negating it by claiming that everything is new and unique?

I tell you, Kids These Days ^TM just don't know their history.

Published!

One of my research papers is going to be published in a journal put out by St. Edwards:

Bribery, Economic Development, & Cultural Change: Curbing Corruption in China
Summer 2007 issue, Perspectives in Business

It should be available via the link above soon.

Ruminations on Systems

One of the terms that's been thrown around quite a bit in the MSOLE program is "systems theory." It took a while to get my brain around this concept, but now that I have, I can see why my professors bring it up all the time.

Systems theory basically states that most things exist as part of a system, and are often a system themselves. So a human body is a system, made up of organs and other stuff. Organs are systems made up of cells, which are systems made of molecules, and so on. A thing is a system if it's components are varied and work together in some way to create the thing. This is a crappy explanation, but think of it this way; a plant is a system - lots of different types of things make it up - cellulose, chloroplasts, water. If you hack off the roots, it may die, and no longer be a living plant. A rock is not a system. It may have several components at the molecular level, but they're not interrelated. If you hack a piece off of it, it's still a rock.

Systems that are self-correcting - those that need to maintain some kind of equilibrium to survive are called negative-loop systems. Systems that grow or shrink are called positive-loop systems. So our bodies are negative-loop systems; when we get to hot, we sweat to cool down, and when we get too cold we shiver to warm up. The survival of the system depends on equilibrium. But a cancer is a positive-loop system; if allowed to grow unhindered, it can disrupt the body's negative-loop system.

Take this to a sociological level, and you have systems like families, cultures, countries, and so forth. Systems theory, as it applies to business and leadership, is really useful for taking a wider view of things like corporate change efforts, government regulation, and culture.

My current class is on business ethics. There's lots of interesting debate on the dichotomy of capitalism, the publicly-held business model, and ethics. If publicly held corporations exist in order to provide value to shareholders, and everything else serves that goal, there's a lot of gray area when it comes to what is acceptable and what is not. I'm doing some research right now on the difference between personal and professional ethics, and it seems like personal ethics are often more Kantian (absolute) in nature, where traditionally business ethics are more utilitarian. So the big question becomes, who gets the utility? If it's the stockholders only, then other people (employees, community members, etc) pretty much get the shaft. This seems like a very linear way of looking at ethics and responsibility. Put your stakeholders in order of importance, and make decisions accordingly.

Proponents of newer models of global business ethics obviously think otherwise. There are lots of models out there for how to convince a corporation to give equal weight to other people who are affected by these decisions, like consumers (who may not want to pay for shoddy products), community members (who might not be happy about excess toxic waste), or employees (who may not feel so good about layoffs or restructuring). But most of the stuff I've read for this particular class so far goes at it from a linear standpoint, and I don't think it's a linear problem. I think it's a systems problem. Screw with your customers to drive up profits at the end of the quarter, and you may be facing lawsuits the next quarter. This is because you're messing with the system, which consists of everyone affected by your business. Cut employees to reduce costs, and you end up with low morale, high attrition, and reduced efficiency. It might not bite you this quarter, but it will within a year or so. Again, look at the system as a whole. These decisions may not negatively impact profit to shareholders first, but it will effect them within one or two business cycles.

Ultimately, I think systems thinking forces us to take a longer term look at the consequences of our actions. If Krispy Kreme had thought about the potential longer-term problems that might ensue from cooking their books by over shipping to vendors right before the end of the quarter (and then picking up the excess donuts after), it seems like they might have changed their practices a bit. A 75% drop in stock price since 2003 might not seem like an acceptable loss, in hindsight.

I think infusing more systems theory into the field of corporate ethics could be really useful. It's still pretty utilitarian - the greatest good to the greatest number - but because you have to see the issue from a more birds-eye standpoint to understand the systemic effect of decisions, those decisions are less likely to be harmful in the long run.

Machiavelli and Ethics

When someone calls an action "Machiavellian" it tends to imply that person acting is doing so entirely out of a desire to acquire and retain power, without any regard to ethics. The thing I've always found so interesting about most unethical behavior - political, financial, social - is that in the best of situations, it's generally a wash. That peon you're screwing over to win favor with your boss - she might be your boss in five years. Not too bright, Machiavelli. That social program you're shutting down? It might be saving your budget this year, but the problems it causes are going to cost taxpayers much more than what you're saving. That river you're polluting to save yourself the cost of upgrading your plant? You're going to have to pay the piper eventually, whether it's when legislation catches up and you have to pay to clean it up, or you get your ass sued off for giving a bunch of people leukemia. Somehow, I don't think that Machiavelli was such a short-term thinker. A fast power grab today is not a good idea if it permanently tarnishes your reputation in the future. I think you can be a heartless bastard and still understand this fact.

I think the orientation towards long-term thinking is the rational side of ethics. We've so divorced ourselves from the "softer" side of our humanity in regards to work, that it's sometimes difficult to argue for ethical, respectful behavior. There seems to be a gulf between what is "professional" and what is "ethical", and I've spent a lot of time over the last two years contemplating why this may be. I have some theories, but they're not ready for prime time.

What I do know is that I can make a damn fine argument for behaving ethically to the most self-interested person on the planet. The thing is, I'm a fairly big fan of the free-market economy, in theory. But that economy is currently so short-term focused, that ethical atrocities seem to be taking place unchecked. If we could all pull our heads out of our collective asses and look down the line a few years, we might come to understand that instant karma is going to get you eventually, if not instantly. So the next time you humiliate an employee just because you can, or you vote against a needed social program because you don't want to pay $200 more in taxes per year, think about the potential long-term cost of those actions. Machiavelli would be proud.

s'more thoughts

I've been reading a book called Healing Through the Dark Emotions, by Miriam Greenspan. It's pretty cool, because it validates a lot of my own synthesis of the things I've learned from experience and study. Humans, especially modern American humans, have a tendency to run away from emotional pain. Back in the day, when our culture was less secular, we rationalized pain by saying that God was punishing us for our sins. Nowadays, we pathologize it and claim that not only are we suffering because we've done something wrong (not eaten right, not exercised enough, not prayed to the right God), but that suffering itself is dangerous to our health and should be eradicated. Newsflash, people, suffering is unavoidable. Also, life is terminal. Not happy facts, but facts nonetheless.

Greenspan (and the Buddah) believe that accepting suffering is the path to greater awareness, and a more fulfilling, awake, meaningful life. Greenspan thinks we're medicating ourselves into numbness and through avoiding our own pain, we blind ourselves to that of others resulting in things like emotional and physical violence.

I tend to concur. When I'm feeling scared or upset, I want to fix or eradicate it somehow. I often blame myself for suffering and try to find some way I caused it. This means that I've absorbed the idea that I can somehow prevent myself from suffering (that there was something I should have done differently), and I hurt because I've made a mistake. This seems pretty pointless, as a good portion of the time we don't cause our own suffering. Lots and lots of things that cause us to suffer that are unavoidable. I think that the idea of personal responsibility and personal power is great for helping you focus on your goals, but it's fairly shit for dealing with suffering. Suffering is a fact, and it doesn't matter if you brought it on yourself, your neighbor brought it on you, or it was an earthquake. All suffering deserves compassion, and I think that at least some of the people who espouse personal responsibility in this way (Stephen Covey, I'm talking to you) do so to not only avoid their own pain, but to inure themselves from the pain of others.

It's not that we shouldn't reflect and learn from our mistakes. I just think that in the moment that we experience emotional pain who or what is to blame is not so relevant, and the search for the source is a way we avoid the experience. After the storm has passed, reflection is a good idea and helps give meaning to our suffering and allows us to feel compassion for others. But in that moment, I think the best thing to do is actually check out that storm - is it rainy with sorrow, or full of jarring, bright, scary lightening? Not all pain feels the same, I feel fear in my stomach sometimes, and grief more in my back. Greenspan talks about the value of checking in with the body when we feel emotional pain and letting ourselves experience it rather than fight it. It's tricky, but when I have managed to do so, I've generally come out the other end a little wiser and much calmer.

While this may seem a bit of a jump, I think the topic actually relates closely to leadership and ethics. Leaders have responsibility to those who follow them, whether it's a transactional relationship (like a job), or a transformational relationship (like a priest or teacher). If a leader has no relationship to their own suffering, then the organization they lead can become a reflection of that inner disconnect.

In modern companies, fear is often viewed as an undiscussable and taboo emotion. To show fear is to admit weakness, and in our patriarchal organizations weakness is not tolerated. So the leader who not only hides their fear from others, but also from themselves, has no little incentive to experience compassion for the followers who feel fear, trepidation, or insecurity when facing a challenge. A culture then emerges where fear is banished from what is espoused, creating a powerful undertow that erodes at the morale, relatedness, and development of employees, and damages the organization as a whole. I believe that in this way unsurfaced and undiscussable emotions create entropy that organizations have tremendous difficulty diagnosing, let alone overcoming.

Thoughts on personal ethical responsibility

"As soon as we lose the moral basis, we cease to be religious. There is no such thing as religion over-riding morality. Man, for instance, cannot be untruthful, cruel or incontinent and claim to have God on his side." - Gandhi

This encapsulates for me the issues I've struggled with in Buddhism. Gandhi, a Hindu, points out that the teachings of one religious leader or another never, ever, trump morality. If you behave in a way that is immoral (or unethical) you are acting against the will of your spiritual practice - REGARDLESS of what your pastor, priest, rabbi, or guru says.

I had a personal falling out with Shambala after I read some of the details of the founder's behavior. Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche did some seriously unethical things in his life. He was promiscuous with his followers, he was known for being verbally abusive, was a raging drunk, and he even encouraged and condoned the promiscuity of his HIV-positive successor, resulting in several people becoming infected. Rinpoche did some amazing things in his life, too, and a lot of his teachings are really wonderful. Now, if you follow Buddhist teaching, everyone is allowed to be a fuck-up. Fucking up is part of what it means to be human. But in my estimation, he took this a step further, and found a way to conveniently sanctify his screw ups. He claimed that a guru could behave in an irrational, abusive, and destructive manner towards his student, if he felt that the student needed that experience to progress in his or her personal growth. He called this "crazy wisdom." Uh-huh.

Let's review Gandhi's quote again, shall we?

"As soon as we lose the moral basis, we cease to be religious. There is no such thing as religion over-riding morality. Man, for instance, cannot be untruthful, cruel or incontinent and claim to have God on his side."

So do non-theistic Buddhists have a loophole because they have no God to answer to? As a non-theist, I'm going to answer with a resounding "no." If anything, we non-theists should understand with perfect clarity how important it is to strive to be ethical and compassionate in our lives, since we don't have a strong belief in a post-mortality cosmic spanking or reward. What you do on earth matters, because as far as we know, it's all we have. If you're unkind, cruel, or abusive towards another person, no matter how "enlightened" you are, I don't believe that it's justifiable. I'm not saying that you can be a teacher and never hurt someone's feelings. We're not talking about being truthful, we're talking about being deliberately hurtful.

Since the Buddah said that the first noble truth of life is suffering, I believe that life presents us enough opportunities to suffer and then grow, without some crazy-ass guru screwing with us. Call me crazy. Just don't call me crazy-wise.

There are countless examples throughout human history of a movement, religion, or organization deciding at some point that it supersedes the boundaries of morality. We all know, in retrospect anyway, that the Spanish Inquisition, the concentration camps, and 80's hairstyles were all fundamentally wrong (okay maybe not the last one, but you know what I mean).

I had a point here. What was it? Oh, right. No matter what you believe, you don't get a golden ticket that says you can turn your ethical decision making process over to someone else. And even if you think you do, you don't. Whether you have to answer to a God at the end of your life, or just your own conscience, your actions are your own.

Wherin the old and new intersect

I've been thinking a lot lately about my previous life as an opera singer, and trying to figure out how all that history integrates with the path I'm on now. For a while I've been feeling as if the "new" career is totally independent of the old one, and nothing that I learned in the music world applies to what I do now.

But really, that's not true. I've been part of many different types of organizations. Musical theater productions, operas, conservatory, orchestras, agencies, start-ups, corporations, and now grad school. Each shared some characteristics with some of the others. What I find especially interesting about reflecting on some of those less corporate environments is this: in some ways, they were the most functional and effective teams I've ever worked on. Now don't get me wrong. Performers, directors, conductors, the whole lot of them are notoriously narcissistic nutbags. There are very few exceptions. Impulse control, self-reflection, and other emotionally intelligent traits are not much in evidence. Verbal abuse, sexual harassment, and other misbehavior abounds. But somehow, maybe due to the nature of the endeavor, the show goes on. And it usually goes on alarmingly well. Everyone remembers their lines, makes their entrances, gets the lighting cues right, plays the right notes. When someone flubs, everyone helps to get the ball rolling again. The most assinine, self-centered conductor will help a singer out of a jam - mouthing the words or catching up if they rush. Sopranos who are snitty, petty competitors off the stage work beautifully together during a duet.

So what is the source of all this heroism? How do people who are generally less mature and self-realized somehow transcend the ethical and interpersonal quagmire that is corporate existence? Well, they don't, exactly. Misconduct is pretty common, but the funny thing is it rarely jeopardizes the final product. I think that something about the nature of the organization pre-disposes it to function properly and well, despite all the machinations of the individuals.

Conversely, lots of corporations are filled with people with good intentions, much clearer ethical rules, and subject to far more public and legal scrutiny. And yet, huge ethical lapses are becoming more and more obvious. If you've heard me talk about this before, you know the saw. The structure of the publicly held corporation - the fact that shareholders are not ethically or legally responsible for the actions of the employees - seems to predispose it to violating established ethical and legal norms.

I think this provides a pretty good argument for the foundation of our thesis. The organization has it's own personality, tendencies, and pre-dispositions that are a complicated blend of the collective culture, the values and goals of the founders and execs, and the market pressures. So much of the literature we've read for this program talks about personal responsibility. "Be the change you want to see in the world." Covey, Titchy, many of the others say that if you don't change it yourself, quit your bitching. But there are much stronger forces at play, and while I'm all in favor of setting a good example, there's another saying I tend to believe more: "Culture eats change for breakfast." And I'd like to add to this to the mix: the personality of the organization far supersedes the personalities of the individuals. And the legalistic or even conventional structure of the organization has a huge effect on that personality. Perhaps even an insurmountable effect.

Another thing that occurs to me is that concept of heroism. To be heroic (or to fit the hero archetype) one has to have something at stake - risk of loss, and some kind of transformational process. So a lot of the literature on teams and heroism often have a foundation or at the least a lot of case studies on the military. But in the military, there's a very immediate danger of death or dismemberment. So people have a lot to lose if they don't work together effectively, and the consequences of poor leadership and poor teamwork are dire.

While performing is not life-threatening, it can feel that way. Anyone who's ever had stage fright can attest that your body does not know the difference between that fear and a tiger running towards you. Your brain may say, "no reason to be afraid, just singing for some industry big shots." but your body says, "Tiger!" So again, the stakes are high, immediate, and the consequences of screwing up are psychological death and dismemberment of not only yourself, but your peers (and probably your reputation and career).

In the corporate world, obviously some survival instinct also comes into play, but not with the immediacy of a more time-restricted scenario like a battle or a performance. Maybe that's why dysfunction can creep in unnoticed, fester and grow, and then surprise the shit out of everyone when suddenly they realize that, oh, growth is at -30% and the CEO has been diverting money into his Swiss bank account. I also have a really hard time buying the CEO as Hero myth. No babies are being rescued from burning buildings, and the idea of a CEO making a major sacrifice for someone else (what with those compensation packages) is pretty laughable. So for me, that idea just does not resonate. Maybe we need to look at organizations through a different lens, and stop trying to find our heroes in those with positional power. Maybe the organization will be heroic when it re-defines itself into something more ethical, responsible, and connected to all the people that comprise it.

Just a thought.

General updates

General update:
I have a total of 28 weeks of class left before I (theoretically) graduate. How I do thesis research and coursework at the same time is a bit of a puzzle. I'm unrealistically proud of my 4.0 average, but prioritization may come into play during my last two classes and necessitate a B. Which is really counter to my uber-perfectionist-secretly-afraid-I'm-really-a-slacker personality. Hopefully I can pull it all off and also not drive David completely insane. Come December, I will have three, count them, three degrees to my name. Woo! Anyone know where I can get a business ethics related PhD? I keed, I keed. I think.

Further thoughts on the nature of leadership, ethics, and organizational culture:
Most organizations really don't know what they're doing. The things that the founders/leaders are comfortable with or uncomfortable with become conventions, and then they become unsurfaced cultural artifacts - rules of conduct that we generally pick up intuitively and then promptly forget. The problem is most people don't give a lot of thought to the fact that when they form an organization they're creating a mini-society in their own image. And all of our personalities are limited and flawed. So unless our founders and leaders are introspective enough to recognize this fact, some really strange, counterintuitive, and bizarre behaviors can become codified.

I recently finished what I hope proves to be my FINAL paper on my Former Place of Employment, and the most interesting thing I learned was how a really self-referential, self-reinforcing culture can blind people to physical, obvious truths. It's not just about how the culture effects the way you see things, it's about whether or not the cultural constraints allow you to see it at all. And in the case of my former place of work, the espoused (projected) internal culture was so strong, and so embedded, that as long as you can speak the jargon, wear the tee-shirt, and shake the super secret handshake, you can get away with pretty much anything. As you might imagine, this leaves room for some teensy little ethical problems. It means that crafty and unscrupulous people figure out how to work the system, and work it they do. Meanwhile the execs continue to comment on the openness and beauty that is their organization, even when evidence to the contrary has been formally presented to them by people they pay to do just that.

What is it in our makeup that allows us to put our faith in human systems that are by their nature flawed? Seriously. We're human, we're flawed. But we're always holding out for that nirvana-like place where we no longer have to think critically, question, or suspend judgment either way. I'm highly inquisitive by nature, but I do it, too. What gives?

Anyway, those are my Deep Thoughts of the Day. Enjoy.

Quick Update

I've just posted some relevant entries from my personal blog, so some of it will be a bit off-topic. I'm more than halfway through now, really enjoying Org Behavior, and starting to plot my book, thesis, and post-graduation career. Not in any particular order. I feel like my brain is starting to kick into high gear, and it's pretty fun.

bonus blogging

3.20.2007

bonus blogging

I've been re-watching Joseph Campbell's The Power of Myth via Netflix. It's like church for me. If church was like this, I'd go every week. Campbell's ability to see the forms that project the shadows on the wall, his talent for finding the same metaphor in every culture and every era is amazing. And what has been interesting about watching this the second time around is how many of his themes and metaphors fit naturally into the issues that concern me the most in organizations and modern corporate life.

This set of interviews was done in the late 80s, and talks a lot about how Campbell was a big influence on George Lucas and the Star Wars (original) trilogy. He discusses how in western culture, dragons are metaphor for intellect without body connection - a state which results in unchecked greed and insatiable hunger. He also thinks that Darth Vader, a man who has almost completely disconnected from his body and the natural world in order to maintain power, is a metaphor for oppressive systems that dehumanize us.

While I think Campbell saw this as metaphor for oppressive governments, I think the corporation has become one such system. Though it's made up of people who are probably largely ethical and decent, we all get paid to work for the profit of others, and the concerns of those "others" must transcend our own connection to what is natural and right for ourselves and those we love. I've struggled a great deal in the past year with the fact that what might be the ethical or loving thing to do in a personal relationship is often considered unprofessional in work relationships. Campbell's framing of the dragon or system as that which removes us from our bodies, and so removes us from our eros; our vital, living presence in our own existance, seems incredibly apropos of what the corporate system is doing to our humanity as a society. Why else does company after company, even the ones touted as the most ethical, get caught in governance and ethics scandals?

How can an organization that is structured to subjugate the needs and concerns of those who run it be anything other than dehumanizing, if that which makes us human is that which allows us to have compassion for ourselves and others?

Things I Have Learned: Unsolicited Leadership Advice for Everybody

3.08.2007

Things I Have Learned: Unsolicited Leadership Advice for Everybody

Thing #1: Get to know yourself really, really well

I am the kind of person who takes EVERYTHING personally. You could sneeze, and I would think that somehow my presence had caused dust eddies to be stirred up that would not have otherwise been there, which may lead you to have a sinus infection which will eventually cause you to die horribly of hemorrhaging. I can blame myself for totally unrelated, incongruous events. But as an occasional teacher, and as a brand-spanking new manager, I know that the behavior of the people I have some small amount of power over is NOT an indication of my qualifications or basic intelligence. It can, however, be a reflection of my level of competence with and/or comfort level in whatever area I am providing leadership. If one of my students or employees is giving me a hard time, then it might be an issue they're having, but if several of them are unhappy or unproductive guess what? I am bound to be at least partially responsible.

This leader thing is relatively new for me. I have been in the follower position far more in my life thus far. And when I have felt victimized, belittled, abused, intimidated, or even just challenged by a boss or teacher, I have spent a goodly amount of energy trying to tease apart the dynamic and understand what part of my (generally disproportionate) negative reaction is my own crap, and how much of that crap belongs to someone else. It's rarely an all or nothing proposition, folks. So while I continue to be on the neurotic and hypersensitive side, I also have a pretty clear picture of a number of my strengths and weaknesses. Now when I have to deal with an authority figure who doesn't seem to have their shit together, I can keep it in slightly better perspective.

But here's the thing I know from having been in the down position for most of my life (and seems really obvious to me as a newbie leader):

Thing #2:
If you are in a position of relative power over someone else DO NOT take their perceived failures or inadequacies personally.

This is very important. If you take your students' or employees' or children's weaknesses personally this means that you feel (usually unconsciously) that their poor performance is a reflection on you and will make you look bad to your superiors or peers, then you will probably blame your employees or students or children for your own sense of inadequacy. You will then be likely to behave in a way that is less than objective when giving feedback or criticism. In short, your negative emotions will inhibit your ability to do your job, which is to support, help and teach the people you're serving as a leader or teacher or parent.

Let's have an example, shall we?
My last voice teacher was amazingly talented. His singers had substantial careers and my technique improved significantly during the two years I studied with him. But he wasn't objective. When I had a big performance or audition coming up, he would start to freak out. I could almost see the thought bubbles over his head, "What if she gives a bad audition, and the judges know she studies with me, and everyone thinks I'm losing my edge and taking on poor students?" So he would go from a demanding but nurturing and supportive teacher, to an abusive, autocratic bastard. He would make disparaging comments, force me to repeat passages over and over again (screaming out a high C ten times in a row generally does not make it get any better, trust me). My favorite comment ever came during one especially grueling sessions. He said, "It's really a testament to my teaching that I can work with a problem voice like yours."

Yeah, he really said that.

I had to explain to him gently (yelling is gentle, right?) that that type of comment made me feel hopelessly inadequate, and did not motivate me to do anything except perhaps throw my metal music stand at his head and leave. And it did not make me sing better. He told me he'd meant it as a compliment.

It's basic, folks. You discourage and degrade people, they give up or they have less energy and less hope. None of those things make people productive, competent, or successful. Don't do it. You can tell me about tough love, about pushing people to excel, but tough love is not abuse. Humiliating or denigrating people does not make them better performers or humans, it just makes you an abusive bastard.

Thing #3
Forgive yourself for being an abusive bastard, and move on.

If you have power, you will inevitably abuse it at some point. It will probably be unintentional, and it will hopefully be minor. So if you realize that you've been attacking an employee or student because you're secretly afraid that they're going to make you look bad, or your son's habit of shuffling around with his shoes untied makes you feel like a bad parent and you're a little too hard on the kid, recognize your own flaws, make amends, breathe deeply, and move the hell on.

I see light

3.02.2007

I see light

As of today, I'm feeling much less submerged. I got through my horrendous annual report analysis project with a respectable grade, no less. I would have just settled for "done". Starting to find my groove at work, learning how to communicate and respond in a very, very different environment than I'm used to. Michelann does not like it when she cannot control her environment, other's perceptions of her, and her own sense of inadequacy. All those things that you just really can't control. Of course, the best way to deal with it would be to GET OVER IT, as my boyfriend has lovingly suggested on several occasions, but I prefer to stress out, cry, feel bad, mope, talk about it far to much, and then get over it. And then find something else to stress out about. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Remember the pictures I posted of the house a few weeks ago? Of course you do. Well, now we're featured on our designer's website:

http://www.roomfu.com/gallery83.html

Great pictures, no? It's a very nice room to hang out in. Next on the agenda is the bedroom. It's going to be hot pink with purple stripes. Just kidding, David. Oh, wait, David never reads my blog. It really is going to be hot pink, shhh, don't tell him!

One of the unintended outcomes of my finance class, is my sudden realization of my total financial incompetence. From understanding basic terms, to having the first clue about investment and retirement savings, I have been operating at about a 5th grade level. Except I thought I was a fairly financially savvy adult. I was wrong, so wrong.

I have to spend the weekend writing a research paper for my class, which seems like a happy vacation after the last project. Actual prose! No ratios! Comprehension of what I'm writing! After class, we're all going drinking. Amen.

from lyrico.com/me 2/2006

2.21.2007

I'm a Busy Bee

My life has changed pretty dramatically in the last month or so. My new job is good, but challenging and very, very different. I go to meetings, and we talk about things. Actual things. No posturing, no circular conversations about something completely different than what is being discussed. Actual problem-solving. This is a good thing, but it also calls into sharp relief how comfortable I was with my rapidly atrophying brain in my last work situation.

Add to that the first class at school that has thoroughly kicked my ass. Not that the other classes weren't challenging, they were. But I've recently been reminded of the difference between a challenge and a struggle. This is no fault of my own or anyone else, the class is good, the material is good, the teacher is good. When it comes to most academic learning, I tend to work hard, but hit kind of a groove where I know I'm working with most of my mental capacity. When it comes to finance, it's an incredibly uphill battle.

This is great stuff to know, but I feel completely illiterate, and as if I have no talent for understanding it at all. Which I probably don't. Doesn't mean I can't learn some of it, but this is definitely not a "follow your bliss" type of topic for me. It's more like a "trudge unwillingly after your degree requirements" type of topic. I feel like I've worked harder and actually learned less than in any class so far. In reality, I have probably learned a great deal, but it's kind of like someone telling me I don't know how to read English at age 35. A wee bit disheartening. In 3-6 months I will have a much better idea of what I learned and will feel the beginnings of comfort with the topic, but seven weeks is never enough, even when I have an affinity for the subject.

Winter in Austin (all two months of it) seemed really cold, mostly because I'm a wimp. But it's in the low 80s this week, so it should be full-on spring by March 1.

In other news, two of my long-time girlfriends gave birth to baby girls halfway across the world from each other at approximately the same time. I get to meet one of them in a few weeks.

I hope all my millions of readers are having a prosperous and happy year so far. I'll write more when I find where I stashed my clever.

Synergize your Potentialities

Originally posted at lyrico.com/me 12/2006

What's more fun than reading Stephen Covey all weekend, I ask you? Why, it's reading Stephen Covey and watching his little brainwashing videos that goes with his brainwashing book. Movies about golden retrievers and six-year-olds playing soccer. I swear, I saw "SUBMIT" flash across my screen at least once.

I have inherited a deep, deep distrust of jargon. And Covey is just chock-full of fun jargon, far-fetched metaphor, and highly unsubstantiated wisdom-nuggets. And charts. Lots and lots of charts.

It's not that I don't like anecdotal books - one of the first books I read for this program was largely anecdotal, but the author did not claim to hold the keys to the universe. He was very up front about the fact that his book was based almost entirely on his experience and observation. This made it much easier for me to put my characteristic dubiousness aside and really hear what the guy had to say.

Covey makes no such distinction. If he believes it, and he can draw a parallel between his belief and a scientific truth, then the reader is supposed to consider it just as irrefutable. His books are very prescriptive: if you perform task A, B will be the result. If B is not the result, than you didn't perform task A correctly. This bugs the crap out of me. Organizational behavior, interpersonal relationships, and self-examination are not fucking stereo instructions. They are messy, difficult, and sometimes impossible tasks that we choose (or not) to slog through during our lives, without knowing if there will be a big earthly or cosmic carrot at the end of the stick. There are no guarantees that if you follow dogma created by someone who is not you, that you will get the same results.

He also casts himself as the hero, the loving guru teaching his flock how they have erred, in almost all his real-world examples. I would find him much more credible if he actually demonstrated the humility he prescribes to his followers.

So I've spent the majority of the weekend reading The 8th Habit, and consequently feeling really annoyed. This is not an uncommon occurrence for me during study weekends, so don't be alarmed. But annoyed is also not a fun way to spend your weekend. I'm going to be REALLY glad when I'm done with this book.

Personal Concept of Ethical Leadership

I believe that ethical leadership is the ability to assist others in reaching a mutually advantageous, ethical goal. Leaders are able to achieve this through five main attributes:

1. Leaders recognize and admit their own fears and shortcomings with honesty and courage.
2. Leaders demonstrate compassion towards themselves, others, and those who oppose them.
3. Leaders foster leadership in others through teaching, stewardship, and mentoring.
4. Leaders demonstrate foresight, imagination, and adaptability.
5. Leaders are committed to lifelong learning, awareness, and self-knowledge.

Reverence
Leaders must possess reverence, or humility for their fellow beings and for all life on earth. All humans have flaws, sometimes act unkind or irrational, and have fears. Leaders recognize this in themselves, and try to make ethical, thoughtful decisions about emotionally charged issues. I believe that to make ethical decisions, we must call on each of the three major forces acting within us: Mind, Body and Spirit. If any one of these forces takes precedence over the others, the imbalance can lead to poor decisions and the suffering of self and others. To behave ethically, we must listen to our mind, body and spirit in equal measure. If the mind is overly engaged, we can lose touch with our own suffering and the suffering of others (e.g., when executives make decisions to dump toxic waste near human habitation in order to save money). If our emotions are the driving force, we might make decisions based on the desire to be loved or respected, and use our intellect to rationalize decisions that have negative long-term consequences (e.g., engaging in an extramarital affair, or playing favorites with subordinates). If our bodies drive our decisions, we can make snap decisions based on our physical reaction to fear, anger or desire (e.g., physically attacking someone whom we perceive to be a threat, or verbally assaulting someone with a divergent viewpoint). If all three forces are active and aware, we stand the best chance of making good ethical decisions in the face of the complexity of the modern world. Humility is required to examine our motivations, as we may not always like what we see.

Ray Anderson, CEO of Interface, Inc, provides an excellent example of a leader who displays reverence for humanity and the environment. He has committed his flooring company to achieving a 0% ecological footprint by 2020, and has already reduced waste by one third (Wikipedia, 2006).

Compassion
A leader who is aware of his or her emotions is capable of having compassion for others. Compassion and forgiveness are cornerstones of the major religions. I believe that if we are truthful and forgiving with ourselves, then we can be compassionate with others, even in trying situations. A manager who fires an unreliable employee can do so with compassion; allowing a poor performer to continue to underachieve is not a compassionate act, as it reinforces behavior that would not be tolerated elsewhere. A leader must even have compassion for those who oppose him or her; understanding the fears and concerns of the opposition can help foster dialogue and mitigate polarity of thought. Pope John Paul II reached out to those of other faiths and helped to heal ideological divisions that had existed for hundreds of years.

Teaching
If a leader has respect and compassion for herself and others, she should feel compelled to help those around her grow, learn, and develop their own leadership potential. Leaders teach through example, mentorship, and guidance, and believe in the potential of every human. True leaders, be they civil rights activists, religious leaders, presidents, or executives, teach us that self-governance and accountability are not only possible, they are imperative. They teach us to be more awake, aware, and inquisitive about the world in which we live. Leaders find satisfaction in the growth and development of those they lead. I believe that the establishment of American system of government represents a deliberate attempt to create a nation of self-led individuals. By raising the consciousness of all citizens and encouraging them to reclaim power they had formerly relinquished to kings and priests, our forefathers taught us to actively participating in our own governance.

Imagination
Leaders are capable of imagining and communicating possible futures; they can look down multiple paths and sometimes foresee probable outcomes. They are also capable of adapting to unexpected events and outcomes. Martin Luther King Jr. demonstrated inspiring imagination in his “I have a dream” speech of August 28, 1973. He compellingly communicated his vision of a future where segregation and prejudice did not exist, and while our society has not yet eradicated these things, we tolerate far less discrimination than we did in 1973. Diversity officers, hiring policies, and anti-discrimination legislation are a testament to King’s vision and imagination.

Awareness
I believe that true leadership is grounded in a deep, honest, and ever-evolving understanding of self, others, and human nature. While many compel others to follow their lead for reasons such as gain, status, or to attain power as an end to itself, I believe real leadership creates movement towards a collectively constructive and ethical outcome, never an outcome that is selfish or destructive. A leader may only achieve this through continual self-examination, and a commitment to lifelong ethical growth.
Self-examination provides insight into the mistakes of the past, and the ability to foresee and avoid or foreshorten future mistakes. While all people may benefit from self-examination, it is crucial for leaders, as they have the potential to do great good, but also great harm. Self-awareness is not the only ability a leader must have, but it is pivotal in his or her ability to make ethical decisions.

Hitler provides an example of a charismatic pseudo-leader whose lack of ethics and self-awareness had disastrous consequences. Unaware of the repressed rage and self-loathing that lurked beneath the surface of his consciousness, he directed the mass murder of millions of people whom he deemed “unclean”-- a graphic example of the consequences of shadow projection. Hitler’s self-loathing and aggression, combined with his lack of awareness and self-examination resulted in the deaths of millions of innocents. His conviction and charisma, paired with his ability to play on the fears and prejudices of those he led, resulted in the participation of thousands in genocide.

Pema Chodron, a Buddhist nun committed to self-examination and lifelong learning, writes this about meditation as a vehicle for self-knowledge:

"You could… begin to notice whenever you find yourself blaming others or justifying yourself. If you spend the rest of your life just noticing that and letting it be a way to uncover the silliness of the human condition--the tragic yet comic drama that we all continually buy into--you could develop a lot of wisdom and a lot of kindness as well as a great sense of humor" (1991).

Chodron shows how through self-awareness we feel connected to all other beings, and can choose to move through our lives with resilience and humor.

Conclusion
To summarize, I believe leadership is a creative process that calls all involved to adhere to the highest standards of behavior, ethics and personal responsibility. Leaders must cultivate courage, humility, compassion, imagination, and demonstrate a commitment to fostering leadership in others, while maintaining their own personal growth, and awareness. Leadership, like wisdom, is a goal that we move toward knowing it can never be fully attained in life; it is a path that we can walk if we choose.

References
Chodron, P. (1991). No such thing as a true story. In (Ed.), The Wisdom of no escape (p. ). Boston: Shambala Publications.
Wikipedia. (29). Ray Anderson (entrepreneur). Retrieved October 16, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Anderson_%28entrepreneur%29