Fifth Wave Leadership- Newsletters

October 2011

2011-10-22T10:45:00.000-07:00

By now, I wonder if there's any point in explaining why the newsletter is so late, since it almost always is. But I will, anyway. First reason: It's an agony writing them, but I really like the finished product. It helps me articulate all the ideas and stuff rolling around in my head, constantly; and I do mean constantly! Second reason: I've gotten busier than I've been in probably four years. Main Street has definitely come alive again. I don't know what in the world is happening on Wall Street. They seem to be experiencing, at best, severe ADHD; and at worst, an ongoing psychotic episode. Wall Street's reactions, these days, seem to perfectly fit Freud's original definition of a "hysterical reaction."

The increase in business is both the good news and the challenging news. I feel a lot more productive and impactful, but also, at times, overwhelmed with everything there is to attend to.

We continue to get rave reviews for "Picking Winners and Keepers," our elearning, multi-media program on selecting great people, without ambivalence, regrets, and costly mistakes. For all the details and the program schedule, go to:

http://www.performancecounts.com/Picking_Winners.htm

We've set the dates for the next Executive Education Seminar. It'll be held June 22 - 24, 2012, at the School of Business at the University of Montana, in Missoula.

We've gotten great feedback about doing the Seminar at the Business School, and also about incorporating a visit to Dunrovin Ranch. The unique environment that Suzanne Miller has created at the Ranch was a huge hit with past participants. We'll keep you updated on the specifics of the Seminar.

For now, reserve those dates.

Business:

"The New Normal – Unending Unpredictability"

For a number of years now, I've heard people talking about how unpredictable business has become; with the implied assumption that one of these days, the unpredictability will finally end, or at least, level off, and we'll return to a generally predictable environment. Well, from everything I see and experience, that ain't ever going to happen. Unpredictability is here to stay, and the implications are sobering.

First and foremost, is the fact that we have unequivocally entered the Age of Self-Doubt. I have never, in my professional life, worked with and encountered so many talented, highly skilled, and successful people, who are haunted by self-doubt. People, who prior to these times, made one decision after another, with a great sense of clarity and certainty, now second-guessing almost everything they do.

Everyone, at times, has some doubts; but now the experience seems to have become endemic and epidemic. It has become a part of our daily lives and our ongoing personal and professional experiences. So how do we deal with and come to terms with it? First, we need to realize that we are not alone with this feeling. It is shared by all of us, and has become a part of the global consciousness.

Second, we need to look at and assess our inventory of life skills to determine what personal assets we have that will help us do well and flourish in this environment, and what deficits we're going to have to work on. In terms of the skills, here are some of the most important:

We need (and we need to surround ourselves with) people who can live in and perform in, the moment. We can no longer accommodate colleagues who live in the past, or are always anticipating the future. This requires the ability to grieve well – to be able to say goodbye to what we used to do, and who we used to be – and the ability to realistically assess the present and come to terms with what it is, not what we'd like it to be. In other words, we need to give up our "hope trips."

We need to be life-long learners and come to terms with the fact that we'll never be "finished' with working on ourselves. To be able to do this, we need to be open to feedback, and open to constantly increasing our self-information. One of the things we need to stop doing is to defend our position, and act like we're on trial. We need to get a lot better at listening to the feedback we get about who we are; and to ask ourselves if what we're hearing makes sense, and how we can use it to improve ourselves.

We need to develop an emotional compass that allows us to stay centered and focused, in the face of ambiguity, uncertainty, and unpredictability. That is, the ability to stay with the task at hand, knowing that there are no guarantees in the near or distant future.

We need to look at our need for control, and our level of trust; and work to establish the best ratio between the two. In an Age of Self-Doubt, the temptation to increase control is heightened, and the tendency to lower one's trust is increased. What we need, however, is just the opposite. High control and low trust dramatically inhibits our ability to grow and increases anxiety and tension. Low control and high trust allows us to mediate in this "new normal," without driving ourselves crazy.

We need to be able to talk about our feelings, in real time. Especially when those feelings are about our worries and concerns. It's hard to convince people (especially business people) that talking about things that worry us, or situations that suck, helps us get through them, and defuses the anxiety associated with them. We don't need to always fix or change things that bother us; but we do need to talk about them, in order to feel better and get things done again. Complaining is fine; as long as that's not all you do.

Arleah has a saying in her practice: "You don't need to always get your way; but you do need to always get your say."

We need to talk about and face, with the people closest to us, our doomsday scenarios. Businesses would get through a lot more of their problems if they trusted themselves, when they're facing hard times, to talk about the worst case outcomes. Verbalizing the worst possible outcomes, dramatically decreases the anxiety and tension surrounding them, and frees up an amazing amount of energy tied up in circular worrying. It allows you to identify the really important things in your life, and put the worries in perspective.

A number of years ago, I was talking with a client in southern California, about the challenges he faced in the work he did. We were driving around (in his Rolls Royce) looking at some of the shopping centers he was involved with. What he did, was guarantee, through surety bonds, that immense construction projects would be finished by a date certain. If they were not, he would be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars. I asked him if he had any trouble sleeping at night, knowing how much he was on the line for. He responded, without any hesitation: "I sleep like a baby. I'm worth close to a hundred million. After that, there's no more to get out of me. The worst thing that can happen is that I end up poor. I'll live through it."

I have never forgotten his words. Arleah and I often talk about where we started our journey together. We still remember that we got our first TV by selling the puppies from one of our dogs first litters. It gives us some perspective when we get caught up in worrying.

Political/Cultural:

"The Wall Street Occupiers: Les Miserables Without The Music"

A number of years ago, Arleah and I walked out of the Broadway production of Les Miserables. Our feeling was that if we wanted to watch a group of people bemoan their plight and idealize their helplessness, we didn't need to go to the theater - we could just find the closest union meeting.

What we're witnessing now, in a number of American cities, is an amateur reproduction of Les Mis – a blatant distortion of our core values and our bedrock beliefs. I just got back from Chicago, where I saw interview after interview with a handpicked sample of professional victims (interviewed by reporters from the local NBC affiliate – not exactly a right-wing mouthpiece). The content of the interviews was amazingly consistent: "We don't have jobs because of evil, greedy people on Wall Street. We can't achieve the ‘American Dream,' because rich people own everything and won't share it with us. And lastly, we're getting the short end of the stick, because our economic system (i.e. capitalism) is inherently unfair." Before I saw all these interviews, I was just irritated by the news reports chronicling the spreading of this "movement."

I had grown up with card-carrying Communists in my extended family and had heard every Marxist-Leninist slogan, ad nauseum. I had lived through the peace movement of the sixties, and knew, by heart, every cliché about the "military-industrial complex." And, in my current life, I get to regularly visit the Peoples Republics of San Francisco and Madison.

But this current distillation more than irritates me. It infuriates me. The sense of entitlement, the arrogance and self-righteousness, and the ignorance of core American values, is more than I can stomach.

Consequently, I have a message for the demonstrators –

1. You wouldn't know a value if it fell on you. Our country is based on individual responsibility, not blaming others. You own 50% of the situation you're in. Go home and work on your half.

2. We reward risk-taking in America, not security and guarantees. If you want a piece of the pie, decide what you're willing to put on the line, and stop whining.

3. If you really want a job, pack up your backpack, and go where they're readily available. You can start with the Bakken Shale oilfields in North Dakota. There are lots and lots of jobs there, and more are being created daily. (The field is estimated to contain 4.3 billion barrels of oil – a resource only recently tappable because of technological innovations made possible through the genius of our evil capitalist system.) The unemployment rate in North Dakota is 3.5%, a bit over a third of the national average. Millions of Americans, throughout the history of this country, have picked up their lives and moved to where the work is.

4. If moving for work is beneath you, then apply for a job in one of the industries that always has openings, like insurance/financial services, automobile sales, information technology, and, particularly these days, healthcare (one of the fastest growing sectors in our economy).

5. Regardless of what hard skills you may or may not have, do a self-audit of your soft skills and see if you have the four prerequisites for finding and maintaining employment:

Can you make decisions quickly and without regret; or does it take you forever and paralyze you with doubt and unending angst?
Can you build relationships quickly and deeply, and emotionally connect with people? I regularly run into people who complain about how difficult it is to find work, and who have the people skills of artichokes. They talk at me, instead of with me, and they don't listen to a word that anyone else says. I call them "mutual monologuers." They simply wait until you're done talking, so that they can grab the floor. I can't wait to get away from them - and they wonder why they can't get a job.
Can you engage in conflict and use it to resolve differences and build intimacy in your important relationships? If you're a conflict avoider, at best, you'll always have low paying jobs; and, at worst, you'll be chronically unemployable.
Can you take the risk of initiating constructive confrontation? In other words, do you tell people the truth, and give them feedback that they need to hear, not that they'd like to hear. Or are you painfully polite and so excruciatingly tactful, that no one knows what you're talking about? Information is rapidly and steadily pushing our culture toward honest and direct communication, and rewarding those who know how to get to the point, quickly.

So, what is this "movement" really about? Well, we know from one inarticulate interview after another, that it's not about finding any resolution to our economic meltdown. What it is about, is a concerted attempt to avoid the pain of looking at, and taking ownership of, all of our culpability in self-indulgently spending ourselves into communal bankruptcy. No one sector, no one group, no one financial practice, no one piece of legislation, created our economic nightmare. It was massive, collective greed. As a society, we methodically turned luxuries into necessities, privileges into rights, and rewards into entitlements. We have no one to blame for this disaster, other than ourselves. We lost track of what is really important in our lives, and we're paying the price for it. Instead of scapegoating a group or an economic philosophy, we'd all be well served to start figuring out how we're going to deal with this global contraction and individual re-orientation of our lives.

Personal:

"The Strange Experience Of Death: My Mother's Passing"

Note: This was written the day after my mother died – Sept. 26th

My mother died yesterday. I got a call at 5:30 in the morning telling me that she died in her sleep. Her heart just stopped beating. It was a call I had been expecting for at least the last two years, but I was still surprised and stunned. I wasn't shocked – we had been told innumerable times that given her medical problems, it was a certainty that her heart would eventually stop. I don't think there's any way to reconcile the factual knowledge with the feelings; no way to prepare oneself for the actual news.

I sat on the side of our bed, in a kind of fog. I didn't quite know what to do next, or even how I was feeling. Arleah sat down next to me and held my hand. I tried to remember what the person at the nursing home had said – something about taking our time and that she would be in her room.

When we got to the home, I was very aware of being scared to see her dead. I have dealt a lot with death in my professional life, but not much with dead bodies. When we walked into her room, she was laying in her bed, hands folded over her stomach, covered with a blanket up to her shoulders. Her mouth was wide open, like it usually was when she was asleep. There was no doubt, however, that she was not asleep. A grayish pallor had already consumed her head.

The staff at the facility, who were extraordinarily kind and sensitive, asked us to remove things of value from her and her room. I can't tell you, in words, how strange a feeling it was to be opening drawers and cabinets, going through little boxes of trinkets and costume jewelry; doing all this, two or three feet from her dead body. I opened one drawer to find three unused cans of root beer – winnings from bingo. The cans had been there for at least a year and a half. It's funny what we value and keep around.

At one point, Arleah and I realized that we had been whispering to each other while we were looking through things obviously, afraid of waking her up. I became aware of having regressed back to childhood, watching those primitively done horror films where dead people suddenly popped up from their beds or coffins, scaring the bejeezus out of everyone in the room (and in the audience). It was particularly weird and disturbing when it came to retrieving her wedding ring. It is a unique and classy ring and my mother always wanted Arleah to have it. It was, however, still on her hand; and it seemed kind of ghoulish to be trying to take her ring off of her lifeless and limp hand. I felt, for a moment, like one of those grave robbers, featured in those "B" movies about Egyptian pyramids. Thankfully, we were rescued by a nurse's aide who put some lotion on my mother's hand, and slipped the ring right off.

I did a pretty good job of holding myself together until a few staff members, one at a time, came into the room and told us what a pleasure it had been to take care of, and to know my mother. For some reason, that touched me more than anything else that day. I also lost it when the fellow from the funeral home came to take her body away. He was extraordinarily sensitive, but it felt so crass and mechanistic to put her into a bag, zip it up, and cart her out, like some kind of a package. Seeing her head disappear under the zipper, hit me like a rock in the head. Its over; she's gone; forever.

Later that day, we went over to the funeral home to start the whole process going that would eventually result in a funeral ceremony back in Chicago. If we had thought that we had already experienced some weird feelings, we had underestimated how weird this experience would be. Everything we discussed with the funeral director was necessary to talk about, but felt amazingly incongruous, given the fact that my mother had just died hours ago. We had a protracted discussion about the practical and financial implications of embalmment; the position of the Jewish cemetery (where she is to be buried next to my father) on embalmment and the timing of the burial; the laws in Illinois about embalmment; and the intricacies of transporting her body to Spokane, first, and then Chicago, next. The absolute weirdest conversation was about packing her body in a material similar to dry ice, if she were not to be embalmed. At that point, I was beginning to feel like we were trapped in an Edward Albee play about the absurdities of American rituals around death. In a strange way, this venture into black humor was a welcome relief from the oppressiveness of dealing with her death.

To say that I went through a range of feelings that day, would be an understatement. I was on a veritable emotional roller coaster. I felt profound grief and sadness; a sense of relief that it was finally over (I had come to feel, these last two years, that we had been on a protracted death watch); and a feeling of regret and remorse over how irritated and angry I would get over her withdrawal, especially this past year, into her very private and non-relational world.

I want to remember my mother for the truly extraordinary woman she was. She was a pioneer in her era; a rebel with a very clear cause; and a no-nonsense lady, who took no crap from anyone. She had an early career in the entertainment industry that perhaps a handful of young Jewish girls ever achieved. She was a "career woman" and a housewife way before it was fashionable. And she took no prisoners when she had an opinion that she felt was the right one.

She taught me to think on my feet, defend my positions, and to hold my own in any public forum. When people ask me where I learned public speaking, I tell them that I was doing it at the dinner table every night, from five years old, on. She also taught me "class"; to aspire to be the best; never to settle; and to do things the right way, or not at all.

She was a beautiful woman, who had an "outfit" for every possible human activity. She weighed the same in her 80's that she did in her 20's, and she had a killer figure well into her 70's. I'm one of the few people I know who has "cheesecake" photos of their mother (from her Hollywood days). She was a fiercely loyal wife, and loved my father more than anything else in the world. She raised her children to be successful, and taught us a value system that has served all of us very well.

When my mother went anywhere (especially with my father), everyone noticed her arrival. That's how I'm going to remember her.

Morrie

July 2011

2011-07-22T10:27:00.000-07:00

ITS A HIT!

Our first Executive Education Seminar was extraordinary! It turned out to be a business and life-changing experience – a super “think tank,” as one of the participants put it. Here are the exact words of one of the attendees – a financial services professional from North Carolina:

“I just spent a week in Montana hiking Glacier National Park: I finished the week with a three-day leadership challenge at the Business School at the University of Montana. While I thought the highlight of my trip would be Glacier National Park, the conference actually upstaged my time there. Glacier National Park was beautiful and amazing, but I took away insights from the conference that were life changing.

I came away with insights on managing change, loss, conflict and growth that broke down the barriers of previous thinking and freed me from some of the traditional ‘prisons’ that I had created over my lifetime. The roundtable discussions with other business people facilitated by the Shechtman’s proved to be invaluable.”

As a result of this kind of feedback, we’re doing it again; sooner rather than later. The next Seminar will be September 16 – 18. It will be held in Montana, again, but this time, in our neck of the woods – in Kalispell (thirty miles west of Glacier National Park). We will be using the Park for our Saturday afternoon “Montana Experience.”

Put the dates in your appropriate electronic gizmos. We’ll have the Seminar website updated and ready for your registration, very soon.

Now, for the newsletter –

Business Tips

“The Lost Art of Connecting”

It’s become clear to me, these days, that we’ve lost the art of connecting – both in business and in our personal lives. What I mean by “connecting,” is the ability to listen to other people’s feelings, understand their importance to them, and create a direct and impactful link, that shows that you care about them; not simply their problems. Connecting is the art of getting beyond task management and problem resolution, to the establishment of a relationship, quickly and deeply.

I’ve had two experiences lately that reinforced my belief that connecting has gone out of style. The first involved a hotel stay at a Midwestern property where I was doing some presentations. I had encountered a couple of problems during my stay, and had indicated so on the electronic evaluation sent to me. My remarks had obviously been passed on to the hotel assistant manager, since I received an email asking me to call her, to discuss my troubled experience.

I called her; she answered; and there was silence on the line (after I had introduced myself and told her that I was calling in response to her email about my survey responses). She said nothing to connect with me, or segue off of her inquiry or my remarks. I had to literally lead the conversation, or it would have not gone anywhere. Her responses to the problems I had encountered (keys that didn’t work, and my room vibrating for five or ten minutes) were without emotion, and mechanical at best. I had to volunteer the explanations I was given, at the time, and she responded with a tepid apology and a certificate for a free night. She had no particular response to the hotel’s dryer shaking rooms all the way up to the third floor, or to the supposed dynamiting at a local quarry, about a half mile from the hotel (the engineer’s explanation). We could just as easily been talking about the absence of a newspaper at my room door in the morning.

It was clear that the only goal she had was to end the conversation, “solve the problem,” and get rid of me. She could have empathized with how weird it must have felt to have the whole room vibrating (the TV almost hopped off of its stand); or how frustrating it must have been to check into the hotel at midnight, schlep all my stuff up to my room, and be standing in the hallway not being able to get in. She did neither. She had no interest in my feelings, or in salvaging a relationship that was bruised and battered.

The second interaction involved a staff person at the fitness center I use. I went to the office of the center to renew my membership and to cancel Arleah’s. I sat down at one of the desks and got a shallow, barely audible “hello” and then, nothing. I waited a few seconds and then, when it was apparent that the staff person wasn’t going to say anything, I told her that I was there to renew one membership and cancel the other one. She said nothing in response to my statement, and pulled out a pad of paper and started writing. I asked her if she was going to ask me any questions, like which membership I was renewing, and which one I was canceling. She didn’t like my question, got quite defensive, and the rest of our interaction was infused with a cool, awkward politeness. She never thanked me for renewing my membership, and she handled the whole interaction with the impersonalness of buying gum at a convenient store.

I had the polar opposite experience at another hotel where I had a meeting scheduled with the general manager (part of a consulting project with a new client). While I was waiting, at the front desk, for the GM to come over, a young lady behind the counter, asked me what I had around my neck. (I wear a device that controls the volume and programs for my hearing aids, and links them to my cell phone. It’s hard not to notice it, although very few people ask me about it.) Her question lead to a discussion and interaction that was full of information, spontaneity, and shared feelings. In literally minutes, she had engaged me in a dialogue that felt genuine, caring, and reciprocal.

What’s the difference? Curiosity and risk. No connectedness occurs without either one. The problem is that we rarely recruit for curiosity, or reward for risk. Remember, that the greatest risks we take are not financial or physical. They involve being honest, direct, and unplanned in relating to others.

I was at a political fundraiser a few days ago and was introduced to a couple that had just arrived. The man was almost immediately pulled away by the candidate. I had noticed that neither the man nor the woman was wearing a wedding ring, so I asked her if they were a “couple.” She could have told me, right there and then, to buzz off and mind my own business. Instead, my question lead to a rather involved conversation about how difficult it was for middle-aged folks to have a committed relationship, without being married, given the tax implications, the social mores, family pressures, etc. The man joined us shortly, and we all had a fascinating conversation about aging, intimacy, and the changing culture we live in.

As we parted, both of them said that this had been one of the most interesting conversations they had had in years, and the gentleman asked if I had a business card.

When you’re developing yourself or others, the primary question to always be asking, is – “Am I willing to take the risk of truly engaging with others, and what would happen to me if I offend someone?”

Political and Cultural Observations

“The Debt-Ceiling Crisis: On The Cutting Edge Of Ignorance”

I have no doubt that the folks in Washington will, in spite of their affinity for brinksmanship, come to a compromise agreement on raising the debt ceiling. I also have no doubt that the agreement will have nothing to do with the fundamental issues facing us, as we examine and debate the role of government in our society, and the direction that our culture should be moving in. All this talk about “fairness,” taxing the rich, and passing a constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget, reminds me of a quote from Shakespeare (via William Faulkner):

“. . . It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”

Our country is undoubtedly at a critical point in our evolution. But what concerns me most is the gross ignorance surrounding what this crisis is really about. It is not about tax rates, raising revenue, capping spending, addressing income disparity, or redistributing wealth. It is about RISK.

The United States did not build the greatest society the world has ever seen; a society that has provided the masses of people with a quality of life never seen before; by simply rewarding people for working hard. Arleah and I have been in country after country where people work as hard as you can imagine, and they remain in grinding, gut-wrenching poverty. Nor did we build this amazing society through noble, altruistic work. The Mother Theresa’s of the world may have been admirable individuals, but the people they served are still trapped in a poverty that is beyond comprehension.

This country was built by rewarding and incentivizing individuals to put everything they owned, valued, and treasured, on the line; for the opportunity to better their lives, and even, rise to a level of success that they could have never, in their wildest dreams, envisioned. Our culture is rife with stories of people achieving the “American Dream;” starting with next to nothing, and creating success and wealth that legends are built on.

What is not so often highlighted is the deception, chicanery, and cruel manipulation, that these risk-takers were exposed to; and which, for many, resulted in their total and abysmal failure. What we haven’t wanted to deal with, since at least the 1960’s, is that both – phenomenal success and abject failure – are equally necessary for a society of unlimited opportunity.

Risk-takers can deal with financial challenges, limited resources, and difficult people. What dispirits and discourages them is pointless, politically correct, and downright stupid regulations. That is, rules and policies that, by and large, attempt to protect people from their own irresponsibility, laziness, and idiocy. These regulations not only cost risk-takers inordinate amounts of money, they stunt the very creativity that has produced the number one economy in the world. In addition, they infantilize much of the public, and cripple the ability of millions of people, to represent their own interests and act in their own behalf.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has a department that does nothing else but track the regulation of our society; both in terms of its economic cost, and its impact on the erosion of our culture. They put out a publication called “The 10,000 Commandments,” (the amount of regulations imposed just under Obama), and determine their cost to our economy. The cost of complying with this obscene number of regulations, under this administration, is close to a trillion dollars. Yes, a trillion dollars. Talk about throwing money down a rat-hole. The amount of government agencies that regulate the production of marketable beef is staggering, and it takes the efforts of over ten agencies to regulate beehives. If you want to watch your neighbors’ kids, on a consistent basis, you will most likely be harassed and threatened, by the “child protective” bureaucracy, into major construction work on your house to accommodate the toilet needs of phantom hordes of non-existent children. I have written before of my favorite regulatory absurdity that is showcased in my doctor’s office. It is illustrated with a sign above the patients’ toilet that reads:

“We have water-saving toilets. Please flush twice.”

So, I am not terribly troubled by the negotiations going on in D.C. Whatever kind of financial package they put together will not be terribly relevant to the central issue that has us stagnated, economically and culturally. Under the current regulatory environment, the people who can fire-up and fine-tune our economic engine (and create lots of jobs) are paralyzed and frozen in stride, tired of trying to predict what the next cockamamie regulation is going to be.

What we need, then, is a fourth war. A citizen’s uprising against the caretakers and risk-haters. I think that a growing number of people are sufficiently fed up with being treated as helpless idiots, to stem the tide of this regulatory insanity. If there ever was a time, it strikes me as now.

Personal Notes

“Aging and Musing”

I recently “celebrated” my 69^th birthday (“celebrated” doesn’t really capture the experience anymore) and am aware of a bunch of random feelings and thoughts:

I still have no idea of how I got to this age, and don’t know where the time went. I don’t have a feeling memory of my 40’s and 50’s. I know I was there, but only in my thoughts. No clear feelings of those days. Aging is a weird phenomenon. There is no way to predict what it will be like, until you get there. The only thought I can remember, from earlier in my life, about getting as old as 60, is that everything fun and enjoyable would probably end. Not so, thank goodness. It’s funny, but I remember watching my grandparents eating, and thinking, that they probably don’t enjoy food that much, at their age. Wrong!

A few days ago, Arleah and I cleared our private road up to our house ( a mile and a half long, going up a thousand feet in elevation) of hundreds of thistles. We had an unbelievable amount of moisture this year (300% of our typical snowfall) and everything was growing out of control. It’s been like living in the Amazon. Thistles six feet high and in clumps ten feet wide. I don’t know what got into us, but we were like two possessed people, working our way down the road, cutting and spraying with a vengeance. Our dogs must have thought we were crazy. We bent and stooped for about five hours, and I’ve never been so stiff and achy in my life. We clearly overdid it. Possibly to prove something to ourselves.

I’m aware these days, of riding an emotional roller coaster, even more than usual. I still have a thirst for new experiences in my life, both personal and professional. I really like formal teaching again (I’m an adjunct faculty member at the School of Business Administration at the University of Montana), both in the MBA program, and the newly evolving Executive Education Seminars. I have some new and quite interesting consulting clients, and I’m getting re-involved with Montana politics, on the gubernatorial level. At the same time, my grandmother’s “darkness” and my undergraduate nihilism, sneaks up on me, and I wonder why I’m doing all this stuff, since I’m in the latter part of my life, and I’m going to die anyway. Thank goodness, those moments are not long lasting.

I’m really touched these days, by my relationship with Arleah. She’s still the hottest 70 year old babe in the hemisphere, and the only one who can also carry on a conversation about archeology and quantum physics after sex. But she is, above all, my hero. No one that I’ve ever met works on herself with the diligence and persistence that she has. Her commitment to writing her book about her recovery from the death of her daughter, after all these years, has been awesome and inspiring. Above all, she is my partner in life. We share everything of importance; we live our values without exception; and we hold each other accountable for growing and learning. I cannot imagine a life any different from what we’ve built together.

Morrie

May 2011

2011-05-25T07:32:00.000-07:00

RECRUITING IS BACK - ARE YOU READY?

If you have anything to do with the assessment and selection of people who want to join your organization, you need to enroll in “Picking Winners and Keepers,” our blended learning, VILT (virtual instructor-led training) course focusing on in-depth, post-behavioral interviewing. If you ever . . .

. . . have found yourself unable to make a confident hiring decision by the end of the selection process, or

. . . been unsuccessful finding the right people to meet your current and future business needs, or

. . . faced the cost and disruption of a mis-hire, or

. . . ended up frustrated after a hiring interview because you felt you still didn’t know the candidate

this unique interactive learning experience was created for you. The course features on-line self-study combined with instructor-led teleconferences, incorporating 1-on-1 accountability.

Here’s some feedback from recent participants in the course –

“Liked the format a lot – easy to follow and digest, sequential flow, great structure”

“ Morrie’s content helped make uncovering a candidate’s relationship building skills a science”

“Provided me with techniques to assess someone’s values match”

“It really improved my focus in interviewing – provided structure without the loss of spontaneity”

“Morrie gave me permission to go ‘off-script’ and really find out who the candidate is”

The next course begins June 22^nd – you can sign up at: http://performancecounts.com/programs.html

There are still a few spaces left for the Executive Education Seminar – “The Leadership Challenge,” that I’ll be teaching June 10-12 at the University of Montana. We have a fascinating and diverse group of people, from all over the country, and from a myriad of businesses and professions, already registered. You can register by emailing:

Kathy.white@business.umt.edu

Or you can call Kathy at 406.243.6715.

You can get all the details on the seminar at www.business.umt.edu/leadership

Two other bits of interest: The book that Arleah and I wrote on relationships – “Love in the Present Tense: How to Have a High Intimacy, Low Maintenance Marriage,” is now available in ebook format. This is the book for couples wanting to take their relationship to the next level; for couples pondering another commitment; and for young adults who don’t want to experience divorce. We want to thank all of you who have so enthusiastically supported the book, as well as our work with couples.

Arleah has written a book of her own. It is tentatively titled – “Sharon’s Doll: My Journey Since The Death Of My Daughter.” It chronicles her recovery over a thirty plus year period, and her extensive work with hundreds of families who have lost children. She wrote it to help those whose lives have been indelibly altered by the most devastating loss imaginable. In the United States, every year, 1,600,000 children die. And that loss has a catastrophic impact on the survivors. The manuscript is out for review and publication, and we will keep you apprised of its status.

Business:

“What’s Your Interpersonal Impact?”

There are a lot of things that business people learn about and focus on – management, sales, finances, succession. But it is rare for them to pay much attention to their interpersonal impact. What I mean by that is captured in a question that I often ask my clients: “After people meet you for the first time, what do they think about who you are, and how do they feel about you? Do they think you’re pretty smart; not so smart; pretty congenial and friendly; not so approachable; a real professional; or a rank amateur? And do they feel good and positive toward you, and look forward to getting to know you better? Or do they feel like there’s a huge impenetrable wall up that they could never surmount?

I’ve been thinking a lot about this lately, for a couple of reasons. First, because the most recent research on first impressions, is really sobering. According to a number of studies, you have around 118 seconds to make an impression and impact on another person. This applies to both personal and work relationships. That’s not a lot of time. And it certainly blows apart the old homily about how it takes a long time to get to know someone. In our culture, if it does take you a long time to get to know people, you probably won’t know many. You may dislike this shift in the culture at large, and certainly in the business environment, but not paying any attention to it, can limit your opportunities, and your adaptability to changing modes of communicating with people. Just look at what’s happened with webinars. We’ve discovered that most people lose interest in the typically structured webinar, in under a few minutes; and start fiddling with their favorite form of technology, or start daydreaming.

The other reason I’ve been pondering this, springs from a recent encounter I had with a politician in one of our national bodies. We both spoke at a meeting and had some time to interact with each other. Most of the positions he takes I have no problem with. But as a person, I was very put-off and even repulsed. At this point in my life, I’m quite used to political superficiality (someone talking to you, while they’re sizing up the room with their eyes). But this fellow didn’t even make an effort to be superficial. And, in addition, everything about him, non-verbally, reeked of mean-spiritedness. So even though we may be strategically aligned, I wouldn’t vote for him if he were the only person running in a one candidate election. And the saddest thing is, that I’m fairly certain that he is clueless as to his impact on others.

So, I have a question for you. “What do you want to accomplish when you meet with someone?” And I don’t mean, here, tactically or task-wise. I do mean, what kind of person-to-person bridge do you want to build, and what kind of feeling tone do you want to create? You’re already doing this unconsciously and automatically. What I’m suggesting, is that you take conscious charge of this process, identify exactly the impact you’re having on others, and ask yourself if that’s what you want to accomplish. If you’re unclear about the impact you have, ask the most significant people in your personal and work life – they’ll have no problem identifying what it is. If part of your work is developing other people, the greatest gift you can give them, is honest and direct feedback on how they impact you and how you feel about that impact. Nothing else will come close to the value of that kind of information, in helping them grow, develop, and succeed.

Political and Cultural Observations:

“Obama and Usama”

I couldn’t let a month go by without commenting on the killing of Usama bin Laden. I think we did exactly the right thing and I’m glad he’s dead. He was definitely in the same category of a Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin, and there’s not much more to say about him. I’m not at all sure, though, that his demise will have a significant effect on the war on terrorism. He was a pretty paltry and pathetic figure at the end of his life – sequestered in his bedroom, drinking Cokes and watching himself on TV. Not exactly the persona of the leader of a world-wide jihad against the West. There are, unfortunately, a plethora of lunatic fanatics still running around looking for opportunities to destroy themselves and others. And they don’t need any kind of figurehead to inspire them.

I did have a stronger reaction to two other facets of bin Laden’s death. First, I was really put-off and disappointed in the street celebrations in our country, immediately following the announcement of his killing. If we want, as a culture, to distinguish ourselves from the Muslim fanaticism we see so often, on the “Arab street,” those celebrations were sure as hell no way to do it. This was not Mardi Gras or New Year’s Eve. It was a very necessary military operation to remove a hideous despot. I can’t, for the life of me, imagine what the celebrants were thinking and feeling, that lead them to create street parties.

My reaction to bin Laden’s death involved a myriad of feelings, none of which induced me to celebrate and party. I felt a sense of vindication and justice delivered and a good healthy dose of revenge achieved. And I felt a profound sadness for friends and unknown thousands, who had to relive the horror of 9/11. Above all else, I felt a deep grief for all those lost and those left behind, in this senseless war with insanity and supreme irrationality.

I know a number of Navy Seals, one of which trained many members of Team Six. They are true heroes, phenomenally trained and disciplined; who do a job that almost none of us would have the courage or wherewithal to do. People jumping around in the streets like a bunch of drunk party-goers, do not do justice to these heroes.

My other reaction has to do with Obama’s decision to take out bin Laden in the manner in which he ordered it. The decision has a significance which, I believe, has not been fully noted. Employing Navy Seals, with clear orders to kill bin Laden, represents a major shift, on Obama’s part, from the rigid ideology of many of his advisors and a vocal segment of his political base. From the pure ideological perspective of the far left, a capture of bin Laden would have been their preferred solution. This would have allowed bin Laden to experience due process and preserve his constitutional rights. (I know, as I write this, how crazy this sounds, but this is actually a position taken by many folks – just consult the blog-a-sphere.) In fact, I’m still waiting for the ACLU to demand a trial, in absentia, for bin Laden.

On the other hand, Obama could have simply ordered an airstrike to completely obliterate bin Laden’s compound. For another part of Obama’s base that would have been more palatable. In some strange way, for some folks, that seems less brutal and more “humane,” than putting a bullet in his head at close range.

Both of these alternatives would have been ideologically more simpatico, but would also have been a propaganda bonanza for the Jihadists. Can you imagine the world-wide media circus that would have been catalyzed by parading bin Laden around in handcuffs? That would have certainly transformed a fading has-been, into a reborn martyr. The avoidance of these choices, and the decision to launch a lethal, surgical strike, signals, I believe, a very substantial move, on Obama’s part, toward leadership, and away from politics. Leadership is fundamentally about risk, and the courage it takes to deal with potential failure. This doesn’t make me anymore a fan of Obama’s, but it does indicate a maturing in a role that, until recently, has been so far over his head, that he’s been struggling to just hit the water line.

(I know that this observation may not please partisans – on either side – but I have a greater fidelity to my values and my commitment to the truth, then I do to party politics.) I hope that this shift is indicative of more decisions, in the future, that reflect the true interests of our country, over the strident voices of ideologues.

Personal:

“Texas Children’s Hospital: The Courage of Kids”

I seem to be having a number of life changing experiences these days. A few weeks ago, as part of getting feedback about Arleah’s book (mentioned above), we had a number of meetings with healthcare professionals who deal regularly with the death of children. We were in Houston, at the Texas Medical Center, doing some work with the staff at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. One of our meetings was at the Texas Children’s Hospital, and in particular, at a program that specifically dealt with childhood cancer. What we didn’t know, until we arrived for the meeting, was that the focus of this program, was on children diagnosed with terminal cancer.

The director of the program was very gracious and informative, and told us a lot about how they treat the children, and how they help the families, both during the treatment process and after the children die. During this meeting I felt a heavy sadness, not knowing that this was simply a precursor to what I would soon experience.

The director offered to take us on a tour of the facility, and show us every aspect of their program. We accepted her invitation, and began the tour. I cannot put into words, effectively, what it felt like to move through the facility and see what we saw. Everything there was child-centered. Open spaces, play areas, brightly colored, and a buzz with activity. The staff were amazing – upbeat, positive, involved whole-heartedly with the children and their parents.

I was holding myself together pretty well, until we entered an area with a bunch of children assembled for a kind of learning activity. Until that point, we had pretty much walked past children and staff and not really focused on them. When we got to this area, time seemed to stop, and everything seemed to go into slow motion. I started to really look at the children, and what I saw hit me straight in the heart. Almost every one had a shaved head, and many had surgical scars running from one end of their head, to the other; like a horrific zipper. These were kids that were five, six, seven, maybe as old as ten or eleven years old. I was stunned at first, and then overwhelmed with sorrow. How could this happen – to so many children?

We left this area – I was reeling at this point – and went to a smaller room. In this room, were three mothers with infants in their arms. The babies were receiving chemotherapy through IV’s in their legs. I don’t remember now, how long we stayed there, what I did, or exactly what I was feeling. Just a brief glance at those courageous mothers and their helpless babies was devastating. I’ve never experienced anything like that in my life. I can’t imagine what it would be like to hold my child in my arms, watching them endure pain, knowing that they were dying.

Arleah and I left the Institute, and went downstairs to wait for our ride to the next meeting. We didn’t talk a lot. There was not much to say. We have certainly been through enough in our life to have some perspective on what’s really important, and what, in the long run, is inconsequential. And this experience certainly reinforced , and for me, took it to another level. I don’t believe, as I’ve written before, that I take any of the important relationships in my life for granted. Or that I feel sorry for myself for some of the losses and challenges we’ve faced. After this experience, I am more than ever grateful for the people in my life – for Arleah, our kids, our families, and our friends, and will cherish them forever.

Morrie

April 2011

2011-04-27T07:00:00.000-07:00

“Too Many Leaders Fail To Live Up To Their Potential, Because They
Stop Working On Themselves”
(Harvard Business Review, 2011)

This quote captures the essence of the seminar that I’ll be teaching this summer at the University of Montana. Its designed for experienced businesspeople and professionals who want to accelerate their own growth as well as the growth of their organizations. The premise of this learning experience is simple: The growth potential of all your relationships – with individuals, groups, or organizations – is capped by the self-imposed limits of your own personal growth. I learned, through my experiences as therapist, coach, and consultant, that I could take my clients not one step further than I had gone myself.

“The Leadership Challenge: Managing Yourself for Growth and Change”
June 10 – 12, 2011. Missoula, Montana

This is a great opportunity to dramatically expand your leadership skills and abilities while also enjoying a true Montana experience. We’re working with the owners of a very unique ranch (Dunrovin Ranch in Lolo, MT) to integrate an afternoon and evening experience at their property, with the seminar experience at the Business School. When you go to the seminar website, be sure, when you look at the “Seminar Schedule and Location,” to click on the link for “Dunrovin Ranch – Taste of Montana!” The ranch folks have put together some amazing adventures involving rafting (easy or very challenging); riding (tranquil or spectacular); and biking (thru mind-blowing vistas). These are all available to family, friends, etc. that may be coming with you.

To get to the seminar website, go to: www.business.umt.edu/leadership

You can register online at:
https://www.bber-secure.umt.edu/registerLC2011.asp.

If you want to know more about my background and read a testimonial go to:
http://www.business.umt.edu/DegreesPrograms/LeadershipChallenge/LeadershipChallengeInstructor.aspx.

The seminar is limited to 25 participants, so register early to reserve your spot.

“Picking Winners & Keepers” – Sign Up For The Next Class

The next class of our unique interactive learning experience focused on recruiting and selection, begins April 20th (and runs thru June 1st). The course features on-line self-study combined with instructor-led teleconferences, incorporating 1-on-1 accountability and coaching.
It is built around the material I’ve developed over thirty years of work with over a thousand organizations, and is a joint venture with Training Implementation Services, an equally experienced company which has, I believe the most effective and leading edge delivery system for training and developing our workforce. If you or any of your colleagues has ever made a hiring mistake, or struggled with ambivalence after an interview, this is the course for you.
If you want more information on the course or want to make sure you get in the April 20th session, contact John Stout. John is one of the principals of TIS and is our lead facilitator for the class. You can reach John at: john.stout@performancecounts.com

Now, for the newsletter –

Business: “Is Your Personal Life Screwing Up Your Business?”

On a recent flight, I had a most interesting conversation with my seatmate. (He had a fascinating job – costing out massive infrastructure projects all over the world. He had a unique take on the turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East – that it would be a boon for Western countries because it would create billions of dollars of projects in underdeveloped countries.) We were discussing what each of us did, and at one point, he said, “Business can really screw up your personal life.” In my own inimical fashion, I heard myself saying, “No, you’ve got it backwards. Your personal life can really screw up your business.” He looked kind of quizzical and asked what I meant. I then had to quickly figure out what I did mean. (As I’ve said, on a number of occasions, I don’t plan what I say, very often. It’s almost always what I mean, but I figure it out after its released from my mouth.)

I don’t think, in the last thirty years, that I’ve seen a time in which so many people and so many relationships have melted down, and created crises in the workplace. Well, you might say, look at the economy for the last three years – that’s your answer. That may play a role, but I think that it’s far from the complete answer. I believe that the economy has been a catalyst for personal and interpersonal dysfunction, but not the fundamental cause. I see the economy serving the same role as alcohol for alcoholics. Liquor does not create addicts. Addicts abuse substances (or food, or sex, or people, ad infinitum) to dull their pain. The substance sparks the addiction and helps make it worse. So, I think, does the economy.

For some time now, I’ve become convinced that at least half the population is personally unhappy and unfulfilled, and has chosen personal, intimate relationships that are massive compromises. I don’t mean by this that the relationships are intrinsically bad and beyond hope. I mean that both parties, at some level, have decided that their relationship sucks less than not having one at all. This results in a decision, almost always unconscious, to lower their expectations, put up with what they don’t like or respect in their partner, and toss in the towel on ever getting their emotional (or, often, their physical) needs met. All the lousy economy does, is bring to the surface, serious, unattended to, personal and interpersonal issues that have been well camouflaged by better financial times. As we say in business, profits can hide a multitude of sins.

This shows up, in the workplace, as escalating irritability, passive-aggressive behavior (I’ll tell you what you want to hear, to your face, and then I’ll go off and do whatever the hell I want to), hostile zingers coming out of nowhere, the inability to focus, constantly missing targets and goals, and a poisonous and corrosive cynicism. An important point here: Work does not have the power to create chronic dysfunction and unhappiness. Only our personal lives can do that. Anyone who stays in a lousy, unsatisfying, and mean-spirited job, for an extended period of time, has the same thing at home.

So, what can you do, when you see any of these dysfunctional behaviours? First and foremost, don’t get tactical. It is insulting and patronizing to start telling people to just do some things differently and everything will be fine. It is equally insulting to tell people, directly or indirectly, that they have no reason to feel the way they do. Invalidating people’s feelings, at best, strengthens their resolve to act poorly; or, at worst, creates an escalating hostility, rage, and need for retribution.

Instead, give them feedback about two things: First, how their behaviour impacts you personally. Do not bring in any other people! (Literally or figuratively.) Keep it between you and them. (People stop listening and get more pissed off, when you depersonalize the feedback.) Second, tell them, in the simplest possible language, how their behaviour impacts your desire to have a relationship with them. For example, “When you put down everything we do here, and act like everyone is an idiot, other than you, I want to get away from you as quickly as possible.” Then the most important thing – a question: “Is that what you want to accomplish?”

This almost always leads to a dialogue, the focus of which is that the counter-productive behaviour under discussion is methodically destroying relationships that keep the person connected to the organization. I’ve never met a person who then can’t understand the logical extension of this relationship-killing behaviour. This, you may be thinking, sounds like a threat. That’s because it is. It is intended to begin a process of presenting the person with some tough choices, the first of which is whether he wants to start changing his behaviour, or leave the organization.

The next set of choices involves the person looking at the connections between his poor actions at work and his life outside of work. This is catalyzed by a challenging assignment - “I want you to think about why you act the way you do, and come back and let me know what you discovered. For the purposes of this first discussion, you can’t bring up anything about work. I’ll be glad to listen to suggestions about improving things around here, but only at a later date.”

The last key point. This assignment will typically lead to a discussion of a personal dilemma or problem. Your response is critical, and always in the form of a question: “What do you think your options are, and which one are you going to exercise?” Don’t ever answer the question – “What do you think I should do?” Once you do, you relieve the other person of any responsibility for managing their life; you participate in an informal adoption; and you lay the groundwork for litigation. My response for the last thirty years, has always been the same: “Beats me.”

By the way, up to this point, you have not violated any knee-jerk liberal law about employee privacy, nor are you in danger of the HR police coming after you. The “protected areas” are, ironically, irrelevant to the conundrums people create for themselves, and telling people what to do with their lives is about the most useless and counter-productive thing you can do.
I have had people ask me if this methodology is not tantamount to putting undo pressure on people who are already under immense pressure. My response is – absolutely! I call it, the “Kick’em When They’re Down” theory of change. People only change when the pain of not changing is greater than the pain of staying the same. The best time to initiate change is when the pain trajectory is on the upswing.

If you want to be genuinely helpful to people, the last thing you want to do, is remove the source of pain and discomfort in their life that is driving their dysfunction. You may feel a temporary sense of pride and beneficence, while they slide deeper into their self-destructive and illusory world.

Political/Cultural: “The Arrogance of the Poor: Entitlement and the Lack of
Perspective”

Most nights Arleah and I watch the news on three different outlets. At 7:00 we watch PBS, at 8:00 we watch CNN, and at 9:00 we watch FOX News. All three have guest “commentators” supposedly representing a continuum or spectrum of political ideologies. PBS’s commentators run the gamut from far left to moderately left; CNN’s from moderately left to slightly right of center; and FOX News’ from far right to moderately right. If a ringer accidentally gets booked, who actually represents a legitimately contrarian point of view, they get patronized and co-opted, or just talked over. The differing perspectives, on the three networks, are fascinating; and some nights we wonder if all these commentators live on the same planet.

A few weeks ago, PBS devoted part of their broadcast to an examination of the ‘income gap” in America – a fresh and unique topic. They had the usual lead-in reciting the gargantuan compensation CEO’s and the piddling salaries of “working people,” as well as the obligatory “studies” showing how the gap has grown to “obscene” proportions.

What was most interesting was a montage of mini-interviews with four people, all at the wrong end of the gap, struggling to get by. One was a social worker who worked with displaced and poor people; one was a security guard who had worked previously at a higher paying position; one was a single mother with three young children; and one was a former middle manager, now unemployed.

The social worker, by her own admission, making “good money,” combining both her and her husband’s income, complained about how the two of them were just barely getting by, and could not do a lot of the things they’d like to do. The security guard, very bitterly, ranted about guarding the building of some “rich guy” who (he strongly inferred) got the building at the expense of some not so rich folks. The single mom whined about being stuck with a small apartment, saddled with taking care of three small kids, and therefore, unable to get ahead in her life. The unemployed middle manager was the angriest and most vociferous, venting her spleen about the nearly $200,000 she had spent on her undergraduate and graduate education, just to find herself unemployed.

For me, this was one of those yelling at the television occasions. The financial correspondent for PBS raised nary a question of any of the four. (I don’t know why I thought he would.) He didn’t ask the social worker why she didn’t choose to do something else, if she wanted to make more money. (I have never understood, or had much patience with people who choose work that everyone on the planet knows doesn’t pay much, and then complain bitterly about just scrapping by, and how awfully unfair it is.) He didn’t ask the security guard why he thought that some people end up owning buildings, and some people end up guarding them. (I have no doubt that he subscribes to the mythological belief that the angel of money anoints some people and passes over others.) He didn’t ask the single mother if she ever had any reservations or any hesitations, about having three illegitimate children. (I know it’s not politically correct, but he also didn’t ask her why she was a hundred pounds overweight, and the effect that that choice would have on her and her children’s future possibilities. I know that poor people eat a lot of junk, but there’s a limit to what Sugar Pops can do to you.) And finally, he didn’t ask the former middle manager a number of pertinent questions, like – “Why did you think that getting some college degrees would guarantee you a job? Or, “Why do you think you got fired and other middle managers are still employed?

The sense of entitlement that these four individuals had is infuriating. It was clear that each of these people felt that it was their right to have enough money to do whatever they wanted to do. It was their right to own what rich, successful people own. It was their right to avoid any consequence for bad decision-making earlier in life. And finally, it was their right to have a guaranteed job simply because they jumped through some socially acceptable hoops.

The fundamental reason that has spawned this outrageous sense of entitlement is the notion, rapidly becoming an integral facet of our cultural zeitgeist, that things should be easy. It’s the belief that if something is hard, demanding, and even exceedingly difficult, something is terribly wrong; and even worse, they’re obviously getting screwed. If I hear one more person in the Obama administration, whine about the terrible burden of student loans, or the right that everyone has to go to college, I’m going to seriously consider going into politics. I know lots and lots of people who borrowed (and paid back) enormous amounts of money, to make it possible for them to go to college. None of them (including many from poor, minority backgrounds) have been psychically scarred or economically disadvantaged for life. And I know an equal number of highly successful people who never went to college (some never finished high school) who have had great careers and great lives. As with all caretaking concepts, the idea of making things easy is, at its core, another form of racism. It posits an inferior, incapable individual who lacks the capacity to rise to challenges, and to learn and grow from their difficult experiences. With very few exceptions, everyone has the resources to surmount the difficulties they encounter; but they will never know what they are, as long as we make things easy for them. I have never worked with a successful person who does not attribute their very success to the hard things they had to work through and master.

The other thing that really angers me about the arrogance of the poor is the simple lack of gratitude for what they do have. It is very unfortunate and undermining of our culture that we are amongst the least traveled first world people. Most Americans are clueless about how the rest of the world lives (and dies). The majority of the citizens of the rest of this planet, with the exception of a handful of countries, would kill to be poor in America.

In addition to having chosen a career that has taken me to numerous places on our globe, I had an even greater gift. I grew up with immigrant grandparents. They came to this country with nothing. No money, no possessions, no knowledge of the language, and nothing to smooth their way into a culture they were ill-prepared to deal with. They got regularly ripped off, exploited, abused, and worked like slaves. And every day of their lives, they thanked God that they were in America.

I have great empathy for people born into poverty, abuse, and ignorance. I have none for people who stay there. It is sad that the idea of American exceptionalism has become a cliché, because it has led to most people not knowing what it actually means. We are an exceptional people because of our fierce commitment to choice. No where else in this world do people have the choices we have. Some time it’s difficult to exercise those choices, but it is never impossible. Maintaining those choices is the quintessential challenge of our time.

Personal: “Losing a Parent: The Death Before the Death”

I have written a few times about my mother’s deteriorating health and the impact on our relationship. I’ve discussed the changes in her, from a vibrant, curious, somewhat argumentative person, to a passive, non-communicative, almost obsequious individual. The transformation has been stark, and deeply saddening, but there has always been a ray of hope, when she would suddenly come alive, and really engage us in a true interaction. Those moments, admittedly, were few and far between, but they stoked our hope that, at some level, she was still there. That hope has now vanished. She is now gone. Her body remains, but her soul has departed.

About two weeks ago, when Arleah and I went to see her, we found her in bed, in a catatonic-like state. She looked like she had had a stroke, or something of that magnitude. We tried to talk with her, but to no avail. She literally could not speak, and could barely move her head, back and forth. We thought, initially, that she was indicating “no” to some of our questions, by shaking her head, but it soon became apparent that there was no connection between her head movements and our questions. In addition, it was soon clear that anything we said didn’t register, or if it seemed to, there was a delay of 10 to 15 seconds. It is still hard to describe exactly what she was like. Both Arleah and I have been around stroke victims, and they can still communicate, if only with eye movements and a slight nodding. Her head movements were the kind of thing you do when you’re alone, and saying to yourself, “I can’t believe this is happening.”

In subsequent days, she was thoroughly evaluated at the hospital, and cleared of any stroke involvement or concussion (she had fallen three times in the prior week and had some nasty bruises). She had tested positive for a urinary tract infection, and some of the nursing staff (and one of the doctors) was attributing her lack of any responsiveness to that infection. (She has subsequently recovered from the UTI, and is still non-communicative.)

My mother has always been a proud woman. She took crap from no one, was fiercely independent, and had an opinion about everything. As she entered her 80’s (she’s almost 92), she opened up considerably about her feelings about her life, and the big decisions she had made. It was the first time, in my life, that I saw her express regret about some things she had done (and not done). In every one of those conversations she made it clear that she did not, in her words, want to live like a “vegetable.” She said to us, directly, that if she got to the point where all she was capable of, was eating, sleeping, and going to the bathroom, she wanted us to “pull the plug.” She added that if we didn’t, she would. I think she’s pulled the plug; in the only way she can now.

At this point, I have an extraordinary mixture of feelings. I am deeply, deeply saddened. The woman I see at the nursing facility bears no resemblance to the woman I grew up with. She doesn’t look like her and certainly doesn’t act like her. I find myself longing for those pointless political arguments we would have; and the stories about her “great” friends who never came to visit her.

I’m also angry; at times furious about her leaving without at least saying goodbye. I want to talk with her about the amazing life she had; about what I learned from her; about her grandchildren; about my father and the great life they had together. Instead, all I get is a mindless smile, signifying nothing. She’s like an infant now, but without the hope and the promise of things to come.

As Arleah says, all that’s left now is to sit with her, and hold her hand.

Morrie

February 2011

2011-02-28T08:52:00.000-08:00

The twenty-four hour news cycle initiated by cable television, has tended to trivialize the notion of “history in the making.” But these last two weeks have truly brought life to the concept. Both in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as here in the U.S., history is being made.

The fall of brutal, dictatorial regimes in the Arab world is certainly significant, but it is nothing more than the tip of the cultural iceberg. What is going on is the two-fold beginning of the most fundamental changes in Arab society and Islam, in hundreds of years. What we are witnessing is the dismantling and rejection of tribalism (and its political counterpart), and the long-postponed reformation of Islam. This is not a groundswell, from the populace of these countries, for democracy, Western style, or otherwise. The biggest mistake we can make is to expect some magical transformation, or even transition, to an open, truly free political playing field. What we will undoubtedly see, is a succession of less brutal, less autocratic rulers. Arleah and I saw this when we were in Russia as the Soviet Union ended. Everyone we talked with had the same answer to the question we asked them, about their expectations of the next political system. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, had any interest in a democracy. Everyone we talked with was glad to be through with Communism. What they wanted, without exception, was a Czar. A “nice Czar,’ but a Czar for sure.

The participation, and in some cases, the prominent role played by women, in the various rebellions, is the clearest sign that Orthodox Islam is under assault and is beginning to be dismembered. From my perspective, this is the most optimistic and encouraging aspect of the revolutions underway in the Middle East and North Africa. Islam is the last major religion to undergo a reformation, and it can’t happen fast enough. Unreformed Islam has fed (and continues to feed) our contemporary world-wide reign of terror, and no military or political interventions will quell it. A reformation of Islam has the only true chance.

At home, the tumult in a number of state legislatures signals the beginning of the end of the entitlement state. The bizarre wage inflation, the nutty pension benefits, and the tyranny of low-risk unions, is seeing its sunset. Beginning in the 1960’s we started paying people obscene amounts of money for doing pedestrian work; providing them with equally obscene sinecures for doing nothing (often while they were in their 50’s); and bowed to state-endorsed extortion in “labor negotiations.” To use the popular phrase of the day – “the chickens have come home to roost.” All but two states are financially untenable, and a bunch of those are teetering on bankruptcy. Our state legislators have made drunken sailors look like responsible citizens. Every state may not win this round, but you can take it to the bank, that the old deal is over. The New, New Deal will realign relationships between “labor” and “management” and reinstitute the role of risk-takers in rebuilding the economy.
________________________________________

Business Tips

“High Accountability or Micromanagement”

With superheated competition and a comprehensive examination of everyone and everything in business, these days, the question often asked me is: “How do I know when I’m being a high accountability, very effective manager; or being a micromanaging harasser?” In fact, I just had a conversation about this today, with a good friend and client, Jim Tierney.

Let me answer it this way. Everything of any importance deserves to be monitored. The only question, is how? The high accountability manager, in concert with direct reports, sets specific dates and times for assessing progress on work toward the accomplishment of certain goals. In addition, it is made quite clear, that it is the responsibility of the worker being held accountable, to notify the manager, immediately, of any circumstance that has occurred, that could interfere with the timelines that have been established. It is not the manager’s job to be poking around in anticipation of a failure to achieve results. This poking around, and “checking up,” outside of previously established monitoring meetings, is what I define as micromanagement. (Another good friend and client – Damon Shelly – introduced me to the term “pester management,” which really captures the essence of micromanagement.) It is low trust, disabling, and depreciating. It is assumed, also, that clear consequences for the achievement, or lack of such, have been articulated and understood, by both parties.

Micromanagers do unto others, what was done to them. As soon as the possibility of failing at something looms on the horizon, they are drawn to pestering and harassing, like addicts to meth. The low trust they grew up with kicks in, and it becomes next to impossible to let others struggle, fail, and ultimately, learn. It is important to realize, that micromanagement is the purest form of unlearning. If you want to avoid it, look hard at how you view failing at something, and see what it means to you. Is it an opportunity to learn something new (albeit not a fun experience); or a complete condemnation of who you are as a person? Discovering the answer to this, will prove a lot more fruitful than applying some hackneyed tactics.

________________________________________

Political and Cultural Observations

“The Limits of Tolerance: Somali Pirates”

There is no doubt that our society (and most of Western Europe) has become, over the last four to five decades, exceedingly more tolerant of a myriad of differences within our population. Most institutional racial, ethnic, and religious barriers have fallen, and we seem to be well on our way to diluting, if not eliminating, the hysteria surrounding our reactions to gay folks. I’m old enough to remember when the only shows (and commercials) on television, featured white guys with close-cropped hair, and white women who all looked like they just won the bake-off at the county fair. I now work regularly with Black executives and senior managers, women entrepreneurs and business owners, and management teams that look like a general session of the U.N. I have worked with, in the last few years, senior leadership teams in which white American males represent under 10% of the team.

Unfortunately, as in most cultural shifts, we have bounced from one extreme to the other. Tolerance has slid into license. We now have whole organizations, as well as media outlets, seemingly devoted to justifying anti-social, overtly hostile, and clearly criminal behavior, on the grounds of tolerance and inclusiveness. Any attempts to criticize formerly unacceptable behavior, is immediately met with accusations of racism, bigotry, or xenophobia. We have almost completely lost our ability to set limits and boundaries for acceptable social, political, or economic interactions, and we put up with rude, obnoxious and assaultive behavior that no civilized society should tolerate. We have, interestingly, reached the point, where the Chancellor of the arguably most successful country in Europe, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, have pronounced “multi-culturalism” an abject failure.

This slide into license and this acceptance of the unacceptable, has reached its zenith, for me, in the worldwide tolerance of Somali piracy. A few nights ago, on one of the news channels we watch, we saw an interview with an international “expert” of some sort. About halfway through his interview, he made reference to the “business proposition” of the pirates (a weird term to be using in the 21st century – makes it sound like they’re just a group of refugees from Disney World out for a good time). The “business proposition” he was referring to, was of course, the seizing of ships and the holding of hostages for millions of dollars in ransom. Arleah and I looked at each other in disbelief. Did he actually just characterize extortion and kidnapping as a “business proposition?” Yep, he did.

Our government, and every civilized society on this planet, should be ashamed of itself. Currently, these vermin hold thirty vessels and 700 people hostage, under threat of death, and have now murdered four innocent people. And our response has been tepid, State Department whining.

So what should we do?

We should issue the following ultimatum to the pirate leaders:

“You have forty-eight hours within which to release every vessel you occupy. If you fail to do so, or you harm or kill any hostages, you will be hunted down and killed; the villages you come from will be obliterated; and the people who launder your ransom money will be tried as terrorists and war criminals.”

This may seem rather harsh. I have had this debate with people who view this option as lowering ourselves to the same level as the pirates. I categorically reject this analogy. This is what civilized, humane societies have done, and better be prepared to do, to uncivilized, inhumane societies. We did not end the Holocaust by negotiating with the Gestapo.
________________________________________

Personal Notes

“Me and ‘The King’s Speech’”

“The King’s Speech” moved me in a way that few movies have. Other than “The Notebook” and “Sophie’s Choice,” I have not been as deeply touched by a motion picture.

A lot of people who have seen the picture, talk about the courage and struggle of the King George character. And he undoubtedly conquered much – primarily his own fears and pride – and exhibited, ultimately, an extraordinary bravery. But for me, the King’s “speech therapist,” struck the most resonant chord, and triggered the most powerful feelings.

I was not trained as a psychiatrist, and, consequently, I do not have an M.D. I went through an M.S.W. program and was lucky enough to study with two exceptional psychotherapists – James Forkeotas and Ord Matek – both of whom were geniuses in understanding and practicing psychoanalytic psychotherapy. Also, by that time, I had been in my own therapy for a couple of years, with Robert Mungerson, an M.S.W. himself. I have mentioned Mungerson before. He had an extra-human intuition that, at first, scared the hell out of me, but that ultimately taught me to trust my own, and clearly laid the foundation for the success I’ve had over the past thirty years. Mungerson knew what you were struggling with, where the struggles came from, where you were stuck, and what you needed to deal with; all, in seconds. The only other person I know, who has that finely tuned intuitive ability, is Arleah. She doesn’t “read” people – she locks in on them, merges with their innermost feelings, and gives them a reading on their emotional life that is unerringly accurate, unexpected, and a bit stunning. She is so good at it, that she now does it over the phone and through the internet.

So, by the time I finished my M.S.W., I was ready to practice psychotherapy. I had been a college teacher for five years, in my former field (cultural history and literature) and I already had worked with some private clients in my last year of schooling (which got some faculty in the program near hysteria).

Unfortunately, in 1972, the private practice of psychotherapy was tightly controlled by a coalition of psychiatrists (M.D.’s) and traditional social workers (with some participation by Ph.D. psychologists, who were fighting their own battles with insurance companies), and they had set up a system which required new graduates (and experienced practitioners) to be “supervised” by experienced social workers, in institutional settings, for a number of years. In addition, if you could put up with this arrangement – demeaning and pointless as it was – and you still wanted to go into private practice, you could only do so, with the profession’s imprimatur, by having an “experienced” social worker, or a psychiatrist, regularly “consult” with you (at, of course, their regular professional fees).

As I write about this, I’m struck by how medieval it sounds, particularly in light of the thousands of M.S.W.’s (and other non-medical therapists) now in private practice. It was nothing more than indentured servitude and a way for professional toadies to keep control of the profession and feed their impaired self-esteem by continuing to suck-up to the psychiatric establishment. (In some kind of irony, later in my career, I trained psychiatrists in psychotherapy, since that’s the weakest part of their education.)

As you can imagine, I rejected this path, and set up my practice as soon as I graduated. Numerous attempts were made to try and put me out of business, including the profession’s lobbying of the Illinois legislature to get title protection and licensing of social workers. None of them succeeded; I always found a way around them. The most bizarre thing of all was the effort, on the part of two faculty members, to try and prevent me from being hired by a community mental health center. They were so threatened by what I was doing, that they wrote unsolicited, negative letters to the director, strongly advising her not to hire me.

This was a truly strange time. Part of me was energized by the battle; part of me was getting a bit too much out of the neurotic struggle with rigid, scared people (something I knew well from my early life), and part of me was deeply hurt and puzzled. I was good at what I was doing; I had people who wanted to work with me; and yet, there were others who wanted to take it all away.

I had some allies during this period. One in particular, Gene Trager, was a rebellious psychiatrist who was unimpressed by credentials and formal education (including his own). Gene had studied under Thomas Szasz, the father of radical psychiatry in the U.S. Gene believed in me, valued my clinical skills, and shared my disdain for psychiatric labels and the patronizing attitude of the mental health bureaucracy toward both non-medical therapists and their clients. (If one of our patients in the hospital wanted to be medicated, Gene would sit down with them, hand them the PDR, and ask them to read through the relevant section, and then tell him what medication they thought would be most helpful, and have the least deleterious side-effects. It always caused uproar amongst our colleagues. Gene and I had a saying – “You may be crazy, but you aren’t stupid.”)

Gene’s help in nurturing my career was invaluable, and he went so far as to convince a well-known private psychiatric hospital to extend admitting privileges to me – something that had never happened before.

You can see why King George’s faith and belief in Lionel, touched me so deeply.

One other aspect of their relationship profoundly impacted me. I made a decision, very early in my career (probably very early in my life) that I owed it to my client to always tell them the truth – to tell them what they needed to hear, not what they wanted to hear. Part of this commitment was to make it absolutely clear that working with me would involve very hard, sometimes painful, and occasionally gut-wrenching work; and that if that was not something they were willing to do, they should work with someone else.

During the course of my professional life, as therapist and consultant, I have told some very powerful, very wealthy, and very influential people, things about themselves that they did not like to hear. Most found it helpful, hung in there, and developed very gratifying and mutually enlightening relationships with me. A few told me to buzz off and not come back.

When I saw Lionel confronting the King of England, I was moved to tears. I know what that feels like, and I know how scary that is, and what courage that takes.

When I have those moments of doubt about how much I’ve accomplished, it’s going to be comforting to think about that ballsy Aussie and the King of England.

Morrie

January 2011

2011-01-31T09:25:00.000-08:00

The New Year starts out, for me, with a number of new ventures and adventures. As many of you are already aware, I recently completed a unique learning project with two friends and colleagues – Frank Sarr and John Stout. Frank and John are the two principals of Training Implementation Services, in Granby, CT. Frank has developed a training delivery system which, I believe, will become, in fairly short order, the dominant learning technology in information driven cultures. It employs the internet, without a mind numbing webinar. It employs interactive, personal coaching, without the expense and interruptions of the traditional model. And most significantly, from my perspective, it is built on the overriding premise that training and learning is only of value if it is usable and actually used by the learner. TIS insures this through the use of their certification session – a one-on-one telephonic interaction that requires the learner to organize and prioritize the salient material and demonstrate its utility in their real-life professional roles.

My first partnership with TIS has revolved around the material I’ve developed on recruiting and selection. In particular, it focuses on identifying people who have the greatest chance of bringing value to 21st century enterprises, and on an interviewing methodology that zeros in on who the candidate is, and not simply what they’ve done. This “deep dive” interview eliminates ambivalence and leaves both interviewer and candidate with a certainty about their decisions.

The program is called “Picking Winners and Keepers” and is six weeks in length. The only things that are scheduled are the four coaching calls and the certification session. No one has to travel anywhere, and all that the participants need is a computer and a phone. Frank, John, and myself (along with TIS’s amazing instructional designers) worked on the program for the greater part of last year, and I’m very proud of the finished product. The following links will take you to a brief video summary of the program and give you details on how to sign up for it:

http://performancecounts.com/pickingwinners/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m73udgWThaM

The other venture has an element of déjà vu about it. I’ve established a relationship with the MBA program at the University of Montana and have become a member of the adjunct faculty. (My first real “job”, forty-four years ago, was as a college teacher at Drake University.) I’ve already taught one course and enjoyed it thoroughly. In addition, I’m working with the Business School to expand its offerings in executive education. We’ve designed a unique experience for the summer of 2011 (mid-June) that will involve a heavy-duty, interactive learning component (facilitated by yours truly) and an immersion in Montana’s fantastic recreational opportunities (riding, rafting, fly-fishing, hiking, and exploring the area.) We’ll be using the facilities of the University, as well as those of a nearby ranch.

The program is designed for people with real-life work experience (3-5 years, minimum), preferably in a managerial or executive role, who want to significantly raise the bar and take their career to the next level. This will not be your typical continuing education course. You will learn how to become an exceptional leader, in your own life, and in the lives of those around you. As soon as all the details are nailed down, I’ll get them to you.

The third initiative for the year is a new book. I’m very pleased to be collaborating with a great friend and colleague – Scott Martineau – on a provocative, no BS, work that will clear out the clutter and nonsense surrounding the prevailing “wisdom” of how people achieve success. Scott is an experienced business person, a coach and mentor to aspiring entrepreneurs, a bestselling author (of “The Power of You”), and the founder and CEO of ConsciousOne.com, one of the best and largest personal growth and development websites in the world.

The premise of the book is simple and straightforward: The only thing that is going to cure the economic malaise we find ourselves in is an infusion and proliferation of entrepreneurial, highly successful business people. Government, at all levels, is clueless. Intellectuals have no experience at running any real world enterprise. And traditional corporate types are freaked out by the unpredictability and ubiquitous instability of the new global economy. The problem, however, is that the information about how to become successful is riddled with nonsense, mythology, and 30,000 foot slogans that no one knows how to implement.

The book is tentatively titled, “The Ten Great Lies of Success”, and is focused on those myths that derail people the most and do the greatest damage. I’ll keep you in the loop as the book takes shape and reaches fruition.

“Resist The Urge To Be Ordinary”
Anonymous

As I indicated in last November’s newsletter, all the sections of this year’s newsletter will be shorter. A whole myriad of reasons dictates this: Feedback from readers; my involvement in a number of new ventures (detailed above); and my frustration at giving away long and exhaustive chunks of intellectual property for nothing. When I figure out how to monetize the latter (and get more comfortable with the new ventures), I may return to the old format.
________________________________________

Business Tips

“Recruiting Is Back”

It’s becoming clearer and clearer that the gains realized from the additional productivity of the post-meltdown workforce have been maxed-out. In addition, the culture as a whole has begun to adapt to a smaller and less acquisitive lifestyle and, consequently, the consumer is coming out of the closet, albeit somewhat battered and traumatized, but ready to risk spending again. The combination of these forces is creating a demand for more workers, and for better run, more efficient, more focused, and more competitive businesses. As you look to add more people to your organization, keep the following in mind:

> You will need to recruit people who are capable of doing more than working hard, following orders, and being loyal, in the traditional sense.

> You will need to identify people who like to learn; who are attracted to growth; and who are willing to be developed, personally and professionally.

> Your assessment process will need to be radically transformed and re-done. It will need to focus on who the candidates are; not simply what they’ve done.

> The fulcrum of this new process is the “Deep Dive” interview that zeros in on feeling data, not task data.

> The “Deep Dive” interview is designed to be highly interactive, rich with real-time feedback, challenging, and uncomfortable.

> There will be plenty of people to interview. Most of them will not interest you, primarily because they ceased to interest their former employers.

> We are now living in an “American Idolized” culture. Everyone is a performer and has developed the ability to look good and have the “right” answers. If you don’t drill down, you’ll get snookered (no pun intended).

> You are now interviewing for values match and for specific personal characteristics.

> The traditional behavioral interview, as well as standardized testing, is of very limited value. They lack the challenge, the feedback, and the evocation of bottom-line feelings that give you the data you need to make a decision.

> Don’t tolerate being stonewalled. If most of the answers to your questions are “conversation killers” (monosyllabic, short, clipped responses), confront it right away. Either it changes, or the interview is over.

> Don’t ask open-ended questions. It rewards wandering and undermines your credibility.

> No note-taking during an interview. Neither you nor the candidate. Write down your strongest impressions after the candidate leaves. If you don’t remember anything significant, you either have your answer, or you’re struggling with early dementia.

> Don’t ever let “throw-away” remarks go (i.e. “You know how bosses are …”). They always represent a statement about one’s core values.

> Don’t sell the opportunity. Your style of interviewing should either compel or repel the candidate. Either way, you both win.

> Pay a lot of attention to whether or not the candidate answers the questions you asked. If not, deal with it right there.

> Conducting an interview is like riding an emotional roller coaster. Pay attention to your tummy. Were there more ups or more downs?

> Know your own triggers. What kind of response is likely to cause you to overreact and reach a conclusion that has more to do with you than with the candidate?

> Risk early. Nothing creates trust quicker than honest feelings and feedback from the interviewer, right from the start.
________________________________________

Political and Cultural Observations

“The Tragedy In Tucson”

The horrendous shooting in Arizona brought out the usual cries for pre-emptive detention and gun control. What was interesting to me, was the muted tone of the ideological and political debate, and the quite heated (and, at times, hysterical) quality of the blame-game around who incited a demented lunatic to murder innocent people who were in the wrong place at the worst possible time.

I think, in fact, the blame-game surrounding the killer’s motivation was a convenient distraction from a very troubling issue which has been crystallized by the debate over Obamacare. The debate is making it clearer and clearer that Federal intervention and centralized “solutions” to societal problems come at a very high price – the least of which is financial. What is dawning on people is the realization that the overriding question is not, can we provide healthcare (or other “solutions” to human needs and problems) to everyone; but, what’s the cost, non-monetarily, of doing so? It is sobering and stunning to realize that we have reached the point, in our political evolution, wherein the Federal government has subsumed the right and the power to force individuals to buy something they may or may not want or need. This is the quintessential example of the expansion of rights to one group, coming at the expense of other groups. This is the slipperiest of slopes, and has rarely, if ever, led to a salutary outcome.

Pain and madness come with freedom. For some reason, unbeknownst to me, this is still news to many folks. There was, and there is, absolutely no way of preventing the Loughner’s of the world from wantonly killing and maiming perfectly innocent people – without destroying the very freedoms that underpin and distinguish our culture. One of the hallmarks of our society is the privilege and ability to think, speak, and act as bizarrely and crazily as you like, as long as you fail to breach the criminal code. Most Americans are unaware of how unique this is to our country, and are often surprised to hear that one of our fellow Western democracies (like the UK) has banned someone from entering the country, or detained someone within the country, for fear of what they’ve said, or could say.

Early in my clinical career, I (along with a number of other therapists) fought to re-write the involuntary commitment laws. Up until that point, the mental health bureaucracy and the “mental hospitals” were nothing more than extensions of the criminal justice system, without the benefit of constitutional protections against false imprisonment. You could be committed with the flimsiest of “evidence” and you could be kept there for a very long time. All it took was for you to act sufficiently disturbing and upset the people around you. So when people ask why Loughner was not detained and “treated”, they have no idea of the implications of what they’re suggesting, and what a nightmarish Pandora’s box they’d be opening, again.

One more point about pain and freedom. If you’ve encountered and dealt with madness, as I have in my clinical career and my extensive travels, you learn something early on. It is irrelevant, to a madman, what instruments of violence are available. If we’ve learned anything from Islamo-Facist Terrorists, we’ve seen that as soon as we cut off access to one instrument of terrorism and violence, they create another one. If Loughner had no access to a handgun, he would have stabbed people. If he couldn’t get a knife (or it wouldn’t allow him to do as much damage as he planned), he’d strap dynamite to his body, and on and on and on.

What we are left grappling with is the elemental and primal question of our time. Is freedom the most important value of our culture; and is it worth the pain and madness that can accompany it? This is the question we all need to answer.
________________________________________

Personal Notes

“What Happened To Deep Introspection?”

As I get older, I’m aware of experiencing nostalgia; but not for the typical things that I hear my peers talk about. I have no desire to live in the way I did growing up. Living with 50 relatives around all the time was truly a once-in-a-lifetime experience. I don’t miss Chicago, Ann Arbor, Los Angeles, or England. I learned a lot in those places, but no place felt like home, until we got to Montana. And as much as I bitch and complain about technology, I love how it’s enhanced my life. Every time I get in my car, I am blown away by what a kick it is to drive and work everything it does. I am additionally, acutely aware, that without the airline industry (with whom I have a classical love-hate relationship), I would not have had the career I have loved and valued for the past three decades.

What I do miss is how people work on themselves, these days. When Arleah and I were getting our psychotherapy training and beginning our practices, most of the people we knew, personally and professionally, were in some form of therapy. And of those people, it was rare for anyone to be seeing their therapist less than once a week. Many people had twice weekly sessions, and a number of colleagues and friends were in four days a week psychoanalysis. When I decided that I had gained everything I was going to get from my psychoanalytic therapy and moved on to Primal Therapy, I would go to two or three groups a week, when I was not traveling. (Primal utilized an atypical model, involving scheduled groups that allow you to work on issues in a self-regulating manner.)

Frequency, though, is not the fundamental difference that I miss. What has most significantly changed is the role that personal work, growth, and development plays in people’s lives, and the depth to which it is pursued. The culture we grew up in, at work and at home, was certainly concerned with results and goals; but clearly in a secondary role. What people talked about and shared a lot, was their journey – what they were learning about themselves, their interpersonal history, and how their past was shaping and influencing their present and their future. We had the time and the opportunity to do this – we lived in a much less competitive culture, and we had profoundly less information to manage and impact us. We wanted to accomplish things and get somewhere in our lives, but the assumption we operated on, was quite different than now. Our goals didn’t have to be met tomorrow, and they would be met best, if we thoroughly understood how and why we were getting there.

The internet, specifically, and the explosion of information, generally, changed everything. They have created superheated competition, a busier and more demanding personal life (often more frenetic), and a bottom-line orientation to all facets of our lives. I don’t particularly bemoan or resent this. I like aspects of it, and I find other parts of it emotionally empty and without meaning. But be that as it may, it has changed our personal and professional lives.

By and large, the people that Arleah and I work with want to know what to do differently. They are not terribly interested in why they currently do what they do, and what internal obstacles they face in making needed changes. It is a fair and reasonable question, and we can certainly answer it. For most of them, the answer will help them, and will make some changes in their work and personal lives. Will it make all the changes it could, and at a very deep level? Probably not. But that’s our issue, not theirs.

Both Arleah and I have made some significant adaptations to our “bottom-line” culture. As Arleah puts it, we have shifted from a society of human beings, to a society of human doings. At times, we have struggled with the shift, and at other times, it’s been perfectly fine. For me, I have no problem telling people what to do. I grew up with it, and I think it’s a part of my DNA. I’ve also learned a lot about being more structured, which, I have no doubt, has been of benefit to many of my clients. (My son, David, has been instrumental in helping me along this path.)

Finally, I think that what I’ve been through, in managing these profound changes in my life, have given me an appreciation for the humongous changes that people all around me have been going through. It keeps me current and prepared for what’s yet to come.

Morrie

October/November 2010

2010-11-08T08:43:00.000-08:00

I consider the introduction to the newsletter my opportunity to share interesting, miscellaneous tidbits. So here are three.

1. Last week, during my travels around the country, I went through security at a small airport in North Carolina and saw something I rarely see. As I was waiting for my shoes and briefcase to clear the bomb detection machine, a very tall and large fellow was standing next to me waiting for his shoes to be returned to him, since they had been singled out for special treatment. The TSA officer approached him, holding his huge shoes in his hands, and with an absolutely straight and serious face, said the following. “These shoes are too big to fly with, and your feet are too big for this flight.” I’ve never seen someone lose all the color in his face so quickly. There was an uncomfortable and excruciating silence, and then the TSA fellow broke into a smile and said; “Just joking.” We all had one of those discombobulated laughs and went on our way. Walking toward the gate I had two rather contradictory thoughts. It’s certainly nice to see the normally stone-faced TSA folks with a sense of humor; but, why are they the only ones permitted to joke around in the screening area? One other note – I also went through security in Chicago, at O’Hare, and the difference in the TSA folks was remarkable. Not simply stone-faced, but indifferent to the passengers existence. If you could be non-verbally rude and insulting, they’ve achieved it. What happens to people in urban areas?

2. I’ve had my first experience with destructiveness on the internet. If you use Google to search for our website (FifthWaveLeadership.com), you will get the following message: “Visiting this website may harm your computer.” To say the least, I was quite alarmed (i.e. freaked out) to see this. Knowing less about the internet and computers than I do even about my car, I thought it was curtains for our website. I have found out subsequently, by talking with very knowledgeable people, that these kinds of things are not uncommon. As it turns out, our site needed a goodly amount of work (since it was ancient by internet standards), so we’re essentially having it rebuilt. What I found really interesting, as a side note to our problem, is that there are a number of wacky people out there in internet land whose lives revolve around screwing with other people’s websites, just for the fun of it. These are not the same people, I’m told, who have monetary motives, perverse sexual agendas, or security breach interests. They just like to make other people suffer. I guess these are the new psychopaths, proving that everything new brings gifts and curses.

3. Just today I received an email from a friend that made me aware of an amazing video addressing the issue of how children actually learn, and even more fascinating, how little it has to do with our traditional notions of “teaching.” It couldn’t be more supportive of what I wrote last month about education and learning than if I had produced it myself. The video is titled “Child-Driven Education”, and it describes the work and research of Sugata Mitra, an Indian “educator”.

Mitra has done demonstration projects all over the world, primarily with children mired in poverty and substandard schools (if having any access to schools at all). The core of his work involves giving groups of children a computer and an assignment (to solve a particular problem), and, most amazing, no instructions, no help, and no direction about what to do in order to solve the problem. He just tells them what he wants as a result and he leaves them to figure it out. In a number of instances, the children are illiterate, or speak only a local dialect, or speak an entirely different language than the assignment requires. To say the least, they have no familiarity with, or knowledge of, computers. And guess what? They solve the problems and, most importantly, they retain and integrate the new knowledge. If you have any interest in how people learn and how we can fix our terribly broken system, this video will enlighten, enthuse, and touch you.

Click here to view the video.

“Success Is Going From Failure to Failure, Without A Loss of Enthusiasm”…………………….Winston Churchill

Business Tips

“Heated Emotions in Business: How Losing Your Cool Can Bring People Together”

What I like most about what I do is the opportunity to be a part of a living laboratory. I regularly get to be right in the middle of interactions that prove the validity of the concepts I work on with clients; concepts that not only make their businesses better, but bring them closer together personally.

This was particularly true a few weeks ago when I was facilitating a senior management accountability group with a corporate client. Near the end of the group one of the managers said that he had an issue to bring up that involved another one of the managers in the group. These managers had worked together in the past and had a long standing relationship. They both ran similar types of operations within the company.

The issue that the first manager had with his colleague involved the latter’s hiring of an individual that the first manager had terminated about a year ago. All terminations are difficult, but this one was especially hard, for a variety of reasons. The second manager hired the previously terminated person without any conversation with the first manager, or, for that matter, without running it by anyone on the senior management team. The first manager was furious, and he made his displeasure clear. He told his colleague how upset he was with the decision; how he felt discounted and betrayed; and how he felt that their relationship had been irreparably damaged. The strength and intensity of his anger was apparent to all. He was direct, confrontive, and clear. What his colleague had done – more precisely, how he had handled the re-hiring – was totally unacceptable. From his perspective, the values of the organization had been breached, and that could not be overlooked.

The second manager was, initially, very defensive. He didn’t feel like it was that big a deal, nor did he feel like he had to run it by his colleague prior to the hiring. The rest of the group gave him some tough feedback to the effect that they simply didn’t believe him and were puzzled by his decision and disappointed in him. After the initial stonewalling, the second manager told his colleague that he didn’t tell him about the proposed hiring because he thought that the first manager would be upset with him and try and talk him out of it. This led to a good discussion of a pattern of behavior that the second manager falls into, that always backfires on him. He avoids upsetting people initially, which inevitably creates a far worse upset later on, and, even worse, undermines his credibility and integrity (by being dishonest, initially). The upshot of his interaction was an apology by the second manager, to both the first manager, and to the rest of the group, for violating a core value, and for not trusting his colleagues’ ability to deal with a difficult situation, upfront.

It would be an understatement to say that there was some discomfort in the group, particularly at the beginning of this interaction. You could have cut the tension in the room with a snow plow. It was palpable and thick. There were a few minor attempts to rescue the combatants and get people back into their heads. I did nothing to try and defuse the intensity of the emotions. I had total faith in the groups’ ability to work things through and believed that the only way through this seeming impasse, was a thorough airing of everyone’s feelings. The very heat and intensity of the feelings shared was the catalyst for an ultimately honest and intimate connection between the two “adversaries” and the group as a whole.

Interestingly, a number of very heartfelt emails followed the meeting, all of them emphasizing the importance of clearing the air, getting the feelings out on the table, and creating a closeness by taking ownership of what one does and says. As one of my friends and clients often says: “This stuff really works.”

Political and Cultural Observations

“The Myth of ‘Special Interests’”

In the midst of this political season there is much discussion of so-called “Special Interests” and their impact on the political process. Almost without exception, the term has become synonymous with private sector organizations; in particular, with “big business.” What I find curious is the total absence (even amongst far right groups), of any discussion about the single largest and most influential special interest – the Federal Government.

I would describe a “special interest” as an organized body of individuals or groups, underpinned by a set of values, principles, or core beliefs (articulated or assumed), whose purpose is to gain the widest possible dissemination and acceptance of those beliefs, as well as the greatest allocation of resources to their advancement. At this point in our political and cultural evolution, no institution does this as aggressively and effectively, as the Federal Government and its attendant bureaucracy. I am not, here, talking about the political point of view of the Obama administration or the legislature. I am referring to the massive Federal bureaucracy and the set of assumptions about dealing with people that drives its daily work as it interacts with the American people.

Let’s look at the core beliefs and values of this enormous player that touches our lives on an almost daily basis. From my experience and vantage point, the Federal bureaucracy believes the following:

1. Individuals are not responsible for the choices they make in their lives. Ultimately, their destinies and their futures are driven by forces outside their control.

2. The goal of life is to seek comfort, at all costs. Growth is fine, if it is not disruptive or uncomfortable. If it involves any pain, it is to be rejected out of hand.

3. “Education” is seen as a terminal process. You learn everything you need to know, as soon as possible, and resist any attempt to get you to think or act outside the prescribed “nine dots”.

4. Accountability to others is seen as unfair and unjust. Blaming and excuse-making is institutionalized and legitimized by referencing the past.

5. There is a clear differentiation between those who have the capacity to manage change and those who do not. Those who do not must be treated differently and accommodated accordingly.

6. Low levels of expectations must be applied to certain groups of people. They are seen as quite fragile, and as a result, must be accepted as intrinsically limited and compromised.

To say the least, I categorically reject the beliefs articulated above. I don’t argue the right of people to believe these things; but I very much resent my taxes being used to promulgate them. This, for me, is the real outrage of “special interests”. So, when I hear folks whining about all the “special interests” descending on Washington, I simply answer that they’re going there to counteract all the “special interests” already there.

Let me give you a practical example of how the Federal bureaucracy’s belief system gets played out. Several years ago, on one of my trips to D.C., I decided to take a tour of the FBI headquarters. I had had some contact with the Bureau earlier in my career, as an intern and as a consultant to law enforcement agencies, and I was interested in their history and evolution. It was, to say the least, a disappointing experience.

The tour guide for our group was a morbidly obese young woman, shabbily dressed, speaking a dialect tangentially related to standard English, and with absolutely no interest, whatsoever, in the exhibits we were seeing, or the rich and varied history of the agency. She could have made the arrival of the first group of inter-galactic visitors a boring and pedestrian event.

I was outraged by her behavior. Given a different set of core beliefs and values, she would have been confronted with her abominable behavior and either made significant changes, or she would have been terminated. I asked, at the end of the tour, to speak to a supervisor. I expressed my dissatisfaction to him and asked him if he had any intentions of doing anything about this situation. He didn’t even hesitate in his response: “There’s nothing I can do; she’s civil service; she’s a woman; and she’s black. My hands are tied.” Do I need to say much more?

It’s not much of a logical stretch to translate the Federal Bureaucracy’s belief system into public policy, compensatory programs, and social engineering. That’s how we got affirmative action, “set-aside” projects, “impacted zones”, suffocating regulations of the private sector and an intrusion into people’s personal lives that has had a chilling effect on innovation, creativity, and risk-taking. And though the Federal Bureaucracy is the most visible and far-reaching purveyor of a caretaker philosophy, our public (and private) educational system is not far behind. Its core beliefs and values mirror those folks in D.C., from the kindergarten classroom to the seminars in grad school.

My point here is that we need to disabuse ourselves (and others, especially in the mass media) of two key concepts. First, that there is anything objective about government or the public sector. They are as much a “special interest” as the lobbyists for Exxon, Target, or the insurance industry. Second, the scapegoating and demonizing “special interests” is one of the trickiest distractions and subterfuges for deflecting attention away from the clear political stranglehold that the caretaking lobby has on government, at all levels. As long as we spend our time and energy defending “special interests”, the disabling interventions and “help” of government bureaucracies goes unnoticed and unexamined.

So, the next time someone goes on a rant about the “special interests” in Washington, put up your hand, call time out, and insist that the discussion include government and education.

Personal Notes

“My Favorite and Most Impactful Movies”

I have always felt that “favorite” lists were an exercise in trivialities – kind of chewing gum for the brain. But a few months ago, in a conversation with a good friend and client – Ed West – I had to re-examine this belief, when Ed and I started to discuss the movies that had had the greatest impact on us. This included movies that not only evoked strong emotions of a “serious” nature, but those that brought humor and joy to our lives. So here they are, in no particular order of importance, but some types of categories:

“Young Frankenstein” – Possibly the funniest movie ever made. Everyone in it gave virtuoso comedic performances; Mel Brooks, Marty Feldman, Cloris Leachman, Peter Boyle, and many others. It is that rare combination of physical humor, clever writing, and uninhibited acting that doesn’t come along very often.

“A Fish Called Wanda” – The second funniest movie ever made, and undoubtedly the best example of politically incorrect humor ever produced. The stuttering scene (done by one of the Monty Python fellows) is beyond a doubt the single funniest scene in movie history. We’ve become so politically correct, that I’m afraid we’ll never see anything again to rival it.

“Annie Hall” – The quintessential portrayal of the quintessential Jewish neurotic. This could easily be subtitled: “When Concern Slides Into Paranoia”. This movie has special meaning for me, since it was the first one that Arleah and I saw together. She had had, in her life, no exposure to the culture I grew up in, and was so much a WASP, that someone had to tell her that she was involved with a Jew. What better introduction to my history than a classical dose of Woody Allen.

“Good Fellas” – The most accurate portrayal of people in organized crime. I grew up, in Chicago, with the Mafia all around me. I had relatives tangentially involved with them; a few of my father’s patients were Mafioso; and in my psychotherapy training and consulting practice, I interviewed hit men and worked with the FBI Strike Force. The “Godfather” had more glitz and drama, but, for me, lacked the visceral impact of “Good Fellas”.

“Scanners” – A strange, mostly misunderstood movie from the early 1980’s. It was marketed as a blood and guts drive-in diversion for teen-agers who lived out their sex lives in their parents’ cars. In reality, it was a very subtle metaphor for emotional overload. It portrayed people who had no filter or discriminating mechanism for all the emotional information coming from other people. They were constantly “scanning” the environment and were incapable of shutting off or sorting input and stimuli; so, in the inimitable style of Hollywood, their heads exploded.

“Altered States” – Another misunderstood gem from the early 1980’s. This was a fictionalized portrayal of the early experiments with sensory deprivation (connected with our space program). It showed people suspended in tanks of water, with nothing touching them, and in total silence. Understandably, the results were not good. Generally, people went nuts (i.e. clinically psychotic). The metaphor passed by 99% of the audience, but was nonetheless powerful. Remove boundaries and limits, and people will be destroyed. A good lesson for our time.

“District 9” – A recent sleeper. This is one of those meticulously crafted productions that absolutely sneaks up on you, and before you know it, you’ve undergone a shift in perspective that you had no conscious awareness of. On the politically correct level, it is a fairly transparent metaphor for the perils of bigotry and prejudice (in this case, apartheid, as practiced in South Africa). On a deeper level, it is about profound personal transformation, and the price it can exact on close relationships.

“Sophie’s Choice” – A gut wrenching portrayal of the human capacity for inhumanity. One of those pictures that is an uncomfortable cultural necessity to remind us of what we’re capable of, and disabuse us of the arrogance of believing that it could never happen here or in our time. A number of years ago, Arleah and I visited Auschwitz. It was the end of the day, and for most of our time there, we were the only people in the camp. I could not put in words the feelings we had walking through rooms full of glasses, shoes, and human hair. After a while, the unspoken suffering of the place drove us out.

“What Dreams May Come” – The most profound depiction of grieving I’ve ever seen portrayed in a work of art. The people who made this movie had to have suffered a crushing loss. They had an understanding of grief and loss that few people have, and even less can articulate. It is a work of pure emotion and demands a complete engagement on the part of the viewer. And it is one of those movies that speaks to the aggrieved in an absolutely unique and powerful way – like a poem and a painting. (I don’t know if it’s coincidence or karma, but the scenes depicting heaven were shot 30 miles from our house, in Glacier National Park.)

“Young at Heart” – A documentary about a singing group of 80 (and some 90) year old men and women from a town in Massachusetts. It follows their lives (and some deaths), as they rehearse for their performances and challenge themselves to get out of their comfort zones. Interestingly, they do not perform nostalgic “old folks” songs. They sing down and dirty rock and roll, with all their heart and soul. This is, without a doubt, the most inspiring movie about staying engaged with life that has ever been made. You will never laugh so hard, nor cry so much, during any movie.

“The Notebook” – My all-time favorite movie. On its surface, it’s a history of a compelling romance. A love story for the ages. One of those movies where you find yourself cheering for people to make it – to stay together forever and ever. On that level it works well. On a deeper level, it is the most evocative and soul-searching movie ever made about the emotion of true love; about unquestioning devotion; and the most noble response to the ravages of illness and aging. When I want to get in touch with what Arleah and I share, and want to really access the full range of my feelings about life, I put on this movie. If you ever have any trouble reaching deep inside, you need to own this movie.

Let me know how this selection has struck you. I’d be interested in your comments on any of these movies that you’ve also seen.

Morrie

Tell us what you think – click here to send us an e-mail with your feedback.
morrie@fifthwaveleadership.com

September 2010

2010-09-29T08:47:00.000-07:00

It’s not your imagination – there was no August newsletter. I’m right in the middle of one of those “good news/bad news” scenarios. I haven’t been this busy in a long time (I’ve been “rediscovered” – alas, in my late 60’s), and I’ve never had so many simultaneous deadlines (I’m amazed at how much old time writing it takes to feed the new technology). I hope this newsletter still makes it to you in September.

First, a few announcements:

On September 30^th, at 8:00 PM (CST), Arleah and I will be featured in an internet “Live Event”, sponsored by ConsciousOne.com, the pre-eminent personal development website. We’ll be interviewed by Scott Martineau, the site’s founder and CEO. The topic for the evening will be “The Secrets of Personal and Professional Success.” You can find out how to access the event through your computer or your phone (or through your intergalactic communication device) through this link: http://www.ConsciousOneLive.com/75Truths/Shechtman.cfm. There is no charge for participating in the event.

I am working with Frank Sarr and John Stout of Training Implementation Services (TIS) in Connecticut, on an interactive online seminar that incorporates the best of computer driven distance learning with live, telephonic coaching. We have taken my material and experience with recruiting and selection and have translated it into a unique, provocative, and highly effective program on “Picking Winners and Keepers.” It will allow anyone who is responsible for, or who touches recruiting, to learn a new and compelling methodology for assessing job applicants. And all of this can take place without the learner ever having to leave their office and travel anywhere. Lastly, this will allow an organization to scale this knowledge across a broad and large range of people, at an extraordinarily reasonable price point. We hope to have the finished product ready by the end of the year. Look for updates in future newsletters.

The newsletter will be changing after the first of the year. It will be shorter. I have gotten feedback that some folks would prefer that, and my internet guru friends tell me that it needs to be so if I want to compete with popular blogs. Also, the capitalist in me is getting tired of busting my ass every month (or so) and giving it away. I’m beginning to feel like a charity hooker of ideas. What I’m thinking of doing is offering longer versions (like White Papers) of the ideas put forth in the newsletter and charging a fee for each paper. Let me know what you think and how you feel about that idea. The fee would be fairly nominal, but somehow, I think it would make me feel better. Now, for the newsletter

Business Tips

“Meaningful Work and Meaningful Lives”

“Live a life of meaning and you won’t need to search for the meaning of life.”

Bill Valentine

I always like to make you aware of studies that affirm my ideas and opinions. It makes me feel good, it validates my intuition, and it fires up my Jewish chromosomes.

For years, Arleah and I have been preaching and teaching the importance of meaningful work, as the prime incentive for increasing productivity and performance, and for laying the foundation for building cultures of excellence. Well, lo and behold, a recently published study flashing around the internet, not only confirms this, but does so in a cross-cultural context. The study was conducted in the U.S. (Massachusetts) and in East India (in the northeast part of the country). It showed the following: When people were engaged in routine, repetitive work (most of which is being replaced by technology), more money proved to be an incentive for enhancing performance. However, when people were engaged in work that involved complex tasks and complicated interactions (i.e. involving lots of information and relationships), money not only failed to be an incentive, it proved to be a disincentive. This surprised everyone involved with the study. As more and more money was offered to people doing these complex tasks (which 90% of us do daily), performance steadily decreased.

So what increased performance? To put it in a nutshell – emotional involvement in the processes and the relationships at work. Communication, genuine participation, responsibility; in essence, a feeling connection with the human environment. What is most fascinating, for me, is the cross-cultural nature of the study. The results were the same in a first world, high tech culture, and a third world, developing society (the Indian part of the study was conducted in rural, agrarian villages, not metropolitan areas).

Making work meaningful, then, makes you money. And you do it by building relationships and emotionally connecting with people. If you choose not to do so (or have people working for you who choose not to do so) you will continually lose money. I’m often asked if people who struggle to build relationships and connect with people can be taught these skills. Absolutely – if they get constant, clear, and direct feedback in two key areas: How they impact other people (starting with you); and how they impact the desire or lack of such, to build a relationship with them. With these two critical bits of information, enormous change can occur. Without them, nothing will change. No amount of “training,” supervision, mentoring, coaching, or simply harassment will have any effect. Creating feedback rich cultures is the only way to consistently and permanently increase productivity and performance.

One additional, and very connected phenomenon, is worth noting. Over the last year (especially the last six months), I’ve seen a dramatic increase in the number of people in the workplace, experiencing a personal meltdown (as well as people applying for jobs). The economic meltdown and severe financial contraction is putting unsustainable pressure on everyone’s lives; but in particular, on the lives of people who were on the margins to begin with. This pressure has threatened to obliterate any meaningfulness in the lives of lots of people, and they are simply grinding to a halt, paralyzed with indecision, trying their hardest to sustain unsustainable personal lives.

A few months ago I had a conversation with a senior manager who was telling me about an experienced salesperson who was doing worse and worse in his job. He was on the verge of losing his home, expecting another child, and having conflict with his wife. The manager was trying to re-arrange his schedule to relieve some stress, and was strategizing with him to try and save his house. None of this was having any positive impact. What I talked about with the manager revolved around helping the salesperson identify what brought some meaning to his life, and how to go about salvaging and preserving that. We developed a plan of action that involved helping the salesperson give up the house, cut back on all non-essential expenses, and focus on the relationship with his wife and the upcoming birth of their child. A lot of this interaction involved conversations about feeling like a failure, what that meant in the salesperson’s view of himself, and, most importantly, what brought the most meaning to his life. The turn-around has been dramatic. The business results are significantly better and home life has done a 180.

People can’t have meaningful lives at work, if they don’t have them at home. It is the responsibility of leaders to spot deterioration as soon as it surfaces; and even more importantly, to help people face it and make the tough, often gut-wrenching decisions. Ignoring it, or simply listening to people recite a tale of woe, and be sympathetic, is unhelpful, dismissive, and ultimately, cowardly. If we profess to care about the people who work with us, or for us, then we must do something that compels them to face what they need to do.

Political and Cultural Observations

“It’s Time To Retire Public Education”

Our public education system is analogous to the American union movement. Both have served valuable purposes and have played important roles in the evolution of our culture. The problem, however, is that the culture that spawned them is dead and gone – long gone. And because of that, we have an educational system that is a relic of bygone times. As cultural institutions go, nothing is quite as irrelevant to the way we live, work, and most vitally, learn, as our public educational institutions (including private, parochial and “charter” schools).

The public school was a key institution in a new, then rapidly growing country. It played an essential role in the socialization, acculturation, and democratization of the diverse, unorganized, and often chaotic citizenry looking for a modicum of structure and direction for their lives. It grew up in a low information culture, with few vehicles of communication and a relatively modest rate of change. And it established a linkage between education and learning that stood for a few hundred years. The culture has changed - dramatically. The linkage is gone. And public education needs to go.

Learning and education no longer have a necessary connection. Learning involves the continual expansion of self-information and the integration of life experience with this self-information, in the service of fueling ongoing growth and development. It is about using what you’ve been through, to catalyze the next stage of your maturation and personal development. Above and beyond everything else, learning is fundamentally experiential, challenging, and disruptive.

Learning is not about content. It is all about context. In this post-Google culture, it is not only unnecessary, but is essentially fruitless and frustrating to try and fill your brain with a lot of data, facts, and information. This is not to say that there are not essential bits of knowledge required to live a good, productive, and self-sustaining life. It is simply to state what the new learning technologies have made obvious – children and adults learn rapidly and thoroughly when their life experience demands it. (In the 1940’s, A.S. Neill, in England, demonstrated this in his groundbreaking school – Summerhill – where people of all ages became literate, when illiteracy no longer served their needs.) The explosion of online learning, virtual conferences, and the “unschooling” movement (worldwide) is a testament to this seismic shift.

Education, as translated through our schools, is about compliance, coercion, and mind-numbing boredom. It was boring and unchallenging 50-60 years ago, when I was a student, and it hasn’t substantively changed. There are a few more gimmicky things, some “new” pedagogical theories, and a few computers – a token offering to the gods of technology. At its core, it is the same conflict-free, unprovocative, and emotionally sterile ballet, devoid of engagement and deep involvement. Earlier this year, there was an article in the New York Times Magazine, which reported the results of an exhaustive and comprehensive study of numerous programs attempting to improve the effectiveness of teaching. Its conclusions were fascinating and depressing. Effectiveness, using numerous criteria (not simply student test scores) was miserable and appalling. (The study was done by educators, not “critics” and was remarkably and brutally honest.) What was most telling, was that more money, smaller classes, different physical configurations, non-traditional teachers, mentoring and coaching programs – none of these had any significant impact on effectiveness. But, fascinatingly, and almost as an afterthought, there was a brief discussion of one variable that kept popping up. Every once in a while, a teacher emerged who was head and shoulders above their peers, in all measures of effectiveness. Guess what they did differently? They were emotionally engaging and challenging. Duh!

So, what needs to be done for us to become a truly life-long learning culture? I would suggest the following (in a multi-staged order):

1. Eliminate tenure at all educational institutions; from kindergarten through graduate school. It has always amazed me that there is little or no citizen outrage over the blatant contradiction of living in an increasingly high risk society, while supporting a cultural institution, touching almost all our children, that guarantees people life-long jobs after two or three years of work. Arleah and I never worried about the safety of our children, when we sent them off to school. What troubled us was their daily exposure to some of the lowest risk people in the culture, who had no appreciation for or any interest in the unpredictable, uncertain, and energizing world we lived and worked in (along with a few hundred million of our fellow citizens).

2. Put every teacher in America on a one-year renewable contract that paid them on the basis of their performance. The criteria for performance would be student achievement, student and parent feedback, peer review, administrative assessment, classroom observation (by independent third parties), committee work, and mentoring and coaching of colleagues. I know many excellent, engaging teachers all over the country. To a person, they feel suffocated and dispirited by the current system, and very resentful of the well-paid mediocrity surrounding them. I would have no problem paying excellent, engaging teachers six figure salaries, as long as it was possible to readily terminate incompetent, boring, and cynical teachers.

3. Eliminate the connection between property taxes and the funding of our schools. That money belongs in the hands of families, to use, at their discretion, to buy or not to buy, learning experiences for themselves and their children. If that’s a “school,” an online provider, a neighborhood co-op, a religious institution, or a private tutor; that’s their choice, and is none of my business or anyone else’s.

4. Eliminate compulsory education. All that requiring kids to go to school accomplishes, is to escalate the level of passive-aggressive behavior and malicious compliance. It also relieves families and individuals from taking responsibility for their own lives. Lastly, it penalizes excellent teachers and distracts and diverts them from working with willing learners.

5. Shutdown and shutter all the school buildings in America. (They could be used as museums, restaurants, or other businesses.) Keeping kids closed up in these anachronistic bricks and mortar structures, is one of the more bizarre things we do in our culture. The media, technology, and travel opens the whole world to them, and we expect them to grow, learn, and flourish, cooped up in a building, day after day, while the dynamic real world passes them by. Learning takes place by interacting with people doing real things in the real world. The community – local, regional, national, and international, should be our “school.” There are already a number of innovative programs in the “unschooling” movement, that involve students and teachers traveling the country, interacting with business people, government centers, healthcare facilities, and other cultural institutions. Their “schoolwork,” at the end of the day, is writing about and discussing what they just experienced.

I have always been a learner, and I love learning. I would love to see everyone in our society have the opportunity to take advantage of the almost infinite resources for learning increasingly available to us. It is almost within our reach.

Personal Notes

“Getting Tired of the Tolerence of Intolerance”

As I age, I’m very much aware of two almost polar opposite changes occurring within me. The first is a softness, gentleness, and access to feelings that I have rarely experienced before. In particular, feelings of sadness and grief for my own losses, and for the losses and suffering of others. This past Memorial Day and the recent anniversary of 9-11, had an enormous impact on me. My good friend, Bill Valentine, sent me an email on Memorial Day, sharing his grief over the death of his son, in combat in the Middle East; and I could barely get through it without sobbing. I reproduce it here in hopes that it may help some of you tap into the grief over your losses, and experience some cleansing and release:

“Early this morning I went out to raise our flag as I do nearly every day.

But today is different. I followed the protocol for displaying the flag on Memorial Day. I raised it slowly to the top of the pole and then slowly lowered it to half-mast. It remains there now, hanging limply, sadly in the gentle rain that has been falling all night. And if God is nature, as some believe, God is crying today in memory of my son and the millions of others who have given their perfect selves for this imperfect country of ours.

The flag will remain at half-mast until noon, at which time it is again, this time briskly, returned to its proud position at the top of the flag pole. For within the pain and sadness of this day’s remembrance is also the feeling of awe, and pride and gratitude for those fallen. How do you thank an angel?”

These days I can barely watch a Humane Society commercial, without losing it. If the pictures of abused animals get too graphic, I have to switch channels.

On the other hand, I have developed a visceral disdain and disgust for politically correct idiots who establish moral equivalencies between political and business decisions made in our country, and the outright barbarism that passes for daily life in innumerable countries across the globe. This idiocy reached its zenith a few weeks ago, when some moral morons in our State Department actually worked with the U.N. Human Rights Commission (how’s that for a non sequitur?) to present Arizona’s Immigration Law as a possible human rights violation in the United States. What level of stupidity and denial do you have to sink to, to equate a piece of controversial legislation with stoning adulteresses to death, starving hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children into submission because of their tribal affiliation, and selling girls, as young as ten years old, into sexual slavery? Are you kidding me?

Let’s review some undisputed facts:

1. Every independent inquiry commission that has reviewed the outcome of U.N. Peace Keeping Troops’ interventions in Africa, has arrived at the same conclusion: Random murder and property destruction shoots up, and, even more outrageous, mass rape of not only adult women, but very little girls, skyrockets. Along with this, goes unspeakable mutilation of both sexes. This is not, by the way, only a recent phenomena. The history of central and northern Africa is one of a moving bloodbath. The History Channel, recently, aired a show about the slaughter of 350,000 human beings in Sierra Leone, by their fellow citizens. It took place in the 1970’s, and almost all the victims were either shot at close range, or macheted to death.

2. Women in Middle Eastern Muslim countries have a status somewhere around that of livestock. The rape “laws” are infamous for their absurdity and cruelty, and even when women are “allowed” to go see a doctor, they can’t, literally, see him, or be seen by him. In addition, a male relative must communicate the woman’s problem or complaint, to the doctor. Remember, also, that converting from Islam to Christianity is a capital offense. (I wonder what would happen if you convert to Judaism? Can you be killed more than once?)

3. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the stoning of adulteresses (where have we heard of that before?), the burning of witches; none of those horror shows were constructed or committed by Hindus or Buddhists. They were a Christian contribution. In a related issue, it took a bit over a few hundred years for the Catholic Church to absolve the Jews from responsibility for killing Christ. This gives a whole new meaning to “just in time.”

4. The Orthodox Jewish community in Israel is one of the greatest obstacles to peace in the region. Their rigidity and opposition to compromise is notorious, and although a very small segment of the total population, they have an undue impact (some would say, a stranglehold) on political and cultural life in the country. When I was growing up, my grandparents’ generation had “funerals” for their compatriots who married gentiles. And they treated them as if they were dead.

So, what’s my point? Is this a Bill Maher-type rant against organized religion? Nope? I’m simply fed up with hypocrisy and lying; particularly the latter. I’m real tired of hearing about “moderate Muslims,” as if that should make us feel better about lunatic Muslims. And I’m really, really tired of hearing that Islam is a gentle, peace-loving, and inclusive religion. It is not. And you don’t have to be a scholar of the Koran to figure it out. Like all unreformed belief systems, it is narrow, intolerant, and brutal in its view of “non-believers.” We’ve been here before, with Judaism and Christianity. It’s Islam’s turn.

What I’d like to see is politicians, opinion makers, business leaders, and other “spokespersons,” have the courage to speak the truth. Specifically –

I’d like to see a senior spokesperson at the State Department announce that the only reason we have any kind of relationship with most of the regimes in the Middle East, is that they have oil. And that if they didn’t have oil, we’d cut off communication as fast as Lindsay Lohan in a rehab program.

I’d like to see the Obama Administration come clean and just tell us directly that their number one objective is to even the score with free-marketers, and that if you’ve been a successful risk-taker, you’ve got a target on your back.

I’d like to see the leadership of the Republican party tell the religious right that their obsession with abortion and gay rights does not make it a legitimate public policy issue. And that their unending crusade to jam their fundamentalism down the party’s throat, only alienates and dispirits genuinely concerned people.

I’d like to see the leadership of the Democrat Party tell the Congressional Black Caucus to cut it out. Nobody plays the race card more than those folks, and nobody throws around the “racism” label more gratuitously and self-destructively. Unfortunately, they’ve become every bigot’s dream.

This isn’t too much to ask, is it?

Morrie

Tell us what you think – click here to send us an e-mail with your feedback.
morrie@fifthwaveleadership.com

July 2010

2010-07-31T08:48:00.000-07:00

A part of this newsletter is about unexpected experiences. One of those occurred this past Saturday, when Arleah and I took a boat trip up the Flathead River with our friends, Deb and Jere Newell. The Newells live on Flathead Lake and asked us to join them in exploring the river, which connects Glacier National Park with the lake. They had not been up the river this year and we had never seen it from a boat, in all the years we have lived in Montana.

Deb had briefly mentioned something about the “cars” on the river, but it didn’t mean much at the time, so we didn’t pay much attention to it. As we made our way up the river, we were primarily paying attention to the homes along its banks, and an occasional log feature created by nature. Then, seemingly out of nowhere, we came upon our first sighting of the “cars.” Placed along the bank of the river was a montage of rusted out cars from past decades. Most looked like they were from the 40’s and 50’s. They were stripped of anything useful or valuable, although a few had shiny chrome bumpers glistening in the sunlight, and one had the insulation from the roof hanging down like a torn shroud.

What struck us was that these cars were not simply abandoned and strewn around the ground like a mini junkyard. They had been purposefully placed along the bank, most of them half in and half out of the water, hugging the shoreline and each other. Occasionally, there was one positioned on top of the others, like a painter would do who couldn’t resist that last brushstroke that would complete the picture.

As we pulled in close to one of these “installations,” (there were a few along the river), Deb pointed out a number of cars that had completely slipped into the water and were lying on their sides. They were eerily visible thru the crystal clear water of the river, and I couldn’t help feeling like I was in the presence of a kind of shrine.

I know that it may sound strange, but I felt like I had come upon a cemetery and these cars were strange and story-filled grave markers. One of the cars sitting on top of the others was a big, bulbous Hudson. We had one of those when I was a child; and my father was so very proud of it. I think that his practice had finally taken hold, and that Hudson was a message to the world – this first generation American had made it.

As I scanned the row of half-submerged cars and peered down at the sunken hulks, I couldn’t help but think of how many family picnics were launched from those cars; how many trips to grandma and grandpa were taken; and how many children were conceived in those back seats. Maybe I’m just getting old, but I hope that no government agency or environmentalist hauls those memories away.

Business Tips

“Snap Judgments: The Virtues of Telling the Truth”

I had an interesting experience a few weeks ago at the Salt Lake City airport (where I’m a de facto resident). I was sitting in Delta’s Crown Room, in between flights, when I couldn’t help but overhear a cell phone conversation taking place a few feet from me. (I’ve given up feeling like I’m eavesdropping, or feeling embarrassed for people. Cell phones have removed all shame from telephonic communication. I’m just glad we haven’t figured out how to do colonoscopies over the phone.) The fellow I found myself listening to, was quite agitated. And the theme of his agitation revolved around being discouraged and prevented from dealing with people he worked with, in a direct, open, and honest manner. At one point, he literally said – “If I can’t tell people the truth, then I can’t get my job done.” There were a number of variations of this theme, and it was obvious that someone on the other end of the conversation was discouraging him from being straight with people, and encouraging him to be more “tactful” (i.e. dishonest). He was quite frustrated and was getting more and more distressed. I don’t know how things turned out, since I had to leave and catch my connecting flight.

This fellow’s dilemma was particularly meaningful for me, since I had just left a consulting engagement in which I was asked to assess and give feedback to three relatively new sales professionals. I had done this, initially, after meeting with them for a few minutes. I told the first individual that she struck me immediately as arrogant, distant, and uninterested in anyone other than herself. I told the second person that she radiated distress and that she had a painfully polite smile that never modulated its shape.

And I told the third person, that he had an ingratiating, professional persona, almost charming, but unreal and artificial. At first blush (no pun intended), the two women did not take the feedback well. The young man said he was fine with the feedback, but I had no doubt that if I had told him that he was slated for the gas chamber within the hour, he would have considered it an interesting experience.

I take no pleasure in telling people things that upset them. I do it for two reasons. First, I care about people and their growth and development. Second, I have a life-long commitment to the truth. Most discussions about the truth revolve around grand and glorious corporate mission statements, or pious recitations of eternal clichés. Few of them connect the truth with feedback to people about who they are and how they impact others.

For over thirty years, I have heard, ad infinitum (and often ad nauseam) about talented people who never reach their potential; about difficult people who no one wants to work with; or about cynical, unhappy people who love to sully silver clouds with black linings. At this point in my life, I’ve grown tired of the whining and complaining about people who don’t change. If you want people to change (and I firmly believe that people can change), then tell the truth – the truth about who they are, and how they impact other people. If you’re not willing to do this, then stop whining and hold your peace.

I will occasionally have clients question the validity of my initial feedback, on the grounds that it’s simply a first impression, and may not be an accurate picture of who a person “really is.” My response is that they may be absolutely right, but the point they’re making is irrelevant. You’ve heard the phrase – “You don’t get a second chance to make a first impression.” Nothing could be truer in our time. We live in a culture of instantaneity. Twenty-four hour news, email dialogues, overnight stardom. Who you “really are,” better be apparent to people right away. Otherwise, the defenses you’ve developed to deal with the world you’ve grown up with, will carry the day. And those defenses will define you.

The young lady that I gave the feedback to about her arrogance and distancing personae, is actually quite talented and interesting. After spending some time with her; her humor, articulateness, and warmth create a very different and attractive impression. (Her unattractive defenses cover her fears and anxiety about being accepted for who she believes she is.) Unfortunately, most prospects she encounters will be quickly put off by her initial behavior and not experience her engaging side.

The research on connecting quickly with people, is quite sobering and startling. I have always been intuitively aware of how quickly the process of connecting (or disconnecting) happens, but I recently came across a statistic (courtesy of my friend and colleague, Keith Ferrazzi), that is amazing – “The first eight seconds is the length of time the average human can concentrate on something and not lose focus.” The study goes on to make the point, that if you effectively connect in these initial eight seconds, you have only an additional 110 seconds to make your case (and your impact). If you have no idea of how you impact people in those first 118 seconds, you are in for a long, painful and puzzling struggle.

One more point. Don’t overreact to other people’s overreaction to your feedback. When you tell people the truth about who they are and how they impact you, they will almost always have a strong reaction. If they don’t, they have real problems. When they have their reaction, ask questions about it: “How do you feel about the feedback I just gave you?” “Do you feel like it’s accurate?” “If so, what parts strike you as accurate?” “If not, what parts strike you as inaccurate?” Don’t try to make people feel better about what you just told them! It’s the worst, most counter-productive thing you can do. It removes the fundamental catalyst for change. If you worry about hurting people’s feelings, I have a question for you: “Would you rather someone have a bad day, or a bad life?” Think about it.

Political and Cultural Observations

“The Politics of Identity: Obama’s Racial Ambivalence”

In all the commentary and discussions about the Obama presidency, I am struck by how little of it talks about Obama, the person, and in particular, Obama’s mixed race background. He is, in fact, not America’s first black president. He is America’s first mixed race president. On the psychological plane, this is no insignificant fact.

Personal identity is a complex phenomenon. It is a complicated, often confusing mix of biology, family history, cultural imperatives, psychological gifts and wounds, and core values. It poses a continual challenge to our attempts to arrive at any kind of clarity – to be able to answer one of life’s fundamental questions: “Who am I, and what do I believe?”

I have had the privilege of working with a number of very powerful, influential, and impactful individuals in the private sector, as well as in the public arena. One of the most important things I’ve learned, working with these people, is that huge, colossally important decisions they’ve made, have been driven either by their crystal clear clarity about who they are, or their massive confusion about their identity. In the best case scenario, these individuals recognize all the varied forces that shaped them; consciously put them aside; draw on their deeply held core values; and do what they know is the right thing. In the worst case scenarios, other individuals unconsciously and impulsively make profoundly impactful decisions based on being triggered by unresolved issues from their past.

Let me give you some examples. Bill Clinton is obviously a bright, talented and shrewd politician. Too bright and too shrewd to intentionally and consciously decide to engage in the numerous boneheaded and self-destructive gambits he got caught in. If you only had a room temperature I.Q., you wouldn’t decide to have oral sex with a young intern, in the oval office. So what’s going on here? Clinton’s childhood is widely known and much written about. He grew up without a stable male figure; a lonely and unhappy mother; and with demands on him to play a role, as a child, that he was not (and should not have been) capable of playing. The upshot of this was the evolution of an identity focused around feeling disappointed in, and being habitually disappointing. This was so ingrained in him, that you could mark your calendar, with great certainty, every six months with the expectation that Clinton would be in the midst of another personal disaster. He had, seemingly, no control over his propensity to be disappointing. It dominated his identity.

George Bush’s identity was also dominated by early childhood damage, but with a different permutation than Clinton’s. Bush grew up in the shadow of indecisiveness and unpredictability from a male figure. (This probably played a role in his early problems with alcohol.) Consequently, when he took a position, that was it, for life. What, in some respects was a strength – his apparent decisiveness – was a critical weakness. He struggled mightily to re-evaluate decisions, and it was next to impossible for him to admit a mistake and apologize. His issues with his father and his compensatory rigidity all came together in his decision to invade Iraq. I have no doubt that the driving force in this decision had more to do with his father’s strategic blunders, than with the national security of the United States. In essence, he invaded the wrong country. Sadam Hussein was undoubtedly a madman and a murderous psychopath. But in terms of global insecurity and national defense, he paled in comparison to the mullahs and lunatics running Iran.

Let’s look at examples of identity being shaped by core values. In the mid-90’s I had the opportunity to lecture in South Africa at an international conference put on by YPO (the Young Presidents Organization). What was particularly extraordinary about the conference was the attendance of both Nelson Mandela and F. W. deKlerk, the seventh and last president of apartheid-era South Africa. The transition to black rule was just beginning, and people at the conference were expecting a firebrand talk from Mandela, and a speech full of mea culpas from deKlerk. Neither happened. Mandela surprised everyone by not referencing his years of imprisonment and his hatred of apartheid. He addressed his remarks to his black brothers and sisters and challenged them with an unexpected message. He said, paraphrasing him – “Don’t expect this [political transition] to be easy, and don’t expect things to be handed to you. Nobody is going to give you what you’ve been missing, and you’re going to have to work for it.” The audience was surprised and a bit stunned.

deKlerk’s talk was one of the most forthright and courageous political addresses I have ever witnessed. He got right to the point. Apartheid was evil, immoral, and beyond any justification. And then he galvanized the audience (I paraphrase): “My followers despise what I am doing [handing over power and calling for elections allowing blacks to vote]. We have one of the most powerful military machines in the world and we could crush any opposition and stay in power perpetually. But it would be the wrong thing to do. Ending apartheid is the right thing to do.” (deKlerk was, at this time under 24hour protection from serious and constant death threats.)

Both Mandela and deKlerk put aside compelling forces from their past, and both came from their core values. We rarely see this in contemporary politics, business or civic life. I often say, in my work, that courage is the decision to overcome one’s history.

Barack Obama is very confused about his identity. And this confusion comes across in his bouncing back and forth in his decision making. He wants to close Gitmo and extend a hand of friendship to the Muslim world; and he fully supports the pulverizing drone bombing along the Pakistani border. He wants accountability for educators and opportunity for minority students, and he fails to utter a peep, when the first thing the House does, under his presidency, is kill the voucher program for charter schools in D.C. (populated almost exclusively by poor black students). There are many more examples involving immigration, fiscal policy, the justice department and on and on. A lot of people attribute this ambivalence to political pandering and manipulation. Some of it, is undoubtedly due to those choices. But most of it, I believe comes from his identity confusion.

Being part white and part black is an extraordinary burden. I have worked with many individuals, as a clinician and a business consultant, who share that burden. Anywhere they turn, there is loss. Trying to please both communities is impossible. If there is any kind of resolution to this dilemma, it lies, from my experience, in the courageous act of articulating a core value system that pleases no one, fully, but creates respect across the board. A commitment to this, is, in my opinion, the only hope we have of creating anything close to bipartisanship on a political level, and true dialogue in our civic life.

Personal Notes

“Inspiring Heroes: My Visit to M.D. Anderson”

Before I talk about my time at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (as a consultant, not a patient), I wanted to make a few comments about a visit with my mother.

Last night Arleah and I went to a family barbecue at my mother’s nursing home. It is always a sad experience, but last night was especially poignant. I found myself running the emotional gamut from deep grief to a kind of dark humor. The best way to convey the experience is thru some random bullet points:

I guess its nature’s irony that I would find myself sitting at a table helping my mother eat. Here’s a woman who was a professional dancer, appeared in three motion pictures, was a manager at a flagship Saks Fifth Avenue store, who can’t put condiments on her hamburger, without help.

There was a woman across the room, who I thought was looking at me. She had deep blue, almost black eyes, and pure white hair. I smiled at her, to acknowledge the eye contact, but got no response at all. I then realized that she was not looking at me, or anyone else. She was not even staring off into space. She was in some private place, all by herself.

There was a woman at the table next to us, who had been served a bowl of soup (or something liquid), instead of the barbeque fare. She made attempt after attempt to get some in her mouth, but never succeeded. It all ended up in her lap. I thought, somewhat perversely, that John Cleese and the Monty Python Group would have a field day here. They could do a senior citizen version of “A Fish Called Wanda.”

At the same table, two residents were locked in a super slow motion battle to unhook their wheelchairs that had gotten fused together when they both tried to leave the dining room at the same time. There was no upset; no angst; no show of emotion at all. It was another Monty Python moment.

There was a country western band playing throughout the evening. Their average age was probably about 80. They were absolutely terrific. The fiddle player and the harmonica player were awesome. And the woman playing the keyboard and singing had an unbelievable voice. If you closed your eyes and forgot where you were, you would swear that Patsy Kline was in the room. One gentleman resident, undoubtedly hard of hearing, pulled his wheelchair within inches of the band and lapsed into a kind of catatonic state. They were absolutely unphased and kept on playing.

Amidst this profound sadness, the staff was flitting around like hummingbirds. Bringing people things, wiping chins, cleaning tables; seemingly oblivious to the quiet suffering all around them. We have gotten to know many of the staff, and they care deeply about the residents, and do an amazing job of taking care of them, and truly meeting their needs. But they have to protect themselves, emotionally; from the stillness, the depression, and the absence of engagement.

Lastly, the great grandchildren running around was a welcome and stark contrast to the helplessness pervading the room. They were full of themselves, giggling and shouting, without a care in the world. They were taking everything for granted, and thank goodness for them. Life is precious.

And now, for my visit to Anderson. Last week I spent three days at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. I had been invited there to deliver a lecture to about 80 of their professional staff that had previously taken part in a number of leadership development programs; and to meet in small groups and one-on-one, with key leaders in the organization. I received the invitation because of a relationship that had developed with a Neuro-Oncologist who had read one of my books (“Fifth Wave Leadership”), and had been deeply impacted by it.

I had heard about M.D. Anderson for years, and knew it as one of the most prominent and perhaps, preeminent cancer research and treatment centers in the world. And I have been to a number of research/treatment centers as a professional and thru Arleah’s experience with cancer. So, I assumed it would be very much like I had seen before. But I was wrong.

Anderson is of a scope and magnitude that is hard to describe. It is a mini-city of building after building; research centers, treatment facilities, hotels, restaurants, conference facilities. It employs nearly 20,000 people (about 3,000 credentialed health care professionals); serves around 75,000 patients a year; and has a budget of nearly three billion dollars. It is a branch of the University of Texas, and the physicians and doctorate level staff have faculty appointments. There are 43 distinct departments that all share the mission of wiping out cancer. What is even more amazing is that Anderson is just one part of the Texas Medical Center, a complex of medical facilities unlike anything else on the planet, employing nearly 80,000 people.

As impressive as this all is, the size, scope, breadth and depth of Anderson, was not what inspired and impacted me the most. It was the people I met and got to know. There were two, in particular: Janis Apted, Associate Vice President of Faculty Development, and Dr. Morry Groves, the Neuro-Oncologist who read my book and introduced me to M.D. Anderson.

Janis plays a vital role in making sure that the faculty continues to grow, personally and professionally. In addition, she has a strong and clear commitment to minimizing the dysfunction inherent in an institution of that size and complexity; particularly one employing a few thousand super-intellectual, narrowly focused specialists. To say that they work in silos would be the understatement of the century. You can image the challenge of leading, managing, and developing that population. You’ve heard of the phrase – “Herding cats.” This would be better described as herding grizzly bears.

Janis is perceptive, persistent, courageous, and a straight shooter. She is not easily dissuaded from her mission, and her commitment to make Anderson the best it can possibly be. She could easily back off, take a low profile posture, and create and sponsor the usual pre-digested, mind-numbing training that passes, in most institutions, for professional development. She has chosen not to, and for that, she has my respect and admiration.

Morry Groves is a fascinating individual. Besides the fact that we share the same first name and both went to graduate school twice (he is an attorney and a physician), he has an out-of-the-box commitment to knowing himself better, and to be a better person in his home life, and in his work with his patients. He does extraordinary work; he is clearly embraced by his patients; he is respected by his colleagues; and he has not one iota of pretense or arrogance about him. In addition, he is remarkably trusting of himself and others, and is wide open to feedback about who he is, and how he impacts others.

The high point of my time at Anderson (and the inspiring part of the visit), came during the last afternoon I was there. Morry had mentioned, in earlier conversations, that if I were interested, he would love to have me come to “clinic” with him. “Clinic” is when he sees patients, primarily to track their treatment and update them on their status and progress (or lack of such). He is accompanied, usually, by a resident, or a nurse practitioner, or both. He reiterated his invitation to join him, and added that he would appreciate feedback on how he related and worked with his patients.

We began that afternoon by going thru the medical history of the four patients we were going to meet with. (Morry is a specialist in brain tumors.) I got a crash course in brain cancer and a complete overview of each patient’s diagnosis, treatment history, and prognosis. And even though I have the requisite credentials, clinical background, and experience with issues of confidentiality, I felt honored by being included as a member of the team working with these patients. I also got a brief history of the research done on these tumors, and the progress made in prolonging the life of those afflicted. The gains made don’t, at first blush, seem very great. But if you’re fighting for your life, another couple of months is a long time.

I was nervous and anxious preparing to meet with the four patients scheduled that afternoon. In my fifteen years of clinical practice, I had dealt with the death of a few of the people I had worked with; and I certainly had experienced gut-wrenching suffering. But I had never worked every day with people who were almost certain to die while I was helping them. That’s the world Morry and his colleagues live in.

The interaction that penetrated to my core, occurred when we met with the third of the four patients. She had been a teacher; had led a very active lifestyle; and was now, for all intents and purposes, confined to a wheelchair. Her tumor had wreaked havoc with the left side of her body, and it was not responding to the treatment regimen. She was accompanied in the consultation room by her daughter (who was taking notes on a laptop), and her husband, who looked drained and exhausted.

The moment Morry, myself, and a resident entered the room and sat down (after some brief introductions), she began talking about her lack of control over her left side, her inability to walk, and her fears of having a painful death. She asked Morry some questions about how things were looking, but answered them herself. She knew it was bad; she knew it was going to kill her; and she knew she didn’t have a lot of time left. It was gut-wrenching. No one knew what to say.

Something clicked for me. I asked her if I could ask her some questions. She nodded. I asked her what upset her the most, and she answered that she was so frustrated by not being able to control her own body. I then asked her to identify the strongest feeling she was having from a list of five – mad, sad, glad, hurt, and afraid. I no sooner had the words out of my mouth, then she blurted out – “mad,” and broke down into uncontrollable sobbing. Her grief exploded like a volcano. Her daughter followed immediately, as did the resident. The tension in the room dissipated completely, and there was a palpable look of relief in her face. Life-threatening illness is an incomprehensible loss, and requires constant and explosive grieving – a grieving that frightens everyone.

From that point on, I pretty much took over the consultation (once a therapist, always a therapist). I talked with the three of them about her need to grieve daily and to create a list of at least ten people who could sit with her and let her grieve (grieving is exhausting for everyone, including the listener). The consultation ended on as good a note as was possible, and Morry reviewed her meds and made some adjustments.

The impact point came for me, as we were walking back to the staff room. Morry thanked me for my help and turned to me and said – “We miss 90% of what’s going on with our patients.” At that point, a strange feeling came over me. What I felt was – I had just changed people’s lives in a way I had never experienced before. Perhaps this is what some call a spiritual or religious experience. Whatever it was, it has changed me.

There is a lot of talk these days about heroes. Last week, I met many of them. The clinicians and researchers fighting cancer, and the patients fighting for their lives, are my heroes.

Morrie

Tell us what you think – click here to send us an e-mail with your feedback.
morrie@fifthwaveleadership.com

June 2010

2010-06-21T08:48:00.000-07:00

The response to the “Personal” section of the last newsletter has been very interesting. Most of it has been along the lines of identifying with many of my feelings connected with growing older. A few reactions, though, both through emails and in person, have had an angry edge to them; almost resentful. The resentment seems to be around a feeling of disappointment in me. With all my insight, training, and experience, how could I get so bummed out about aging? As one person put it – “I expected more from you.” To which I responded – “I have the same feelings you do, and the same struggles. I just may be more aware of them.” (I’m not sure, at times whether that’s a gift or a curse.) We all have the same feelings. That’s what makes relationships possible.

Talking about the same feelings, I recently got an email from a fellow in Romania that really touched and impacted me. We met a few years ago, at a YPO University (a worldwide learning event for company owners and presidents) in Banff, Canada. He had attended a workshop that Arleah and I had put on and he waited afterwards to talk with us. He has been instrumental in bringing capitalism and a free market economy to Romania, after the overthrow of the Ceausescu regime and the fall of communism. When we met him, he had already founded around fifty companies, and was well on his way toward a hundred. We had an immediate connection with him, and he absolutely won us over when he said that he never hires MBA’s because they’re “arrogant, pretentious, and feel the world owes them a living.”

The gist of his email was that the last three years have been catastrophic for him, and that things aren’t looking much better, even now. He has had to lay off 40% of his workforce, and has struggled to keep himself and his companies afloat. He has felt like a failure, and has questioned his decision to try and bring a market economy to his country. I could feel the gut-wrenching soul searching in his words (he has an enviable command of English). He has concluded, after wrestling with himself, that he made the right decision, and will press on.

What was uncanny and riveting about his email, was his choice of words to express his feelings. Across cultural, language and socioeconomic barriers, they were, verbatim, identical to those that have infused many conversations that Arleah and I have had, and interactions we have had with many friends and clients. Despair, discouragement, and renewal are universal. I have always known that, but it was somehow reassuring to see it in his words.

Business Tips

“Anti-Customer Service: Plumbing the Depths”

Until a few days ago, I thought that we had reached the absolute nadir of customer service in our culture. But I was wrong. There were two encounters that changed my mind – both occurred at the Minneapolis airport.

The first took place at one of the Delta Crown Rooms. I walked up to the reception desk to present my credentials and encountered a staff member who was sullen-faced and on the phone. Notice that I didn’t say “I was greeted by a staff member.” She said absolutely nothing; looked at me with total disdain; and kept talking on the phone. There was no “hello,” no “I’ll be with you in a minute,” nor “can my associate help you.” Nothing.

I waited a few moments, while we stared at each other, and then asked her if she was going to say anything. She snapped at me- “I thought I said hello;” to which I replied- “I don’t think so.” (If she did, she must have said it in a frequency that only dogs could hear.) All this time she remained on the phone. It goes without saying that things went downhill from there. I should point out that this person was not a post-pubescent twenty-something that I regularly deal with in the “hospitality” industry. I’m not great at ages, but she was definitely pushing fifty.

After this encounter, we went over to a line of about five people, at the service desk. There was one person behind the counter actually helping a customer, and two other staff members doing whatever they could, not to help anyone. For a minute there, I had a flashback to my days in Chicago, watching fourteen guys on a fifteen man road construction crew, watching the one guy who was working.

What I was struck by, in this experience, was the powerful and unequivocal non-verbal communication of the personnel in the club. The message was intense and unmistakable- “I’m very unhappy working here; I don’t like my employer; you’re interrupting my sulking; and you ought to be paying attention to my feelings, not vice versa.” I got the message.

The second instance occurred when we boarded our flight. As we got on the plane, our heads were snapped back by the stench in the air. It smelled like a barnyard. Much worse than typical airplane B.O. People were getting on the plane with handkerchiefs plastered to their noses. I talked to a flight attendant, who agreed that the smell was awful, but said that there was nothing she could do about it. She suggested that I go on the internet and send an email to customer relations. I told her that I’ve been there, done that, and that I always get the same response. “Thank you for your concern; you’re a very valued customer; we have no intention of doing anything about your complaint; and please don’t bother us in the future.” (The latter two sentiments expressed in the most saccharin and convoluted spin, worthy of a politician caught groping one of his staff members.) The response of the flight attendant was illuminating- “You’re lucky, we don’t get that much.”

I’m very much aware that the lives of airline personnel (as well as millions of other workers) have been turned upside down, as a result of the economic meltdown. Work ain’t what it used to be, and it’s never going back to what it was. But given the sullen, passive-aggressive behavior of many employees, it’s obvious that company leadership has done little or nothing to deal with the feelings generated by the losses created by mergers, right-sizing, and the meltdown, in general. These people are in deep grief, and they are stuck. And the customers (and the companies) are paying the price.

Good customer service has very little to do with smile training, script memorization, or “mirroring” customers’ communication styles. Personally, I find those things insulting and patronizing. Anyone with a room temperature I.Q. knows that a smile is better than a frown; that spontaneity beats a stilted “shtick;” and that people don’t like being manipulated.

Good customer service presupposes the ability to have the full range of your feelings, in an appropriate context and venue, which prevents you from dumping them on people who have nothing to do with their genesis. This is not the same as telling employees to “suck it up” and leave their baggage at home. All that does is create more hostility that leaks indirectly into every customer interaction and provokes people even more.

If you want employees to deal well with the public, then provide a vehicle, at work, for the full expression of their feelings – especially the ugly unpleasant ones. The research is clear. If you deal with employee unhappiness by really listening to how they feel, and by not trying to shut them down, nor defend your decisions, you’ll get a workforce that will deal with each other and the public, more effectively and more positively. If, on the other hand, you ignore their feelings and give them no venue for expressing them, and instead, just work on fixing their practical complaints, you’ll facilitate a workforce that is just as nasty as before, and becomes better at finding new things to complain about. (BP and the Obama administration may want to think about getting Gulf Coast residents together, in their communities, and actually listen to their feelings, instead of trying to avoid them, or give them one lame promise after another, that they’ll fix the leak.)

Arleah has a saying in her work – “You don’t always get your way; but you always get your say.” If business leaders followed this more often, we might see a dramatic improvement in customer service.

Political and Cultural Observations

Domestic Protectionism: Unions, Licensing, and Mediocrity”

The Obama administration’s pandering to unions represents much more than the payback of a political debt. It has an insidious and subterranean intent that goes way beyond the elections of this year and 2012. Its ultimate purpose is to further infantilize the workforce; create a broader and deeper dependency on government intervention in personal and private interactions; and guarantee the continued growth of the Federal bureaucracy.

Unions undoubtedly served a purpose in my grandmother’s generation; and possibly in my parents’ time. My grandmother came to this country as a frightened teenager; severely traumatized by the terror and persecution she was fleeing. She had no marketable skills, extremely limited information and expectations, and no ability to leverage her labor with an employer. She worked long hours in a sweatshop – six, sometimes seven days a week – and she clearly needed an advocate.

The position of the contemporary worker is hardly comparable. He is armed with much information and high expectations; he has marketable skills; and he has no trouble advocating for what he feels he deserves. The only similarity between the early union movement and the present one is the latter’s commitment to promulgating the mythology of the abused and helpless worker.

In many ways, the contemporary union movement has taken on the characteristics of a governmental body – in particular, those of the Federal government. Its overriding goal is to stay in power, increase its reach, and convince as many people as possible that they are incapable of taking care of themselves. At its heart of hearts, the union movement caters to a mindset of victimization, low self-esteem, and an unbridled envy of individual and corporate success. In our time, it has become the primary cultivator and insurer of mediocrity throughout the culture; it fiercely resists competition amongst workers; and it is clearly committed to a battle to the death over performance-based promotion and compensation for professionals, paraprofessionals, and skilled workers. The unions have taken the lead in battling school choice and voucher programs in innumerable states, and their entrenched commitment to intimidation, coercion, and outright thuggery is unabated. (Talk to anyone who markets their goods or services at trade shows about setting up their booths. They are charged obscene fees to have union members do what they are perfectly capable of doing themselves. If you as much as try to screw in a light bulb, you expose yourself to physical intimidation.)

In an irony of ironies, the union movement has become as exploitive, insensitive, and vicious as the industrial giants it took on, at its inception. But worst of all, it has become the prime mover in undercutting and sabotaging the principle and core value of individual responsibility in our society.

The licensing of professionals and skilled workers is nothing more than unionization in better clothes. If the public has ever been sold a bill of goods, this is it. There is not one shred of evidence that licensing protects consumers from incompetence, fraud, manipulation, or outright evil. Does anyone seriously believe that licensing has kept drug addicted surgeons from leaving instruments in patients’ bodies? Or psychotherapists from sleeping with their clients and calling it “treatment”? Or credentialed financial advisors from swindling every last penny from the rich and poor alike? (Does the name Bernie Madoff ring a bell?)

All licensing does is protect mediocre practitioners from competition, and produce and reward lazy consumers, who are under the delusion that their best interests are protected by a test and a certificate. I have never seen a licensing exam, in any field, that can tell me if a practitioner is a decent human being; cares about people; is not arrogant and condescending; and empowers clients to take charge of their own lives.

Early in my psychotherapy career, I was on the staff of a private psychiatric hospital. My mentor there was a psychiatrist who had studied under Dr. Thomas Szasz, the founder of “radical psychiatry”. When a patient we were working with wanted to be treated with medication, my mentor would hand them the PDR (the “Physicians Desk Reference” that describes almost all drugs, their action, and their side effects); recommend the class of drugs that might be of help; and tell them to pick the one that they thought would work for them, and had the least onerous side effects. If they questioned this advice, he would say to them – “You may have some psychological problems, but you aren’t stupid.” He was not a popular member of the medical staff.

Both unionization and licensing are undermining of the basic tenets that created and sustained our society, often through excruciatingly difficult times. They have given, and continue to give, people permission to abdicate responsibility for their lives. The most amazing thing to me, about the economic debacles involving the Enrons and the Bernie Madoffs of the world, was that no one asked any questions or challenged anyone in charge. No one demanded to know what was going on, and why it was happening that way. No one, in essence, took care of themselves, because they believed that someone else would take care of them.

If you have wondered about what phenomena like the Tea Party movement are about, this is it. It is an often poorly articulated protest against, and revulsion with, the political and ideological assault against personal responsibility and individual accountability. I am convinced that the battle has not been lost. In fact, I think it’s just begun.

Personal Notes

“The Immigration Mess: Caught in the Middle”

I have fairly closely followed the immigration debate, including the uproar about the legislation passed by the State of Arizona. But I was certainly not anticipating an involvement in it, or the necessity of having to take a practical position on one of its ramifications.

About three or four months ago, I accepted an invitation to do a keynote presentation at the annual meeting of the directors and CEO’s of the country’s YWCA’s (in October of this year). The conference was to be held in Scottsdale, Arizona. A few weeks ago, I received an email informing me that the conference site had been moved to Washington, D.C. At first, I didn’t pay a lot of attention to the information; and then it struck me. They’re boycotting Arizona because of the new law. I was furious. And I have rescinded my acceptance to speak at the conference. It is not because I have some principled objection to boycotts. What I do have is a revulsion against hypocrites and ignoramuses.

Whenever I ask opponents of the Arizona law what they object to (if they’ve read it, which most have not), they pinpoint their objection to racial profiling and their adamant belief that the law was passed, primarily, to single out and hassle Hispanics. When I point out that the statute expressly prohibits profiling and mandates that no one can capriciously be stopped, harassed, or compelled to produce the appropriate papers, simply because they may look Hispanic, they almost always respond that that may, in fact, be the case, but that you cannot trust law enforcement personnel to obey the law and not single out Hispanics. (I also point out that if you put the Federal statute side by side with the Arizona law, you might be surprised to find that the Federal law is wide open to abuse, and allows for little or no cause for stopping people and demanding they validate their presence in the country.) What I find truly unbelievable is the rank hypocrisy involved in profiling cops. It is, in the eyes of opponents to the Arizona law, completely reprehensible to assume that anyone looking Hispanic is probably here illegally, and warrants detention and interrogation. But it is fully permissible to assume that law enforcement officers will abuse and break the law, simply because of who they are and what they do. How racist and bigoted can you get?

Closely connected to this gross hypocrisy is the uninformed and criminally stupid condemnation of the United States immigration laws and policies; amongst the mildest and most lax of any on earth. This is most outrageous when compared with the Mexican government’s immigration laws. (It takes enormous chutzpah for the Mexican president to come to the U.S. and lecture us on immigration, when his policies are amongst the most brutal and repressive.) Take a look at these:

1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.

2. All ballots will be in this nation’s language

3. All government business will be conducted in our language.

4. Non-residents will not have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.

5. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or government assistance programs. Any burden will be deported.

6. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the minimal wage.

7. If foreigners come here and buy land, their options will be restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

8. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations; no waving of a foreign flag; no political organizing; no bad-mouthing of our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.

9. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted and when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you.

If we applied Mexican immigration policies to our own country, we’d totally clean out Hollywood, most of southern California, and a significant portion of the American southwest.

I am not opposed to immigration at all. Exactly a hundred years ago my grandparents immigrated to the United States. Without that courageous decision, I would not have had the extraordinary opportunities and blessings I have experienced as an American. People are surprised when I tell them that a day doesn’t go by without my feeling grateful to this country and to the people who made it possible for me to have been born here. I often think of what life would have been like to have been born a Russian, Jewish peasant, unable to find work; uneducated; and scorned by the society I was born into.

I am very ambivalent about what to do about the millions of illegal immigrants living here now. I was raised by immigrants, and I know deeply what that drive is like to have a better life, especially for your children. I don’t think it’s possible or morally defensible to deport eleven or twelve million people, the majority of which have no ill will toward this country. But neither do I believe in open borders and the chaos and danger tyrannizing our southern border. I think the only viable solution to our immigration problem is a dichotomous mix of extreme toughness vis–à-vis closing our borders, a sane and logical guest worker program, and an acceptance of those already here who contribute to the society with their productive labor.

The key for me, in terms of a sane immigration policy, is assimilation. An unassimilated population is doomed to economic and cultural marginality. And the absolute prerequisite for this assimilation is the learning of English. The language of a culture carries its core values, and we are no different. If we want to survive and flourish in the future, and do right by our newer immigrants, we will insist that they speak our language and make it a requirement for becoming an American. To do any less is a disservice to this country and a cruelty to our immigrants.

Morrie

Tell us what you think – click here to send us an e-mail with your feedback.
morrie@fifthwaveleadership.com

May 2010

2010-05-27T08:50:00.000-07:00

A number of you have let me know that you forward the newsletter to friends, relatives, and colleagues, on a fairly regular basis. If you'd like them to get the newsletter directly, just let me know, and we'll get them on the distribution list.

An interesting power struggle is shaping up that is getting little coverage in the mass media. We're all aware of the Obama administration's unrelenting push toward greater and greater statism, and the enhancement of the government's role in our personal and work lives. What's not so obvious, but is of equal or greater import, is the initiative, on the part of the political intelligentsia, to replace the "Founder's Constitution," with a "21st Century Constitution." The fundamental shift being attempted here, is to replace the function of the Constitution as a protection against the intrusion and overreaching of the Federal government into individual and state matters, with a new document that empowers the government to create a whole new raft of "rights," guaranteed by this new Constitution. This is what underpins all the discussions we hear about that refer to "social justice," "expanded opportunities," "redistribution of wealth," and other euphemisms for greater "rights." On the surface, this has much popular appeal. What is rarely, if ever explored, is the reality that every new "right" comes at the expense of some group or entity that loses part or the whole of what they once had. The Founding Fathers were acutely aware of this trade-off, having experienced this appropriation and re-distribution in their own lives. Whenever I hear people talk about something being a "right," I think of phrases like- "There's no free lunch," and "If it's too good to be true, it probably is."

Watch for discussions about making the Constitution "relevant" to our times. It's always code for the re-making of this document into a new and expanded charter of entitlements.

Business Tips

Old Dogs; New Tricks: The Struggles of Veteran Salespeople

The economic meltdown and global orgy of debt, has had a number of unforeseen ramifications and consequences. It certainly has brought about a massive re-ordering of priorities for millions and millions of people in both their personal and work lives, and a similar re-prioritization in hundreds of thousands of businesses.
One of the most striking realities it has brought to the forefront of innumerable companies and industries, is the shocking lack of key skills on the part of veteran salespeople. To put it in a nutshell, what we are seeing, in industry after industry, is that experienced and long-tenured salespeople don't know how to close a sale or get referrals from former or current customers. And what further complicates this, is that their level of embarrassment over these deficiencies, keeps them from seeking help and counsel, to remedy the problem.

The behavioral explanation for this malaise is not that complicated. For many years now, salespeople have been functioning as order-takers for willing and able consumers, flush with discretionary income and an almost insatiable appetite for acquisitiveness. This was true for product sellers and service providers alike. When the economic collapse began, in 2007, there was an almost palpable panic in every type of salesforce imaginable. I saw a lot of blaming, accusing, and rationalizing; followed by withdrawal, hiding out, and almost paralysis; ultimately resulting in much denial and depression. People simply didn't know what was wrong, nor what they could do. They couldn't figure out how to change things, primarily because the problem was not one of technique or strategy. What was lacking was an interpersonal skill.

At the heart of closing a sale, as well as obtaining referrals, is the ability and, more importantly, the willingness, to generate, engage in, and manage conflict. Without a commitment to participate in conflict, the salesperson simply becomes a "friendly visitor;" often very good at generating interest and conversation, but very poor at getting customers to part with their money. They may occasionally make a sale, often because the customer wants to alleviate their own pain at seeing the salesperson struggle so much to ask for the business. Or the sale may take place because the customer is willing to do almost anything to get the salesperson to stop talking at them, and just get rid of them. Unfortunately, many of these sales produce a high maintenance, high aggravation client, or one who cancels the purchase within a short period of time.

To fully understand the role played by conflict, in inhibiting veteran salespeople, we need to define some terms. Conflict is the behavior we see when people are expressing the emotion of Anger (an equally misunderstood term). And Anger is simply the expression of disappointment in a person or situation. The disappointment comes from an unhappiness with the gap between what we have and what we would like to have. Any time this gap exists, between what is, and what could be, there will be Anger. Where there is disappointment; there will be Anger; where there is Anger, there will be Conflict. This is extremely important to understand! Highlight it; write it down; put it on your refrigerator or your desk or your computer. Disappointment is good. Anger is good. Conflict is good. All three are necessary for growth. They are a vote of confidence in a person's capacity to be better and do better. Without them, we know that expectations are low, caring is gone, and abandonment has occurred.
So, an Angry/Conflict statement would be – "This is the third meeting that we've had over this contract. I'm really disappointed that you still haven't signed it."

Conflict is often confused with Hostility, one of the two most frequently utilized behaviors to avoid Conflict. Both Hostility and Passivity are deflections and distractions from directly expressing disappointment. Hostility is a universal accusation, from which there is no redemption. So, a Hostile statement would be – "Every time I put you in front of a customer, you blow it." There's not much the person can do to change things, if everything they do is wrong.

Passivity is a blanket denial of one's needs and a dishonest approval of the status quo. So, a Passive statement would be – "It's fine with me if we keep meeting about this; I'm in no hurry to get this done." And we can be assured that nothing will ever get done, and nothing will ever change for either party.

Very few of us grew up with healthy models of Conflict. Almost everyone alive today grew up witnessing Hostility and/or Passivity. This isn't because we grew up with bad or inept people. On the contrary, we grew up with people who were trying to do their best by us, and were busting their butts making sure their families thrived and survived. There was no time, and little opportunity (or tolerance) for dealing with disappointments and unhappy feelings. The latter are luxuries of affluence. So, expressing disappointment is pretty scary stuff; and very uncomfortable to do. It's a lot easier for us to get Hostile, or to withdraw into Passivity.

This, then, is what veteran salespeople are up against. Add to this cultural and psychological history, an information-loaded and very challenging consumer, and you have a prescription for stagnation. All the technique in the world isn't going to budge this one iota. As soon as the possibility of Conflict rears its head, the salesperson is immediately shot back to the very earliest times in their life, when disappointment was unacceptable and impermissible. Another key point: All Conflict-Avoidance is about the past. It is about danger and survivability, from the perspective of a child, not that of an adult. The worst thing that can happen to an adult salesperson, if they choose to engage in Conflict, is that the customer dislikes them, and they lose the sale (which they don't have to begin with).

So, how do we help these salespeople get through this challenge? We need to give the adult salesperson the courage to take on the freaked-out five year old running their business life. We do this by making it more uncomfortable and painful to avoid Conflict, than to take the risk of engaging in it. For example, we have the salesperson identify the customer relationship that has gone on the longest without a closing of the sale. And then we give them the following assignment: In the next thirty days (or other reasonable time frame), you will close the sale or unequivocally end your relationship with that customer. If you fail to do either one, there will be a significant negative consequence (monetary, write-up, access to support, or dismissal). We are not doing this because we think there's going to be some magical transformation and an immediate sale. We are doing this for one simple, but powerful reason: To show the salesperson that they can engage in Conflict, and live to tell the tale. In other words, to reassure the five year old, that life, in fact, will go on.

One last point. Courage does not come out of thin air, or from some mystical place deep inside of people. It comes from caring relationships. Relationships with people who care enough to challenge people to go one step beyond where they believe they can go. I learned a long time ago, that great leaders are great because they believe more in their people, than their people believe in themselves.

Political and Cultural Observations

Terrorism and Orthodoxies: Understanding the Enemy

It is becoming increasingly clear that many, if not most, people in our country, don't get what Islamo-Facist Terrorism is about. From the embarrassing spectacle of our Attorney General's inability to form the phrase "Muslim Fanatics" to the mass media's creation of a soap opera around the Times Square would-be bomber, it's apparent that those in power and those running the media are engaged in either willful ignorance or a frightening cowardice.

The widespread Jihad against Western Culture is financed by, organized by, driven by, and celebrated by, Muslims – in particular, by Orthodox Muslims. None of the obscene, horrific attacks against innocent civilians, to my knowledge, have been carried out by Quakers or Swedes. It is important, no essential, that we acknowledge this, openly talk about it, and cut through the bizarre political correctness that tries to deflect responsibility and ownership. Contemporary Islam is in the death grip of the Orthodox community, and there is little evidence that any forces are mustering, either religious or political, to loosen or overthrow this stranglehold. Even the super-apologetic New York Times, pointed out, a few years ago, that Islam is the only remaining world religion, that has not undergone a major reformation. What other world religion tolerates the targeting of individuals for assassination, for what they've written or said? It still amazes me when I see TV interview after interview, with women from Islamic countries, who are under 24/7 protection, after writing and speaking about the treatment of their peers in the countries of their birth.

What exacerbates this situation even more, is the rank hypocrisy of the political establishment and the politically correct mass media. What do you think would happen if a Catholic bishop, a noted Baptist official, and a respected Jewish rabbi, issued a statement proclaiming that non-believers in a Judeo-Christian faith were infidels, and were worthy of being slaughtered, like cattle? Barack Obama would be in front of a teleprompter in under an hour, calling the statement unacceptable and stupid; Attorney General Holder would characterize it as ill-advised and possibly discriminatory; the Huffington Post would go more nuts than usual; and MSNBC would declare a national emergency. The statement would be withdrawn within hours, followed by an orgy of apologies and self-flagellation.

A few years ago, if you remember, Muslim cabdrivers serving the Minneapolis airport, demanded foot-washing facilities, to meet the requirements of their religion. Instead of an outcry against this outrageousness, their request was eventually granted. What I find most telling about this situation, is the temper tantrum and threat of litigation, on the part of civil libertarians, every time they discover a crèche or a tablet inscribed with the ten commandments, on public property. I guess that separation of church and state only goes so far.

The saddest thing about the absurd lengths that this political correctness has gone to, as applied to the Muslim community, is the implicit put-down and depreciation of its members. Every time we accord special treatment to a group, and go out of our way to ignore their destructive behavior, we are making a de facto judgment of their inferiority. If they weren't inferior, we'd hold them to the same standards and values that the rest of us live by.

So besides being disappointing, infuriating, and deeply troubling, what's the problem with Islam being in the death grip of its most Orthodox members? The problem lies in the very nature of Othodoxies.

An Orthodoxy is a belief system that cannot be questioned. Its primary and overriding purpose is to control its followers and limit their choices – ideally, to one. At the heart of every Orthodoxy is a fear- of life and death proportions – of choice. And the reason for this fear is simple, but powerful. If you tolerate, let alone encourage choice, one of those choices could be to leave the Orthodoxy. From the perspective of the Orthodoxy, this is a death sentence. This is why the rhetoric of crazy clerics and committed terrorists, is so infused with the language of martyrdom and death.

Orthodoxies evolved for two reasons. The first, was to explain the inexplicable: To give adherents a rationale for the sometimes frightening and occasionally terrifying events that they experienced. In this sense, Orthodoxies were the pre-age of enlightenment's science.

The second, and more important reason, was to guarantee the integrity of the tribe, clan, or subculture. To make sure, in other words, that the bonds within the group would always be there to insure the survival of each individual. As more and more information infused western cultures, more and more choices were available to people. And as people exercised those choices and often left the groups they grew up with (or became less dependent upon them), the very Orthodoxy that had provided security, safety, and opportunity, was diluted, contaminated, and threatened with destruction.

I was born into a ghetto on Chicago's west side, peopled with a mix of Orthodox and Conservative Jews. Culturally, it was a closed system. Until I was seven or eight years old, I knew no one very well other than Jews. My grandparents work, support system, and social network were totally linked to other Jews. Without those linkages, we would not have survived. Likewise, my father's practice would never have seen the light of day, without a connection to the Jewish community. But as the Jewish community migrated to different parts of the city (and eventually to the suburbs), the ghetto became less geographical and more virtual. My father's practice became more "diverse" and my parents' support system and social network broadened, if ever so slightly. In my generation, the dilution was profound. Every one of my siblings (including me), married non-Jews, and ceased any affiliation with the formal religion or religious observance and practice. My children's generation has little or no ties to the culture, let alone to the religion. I still have memories of my grandparents' customs and rituals. My children have none. The Orthodoxy I grew up with is gone. (The core values are very much intact, but that's a discussion for another time.)

This is what the Muslim Orthodoxy fears and why the West is so hated. Western cultures work to assimilate diverse populations into a values-homogenous whole, built around individual responsibility and choices. This inherently marginalizes Orthodoxies and undercuts their influence and impact. And nowhere is this done as clearly and thoroughly, as in America. This is why we are so hated and reviled. And this is why Islamo-Fascism is a life or death issue for them and us.
I have lost my patience with philosophical discussions of where to have terrorist trials and whether or not homicidal maniacs merit constitutional protection. We are at war with psychopathic murderers, who are obsessed with spilling our blood. What is it going to take to convince politicians and intellectual apologists that this war has nothing to do with "infidel troops" in Muslim land, or the Palestinian situation, or "capitalist excess?" This is about exterminating the West and its freedom to choose. That's it. Simple and brutal.

There is nothing new, or even recent about this war. I have written before about my experience in the early 1960's as a student at a radicalized university in England. Quite by accident, I found myself living in a dorm at Leeds University, with Chinese Communists, South American revolutionaries, and Muslim fundamentalists from a number of Middle Eastern countries. I was clearly in the minority – there were five Americans in my dorm.

Even though every night at dinner quickly evolved into "attack the American," I became friendly with and close to a number of the Muslim students. We talked endlessly about our backgrounds and our respective cultures; we traveled together on school vacations; and I got to know many of their families who visited them during the year. When it was time for us to leave Leeds, and return to our home countries, we got together to say our goodbyes. I don't remember exactly what we were talking about, but something I said angered one fellow, and he looked me right in the eye, and said – "If I was told to, I would slit your throat." I was stunned, and so shocked and bewildered, that I didn't know how to react. I asked him if he was kidding, since I couldn't believe he was serious. He made it clear that this wasn't a joke. I then regained enough composure to ask him how he could say that to me, given the relationship we had built over the past year. He looked right at me again and said-
"You're an American, and a Jew; that's enough for me." I shall never forget that day.

So, given the ferocity and psychotic-like intensity of this assault, what do we need to do to protect ourselves and significantly diminish this unparalleled threat to the very existence of our culture? Three things must be done:

1. The Obama administration needs to stop talking around reality, declare an all-out war against Jihadists, abroad and especially here; and actually start using the "M" word. Among other things, it is nothing short of obscene that we tolerate Imams in the United States, inciting violence, and permit foreign countries (often our "allies") to fund so-called "schools" that spew forth hate and teach children to despise our culture and view us as sub-human. If skinheads and American Nazis tried to set up schools that were funded by foreign interests, and taught white Anglo-Saxon supremacy, and called for the extermination of Jews, Hispanics, African-Americans, homosexuals and other "undesirables," they'd be shut down in under a day.

2. The mass media in this country needs to come out of its journalistic closet and start holding American Muslim leadership accountable for renouncing the edicts and fatwahs of crazy clerics calling for a critic's assassination, or some family's "honor killing," or the attempts of Muslim student groups to intimidate speakers who challenge their orthodox views. There's only one question that needs to be asked of these leaders – "Do you unequivocally renounce your fellow Muslim's statement or behavior? Yes or no?"

3. The current administration in Washington, needs to get beyond this pointless pretext of closing Gitmo. There needs to be a place to keep irreparable lunatics, and even the people around Obama have figured it out. (I guess at this point, they need to come up with a way to save face, given the fact that no one in our country wants committed killers down the road from them.) It's still hard to believe that the fabrication about Gitmo creating new terrorists had any credibility for as long as it did. There was no Gitmo in the 1970's, 80's, or 90's, when these madmen were blowing up people all over the world. I learned a long time ago, through a variety of experiences, that there are people so destroyed inside themselves, that they can only see themselves destroying others. These people can never be allowed to see the light of day. I often think of the quote attributed to Howard Bloom –
"Almost all great civilizations have succumbed to barbarians, primarily because of their inability to understand them."

I am very disappointed in the Muslim community in our country. They have shown a reprehensible cowardice in not rejecting, totally, and not keeping the spotlight of disdain on the worst amongst them. Courage is the commitment and risk embodied in calling out your own. The famous quote from Father Martin Niemoller, in the National Holocaust Museum, says it all:

"First they came for the socialists, and I said nothing because I was not a socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I said nothing because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews, and I said nothing because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak."

Personal Notes

Getting Old Sucks: Existentialism and Nihilism vs. Hope and Optimism

When I first read Sartre, Nietzsche, and their band of merry-makers (as an undergraduate in the Neolithic Period), I had absolutely no clue what they were talking about. I may as well have been reading the phone book. My only "existential dilemma" was trying to stay awake when I went to the main library to study. I have always had trouble sleeping at night, in a regular bed, but I could nod off, like a toddler, and get some powerful REM rest at that library. Now that I'm in my late 60's, I have a new understanding of existentialism and nihilism. (Why we try to teach these philosophies to 20 year olds, has always puzzled me.)

I did pretty well all through my 50's. I kept up my breakneck schedule, traveling somewhere in the world almost every week; lecturing, doing workshops, and facilitating some very intense small group meetings. I thrived on the variety of places, clients, and challenges, and the intensity fed something in me that satisfied my need for impact. Looking back on those days, I'm often amazed by how I did it. I'm a one million miler on United, and a three million miler on Delta. (You know when you've flown a lot, when the airline sends you a very nice piece of Hartman luggage.)

Somewhere around turning 62, I hit a wall. It's like I woke up one day, and couldn't figure out how I got to be in my 60's. It may sound weird, but what it felt like was – one day I was forty something, and the next day, I was in my sixties. And I seemed to have no clue as to how I got there. I'm quite aware that this makes no sense, whatsoever, but that's how I felt.

I also, at this point, realized that I had made no plans for getting old. (I also got real tired of people telling me that 60 wasn't old at all, and that I was still a "young man." Forty may be young – sixty is not.) As smart as I am, I was completely dumbfounded by what I was experiencing. I had never thought about slowing down; about wanting things to be more convenient; about making less money; and most of all, about not living in our house, in the future. The latter was crushing. As I've written before, our home (and property) in Montana, is not simply our "dream" house. It is the fulfillment of our vision for our life, and the instrument for achieving our personal and professional mission – to change the world, one person at a time.

As a result of hitting this wall, and facing these realizations, I went into an unannounced retirement for over a period of two years. I did some work, but didn't seek out much new business. I was in deep grief over the decision to put the house up for sale. It made perfect sense to downsize, relieve ourselves of the rather staggering financial burden, and rid ourselves of the responsibility of managing a large piece of property. Unfortunately, that didn't make it feel any better.

For a period of time, I got stuck in depression. To say that it felt awful, would be the understatement of my life. For the first time in my life, I asked myself some very disturbing questions. Like – "Why am I doing all this?" and "What do all these achievements mean?" I also questioned the value that I brought to the relationships I was in, both personal and professional. At one point in this self-dialogue, I heard myself saying – "None of this really matters, because I'm going to end up dead anyway." That certainly got my attention. It was a new, shocking, and sobering thought. That lead to the realization and the articulation of something that I knew was there, but had not wanted to face: I was in the last part of my life, and the delusion that I would go on forever was coming to a crashing end.

I'm still not at the point where that realization doesn't pull me up short, and tend to bring me down; albeit for shorter and shorter periods of time. My friends who have a religious connection and belief system have talked to me about the solace that it brings them, and I appreciate their concern and their words. I've tried, at various times in my life, to embrace the tradition I was brought up with, as well as some others. But it just doesn't work for me. There's something in my background or my DNA that makes it impossible for me to grasp the idea of prayer or the concept of a personal God. I'd have to meet the man, to move in that direction.

Two things have helped me move through my existential crisis. The first, not surprisingly, has been Arleah's insight that, as she so eloquently puts it – "You can't live in a dream forever." She realized, long before me, that it was time for us to move on; practically, philosophically, and emotionally. We need a new dream. Its time (probably overdue) to say goodbye to the old dream. Our vision and mission remains the same – we are still committed to changing the world, one person at a time. What we need now, and what we're working away at, is some new ways of doing it.

The other thing that has been very helpful, particularly this past year or so, has been the unbelievable amount of communications from people I've worked with over the past years, as to the impact of our work together. I don't think a week goes by, these days, when I don't get an email or a phone call thanking for me what I've done to change someone's life for the better. Some of this feedback comes from people I worked with twenty or twenty-five years ago. I'm always deeply touched.

I was talking recently with a former client and then colleague, who off-handedly referred to me as his mentor. When I got off the call, I was aware that the term somewhat surprised me. I have not, in my work or other relationships, thought of myself in those terms. I've always known that I make an impact on people, but I never would have phrase it that way.

All this great feedback has made me aware that I have created, unbeknownst to me, a legacy. I have heard other people talk about their legacy, but have never before applied it to me, or my work. It feels good, and I think it will help get me through my Nietzschian moments.

Morrie

Tell us what you think – click here to send us an e-mail with your feedback.
morrie@fifthwaveleadership.com

May 2009

2010-05-14T08:57:00.000-07:00

I seem to be coming across great quotes these days. This one was provided by a good friend and colleague – Tony Burnham – probably the best labor lawyer in the country. Tony and his partner – Leslie Gray – have provided invaluable HR/legal consultation to a number of my clients. Tony is also the author of a great book on getting one's act together, called Employed for Life. The quote superbly captures the thrust of our current administration in Washington – "A Government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul." ~ George Bernard Shaw

Now, for the newsletter:

Business Tips

What Is A Good, Profitable Relationship?

One thing this recession has unequivocally driven home for businesspeople is the penultimate importance of relationships in building and maintaining viable businesses. Unfortunately, though, not many people have offered very specific definitions of what constitutes a good, profitable and growing relationship. For me, that relationship has five characteristics. It is, or it has the following:

Judgmental
Conditional
High Expectations
Reciprocal
Renewing

Judgments give people the information they need in order to grow. They allow people to put their values and beliefs up against a measuring standard and make conscious, informed choices; perhaps for the first time in their lives. We owe others our convictions of what we believe is right and wrong, good and bad, acceptable and unacceptable. We not only have the right to be judgmental, we have the obligation. Not doing so is a form of moral, ethical, and interpersonal abandonment. Others can accept our judgments, reject them wholly, or incorporate aspects that feel right. In any case, they must ask themselves what they believe, and why they believe it.

All good relationships are conditional. Conditions set the limits, boundaries, and values that create respect, integrity, and self-esteem for all parties to a relationship. Unconditional acceptance creates the platform for abuse, neglect, and manipulation. If anything and everything you do is acceptable, then both you and I have little value. Business relationships (and personal relationships) often fail because of the lack of clearly articulated conditions, which inevitably lead to the tolerance of corrosive and destructive behaviors.

High expectations are a vote of confidence in people's ability to continually get better and be better people. We only have high expectations for those who we believe have the capacity to not only achieve more, but to feel better about themselves. High expectations create high performance and high self-esteem. You get what you expect. For years, people have asked me what the difference is between great companies and average companies. Great companies expect more – and they get it.

All good relationships meet the needs of both parties. This is the perfect confluence of individual selfishness meeting individual selfishness. Though politically incorrect and somewhat counterintuitive, reciprocity is the highest distillation of self-interest. In fact, reciprocity is impossible without self-interest. I cannot get my needs met if I refuse to meet yours. That's why infants are so draining and adult narcissists are so repulsive.

A great relationship ought to be energizing. It should be magnetic, attractive, and re-charging. Its purpose and intent must be clear and direct and there should be no doubt or ambiguity about the agendas of the parties involved. Indirectness, hinting, and circuitousness are draining. The worst thing businesspeople do is to put up with and even indulge draining relationships. It rewards mediocrity, wastes inordinate amounts of time, and erodes profitability. Practice putting up your hand and asking, "What is this conversation about and what do you need?"

Political and Cultural Observations

Values and A New Politics

In last month's newsletter, I discussed the growing disenchantment with both the Left and the Right in the American political scene. I also discussed the sense I had that we may be ready for a new political constituency based on a true understanding of core values, as opposed to the clichéd, hobby horse issues that dominate our current political blathering.

In the first place, no one on the current political spectrum would recognize a value if it fell on them. A value is a belief system about how the world ought to be and ought to operate. It lays out the kind of world one wants to live in and work toward creating. And it has the following five characteristics:

It is always black or white – there is no gray, middle ground. You can't be somewhat honest or have partial integrity.
It must lead to a decision between two or more alternatives. A value demands that a choice be made – no equivocation is acceptable.
It is personally neutral. It is irrelevant who is involved – values apply equally to everyone.
It is situationally neutral. Situations never determine value decisions.
It is unambiguous and incapable of further definition. Anyone looking at a particular value statement can readily understand it and should have no questions about what it means.

Values are very different from goals. Goals are where you're going. Values are how you're going to get there. And values always trump goals. I'm interested in where you want to go and what you want to accomplish. But I'm much more interested in how you're going to get there. How we're going to get somewhere determines our quality of life much more than where we're going. All brutal, inhuman, tyrannical regimes in the history of the human race have been crystal clear in their goals (often beneficent, charitable, and generous in tone); and all have been scurrilous and ruthless in the articulation of their values.

A brief example of the critical difference between goals and values. World peace is an admirable goal. We could achieve it in a fairly short period of time by militarily subjugating all the most lunatic regimes and factions in the world, including, probably, the use of nuclear weapons. On the other hand, we could achieve it by having all first world countries abdicate democracy and voluntarily submit to the rule of autocratic orthodoxy. In either case, we could have world peace, but at what price? (What really irritates me about causeniks is their self-righteous snobbery. They act like there are millions and millions of people who are opposed to world peace, feeding the poor, or other noble ventures; and that they are the caring few. What chutzpa!) You can readily extrapolate from the world peace example to other lofty issues – global warming, abortion, gay rights, poverty, etc. The question is always the same; and it's not – "Can we solve this problem?" It is – "At what price to our values?"

I believe we can build a strong and vital political force around four fundamental values:

Individual Responsibility – This concerns how you answer to yourself, and assumes that you are ready to look at your role in all the situations you find yourself in. This is a no victims zone.
Accountability – This concerns how you answer to others; and require others to answer to you. Making and keeping commitments is at the heart of this value. This is a no excuses zone.
Continual Growth – This concerns how one chooses between self-learning and comfort. Learning about oneself often involves discomfort and pain and the conscious choice to experience it, in order to grow. The choice of comfort is the road to mediocrity. This is the courageous zone.
Direct and Honest Communication – This concerns how one chooses to participate in relationships. It is about the commitment to tell others (and have others tell you) what they need to hear, not what they want to hear. This is the challenging zone.

I'm convinced that these four values can mediate us through all the troubling and difficult questions and dilemmas of our time. These values are tough to live by, but they offer us the opportunity to participate in a dialogue that can bring us together, as opposed to dividing us further. For example, look at the burning question of our time – "Who caused the recession and what's the way out?" Answer – "We all did; by violating the core value of individual responsibility." With very few exceptions, across the socio-economic board, we bought, spent, and indulged ourselves like drunken conventioneers. What's the way out? To not be rescued from the pain of our individual irresponsibility and to learn something from it. All the rescuing will do, is simply reward us for violating a set of values that can sustain us through any changes and dislocations coming our way. I see signs throughout the culture that we're ready and up to the task of living by a coherent and sustainable set of values.

Personal Notes

Bringing Mom Home – The Bitter and the Sweet

Two months ago we moved my mother from an assisted living facility in Florida to a skilled nursing facility in Montana, twenty minutes from our home. Her physical and mental condition were deteriorating and it was getting increasingly difficult to manage her care at a 2500 mile distance.

When people ask me how she's doing (she's almost 90), I never quite know how to answer. Her physical care is much better; some of her medical issues have stabilized, and her memory loss, at times, seems less severe. On that level, she is clearly doing better.

On another, quite different level, things are in turmoil and in a painful transition. I have not lived this close to my mother, nor seen her this often, in close to fifty years. The contrasts (and the similarities, in certain things) are stark and sad. At various times, earlier in her life, she has been a classically trained ballerina, a teacher, a chorus line dancer in three Hollywood World War II era movies (starring Donald O'Connor, who hit on her regularly), a manager at Saks Fifth Avenue, and a homemaker.

She was a kick-ass lady in everything she did. She ran our household like Mayor Daley (without the patronage) and she always knew where we were. If we weren't home on time, she tracked us down and came to get us. She admitted few mistakes – she was in her early 80's when she shared with me and Arleah that it was a mistake to have let her mother live with us, after she had been widowed early in life.

She spends her days now in a wheelchair or occasionally a walker, in a hospital-like room. She has five pictures on her walls – three of myself, my brother, and my sister as young children; a painting (by her cousin) of a medieval rabbi; and a collage of photographs of our family celebrating our parents' fiftieth wedding anniversary. She reads quite a bit and the TV is almost always on.

Arleah sees her almost daily (she has been unbelievably giving to her) and usually brings my mother's dog with. I see her two to three times a week. The visits are painful and draining. Twenty minutes seems like an eternity. She will often, in the middle of a visit, pick up a magazine and start reading it. She is always ready for us to leave.

Like many women of her generation, she felt she had no right to talk about her (or anyone else's) feelings. So she lived a life of constant activity – we called her the "white tornado." When we ask her now how she's feeling about the facility, the move, or her life, she looks either puzzled or irritated. The most she says is that, "I never thought I'd end up this way."

As Arleah says, "Your mother is gone." I have many memories, and hopefully, she does too.

Morrie

Tell us what you think – click here to send us an e-mail with your feedback.
morrie@fifthwaveleadership.com

April 2010

2010-04-19T08:50:00.000-07:00

It would be an understatement to say that this newsletter is coming at a very interesting and momentous time in our history. The passing and signing of the new HealthCare bill signals a watershed mark in the evolution of our society. Whether this is a good mark or a bad mark is being hotly debated, and I continue to be intrigued by the framing of the debate in terms of "morality" versus "economics." I don't know anyone who thinks that some people in our country ought to have no access to health insurance (or health care), or ought to go bankrupt because they get sick. Nor do I know anyone who can say with absolute certainty that we can afford this bill, or, on the contrary, that it will take us down financially. I think the key underlying issue that this bill has brought to the forefront, is the question of what kind of culture do we want to live in, in terms of risk, innovation, and growth. Have we reached our tolerance limit for risk? Are we ready to pass the mantle of innovation to another culture? Have we had enough growth, and do we now want to embrace comfort as a societal goal? I'll address these issues in this newsletter.

Business Tips

Fathers and Leaders: The Power of Emotional Connections

In some recent work with a corporate client, I had one of those painfully obvious "duh" moments. It had become clear, through working with the senior management team, as well as a key group of middle managers, that the COO was a very difficult person to work with, and that most of his colleagues and subordinates chose to minimize their interactions with him, or to avoid dealing with him, if at all possible. There were a slew of complaints about him, but they essentially revolved around two major issues: Whenever an idea, project, or report was presented to him, it was met with a surgical, unemotional, and completely impersonal rebuttal and dismissal. It was given no credence, whatsoever, and instead of being critiqued, it was eviscerated, in the manner of a verbal autopsy. In addition, everyone who interacted with him, left feeling like they had just been in combat and had lost the battle. Many also felt personally discounted, diminished, and depreciated.

In attempting to deal with this situation, we pulled together a meeting involving the COO and a number of his direct reports. All of the direct reports had had a history of difficult, unpleasant, and unproductive interactions with the COO, over periods of time ranging from a few years to over ten years. All of them, at different times, had given him feedback about how difficult he could be to deal with, and a couple had engaged in quite spirited conflict with him, on a few occasions. But until this meeting, no one had shared with him directly, how personally impacted, in a negative way, they were, and how much they felt assaulted and attacked.

To everyone's surprise, including the COO, he was shocked and profoundly shaken by the feedback. He was certainly aware that he could be "argumentative," and that he was not the easiest person in the world to work with; but he was really taken aback by how hurtful his behavior was, and, at the same time, how unintentional it was. By the end of the meeting he was clearly sobered by the feedback, but completely clueless about where his behavior was coming from.

Things became a lot clearer in our one-on-one meeting, following the group session. After some discussion about the feedback from his colleagues and his reaction to it, he told me that this had been a particularly stressful year for him. When I asked him why, he said that his father had died earlier in the year, and that he was really impacted by his father's passing; and that this surprised him. I asked him why he was surprised, and he told me that he had never had a good relationship with his father, and that he had been a very unhappy person, impossible to please, and emotionally distant. He added that he had grown up feeling like he never wanted to be like his father, nor did he want to treat people like he had been treated. I then asked him if he was aware that he was acting exactly like his father. He looked puzzled, then turned beet red, and said that he had never thought about that. He had a lot of feelings in his eyes, and it was clear that he had made a significant connection. We spent the rest of our time together talking about the life his father had lived, and how sad many of his choices had been.

So what can we learn from this?
Every single leader I have worked with – man or woman – had either an emotionally unavailable father; a father who was deeply unhappy and unfulfilled in his own life; or a father who was never satisfied with the achievements of his children. Many leaders had all three.

The death of our fathers, is the death of what could have been. It solidifies a process of hoping that somewhere, with somebody, our needs for closeness, validation, and an emotional connection, will come true.

We cannot "break the chain" and change, in ourselves, the destructive behavior we grew up with (including what we missed), by doing the opposite. Trying to do the opposite, in fact, guarantees a replication of the past. It's like trying to be there for everything your kids do, because no one was there for what you did. Your kids know it isn't for them, and you never get the appreciation you're looking for, because it isn't about the present. Grieving what we lost is the only way to leave sad feelings and experiences behind, and to truly begin anew.

My time with the COO was the beginning of a grieving process. It is a reiterative process; a review and articulation of feelings long buried, but profoundly impactful. He will now be able to do this again (and again), and with each reiteration, he will dilute the power of his past and live more in his present.

As an interesting update; within a week after our encounter, a number of his colleagues reported that they had interactions with him that were not only pleasant, but also productive. He actually listened, gave them helpful feedback, and everyone learned something. Miracles may not happen, but change does occur.

Political and Cultural Observations

What's Behind ObamaCare?

As I indicated in my introduction to this newsletter, I think the underlying issue that the passage of the HealthCare bill has brought to the forefront is the question of what kind of culture do we want to live in. Specifically around the issues of risk, innovation and growth.

An important point here: All cultures are trade-offs. When societies declare (consciously or unconsciously) what's most important to them, they also, implicitly accept both the good and the bad that comes with those choices. There is no free lunch, nor is there a utopian society.

Example: If we say that we value individual choice and responsibility (politically translated into personal freedom), then we have to live with bad choices, as well as good ones. In other words, there can be no preemptive intervention with people because we think they may behave badly. That means that one of the prices of freedom is regular instances of people doing awful things to each other, or to themselves. A lot of people don't understand this (along with most of the mass media), and go through the same ritual of angst and blaming every time some disturbed soul commits a heinous act. They rail about our inability to predict aberrant behavior and to protect the rest of us from dangerous lunatics. We could stop 99% of this behavior if we were willing to give up our personal freedom, and turn our country into a fascist police state. The old East Germany and the old Soviet Union were some of the safest places on earth. People lived in constant fear of being accused of harboring thoughts and intentions that the State thought subversive.

This country was built by risktakers. They ventured everything, including at times, their very lives, to carve out a culture that has met the needs of the vast majority of its citizens, at a level unparalleled in the history of the species. And this achievement came at a price. Some people who took risks failed. Some people who took no risks lost everything. Until fairly recently, we have implicitly accepted this trade-off. Whether or not we talk about it much, it is clearly understood, for example, that jobs are created by people who take the risk of starting a business and making sure that it stays viable. There would not be one job in America were it not for the men and women who put everything on the line to create enterprises that produced goods or provided services. (Or generated tax revenues that supported the public sector.) And these risktakers are at the heart of our nation's creativity and innovation, as well as its primary driver of individual and societal growth.

There is no doubt in my mind, that Obama and the people around him, at best, want to minimize the role played by risktakers and maximize the guarantees provided by government. At worst, they seem, at times, to be launching a full scale assault on the very people (entrepreneurs, small business owners, mid-size business leaders) that feed the pipeline of job creation. The philosophical bent of those surrounding Obama is unmistakable – 93% of his advisors have only public sector experience. The next closest administrations were those of Kennedy and Johnson, at between 50 and 60%.
So, what evidence do we have of this negative predilection toward risktakers? Three specifics have always struck me:

1. The very first act of the Obama administration was to kill the voucher program for poor families who had chosen to send their children to non-traditional, non-public schools in the District of Columbia, which has, arguably, the worst public schools in the country. This was done, clearly, to assuage the teachers union, which sees these schools (and the school choice movement) as a threat to their guaranteed jobs and their low-risk view of life. The irony of this cut was that its impact was felt entirely by minority (almost exclusively Black) families.

2. The staggering burden of new taxes instituted by this administration will fall predominantly on the shoulders of small, independent business people (sole proprietors, partnerships, LLC's, etc.) who run "pass thru" operations. These men and women create 85% of the jobs in America, and have razor thin margins in their businesses. Additional dollars of taxation put them in the position of keeping a tight lid on their overhead, which translates into no new hiring, or even worse, laying people off. These folks are the real risktakers in our society; not the "barons of industry" that the media is always carping about.

3. Obama's sticky alliance with the union movement is not accidental. The mission of the unions is to maximize guarantees and minimize risk, which is the antithesis of what built this country. The pioneers of every epoch were not looking for guarantees; they were seeking opportunities. America's creativity and ingenuity are driven by risktakers, not bureaucrats. I learned an indelible lesson living in western Europe and spending much time in Scandinavia. The higher you raise the floor, the lower you bring down the ceiling. And the ultimate physics of this dynamic is inescapable and fatal. The culture dies of suffocation.

I am not opposed to reforming the healthcare/health insurance system in our country (and I know no one who is). What bothers me is the sledge hammer approach and the unstated agenda of further removing risk from the culture and substituting guarantees. We need to remember that there was not one peep from unions, government regulators, the media, nor the public at large, when Wall Street "wheeler-dealers" were raking in the profits and filling the coffers of union pension funds; when Fannie and Freddie were underwriting loans that could never be serviced; and when financial advisors were helping private citizens stuff their pockets with cash. I have never had much respect for selective outrage, particularly when it comes from politicians.

I have heard much these days about how we are to judge what a "good society" is. Most of it says something to the effect that the good and noble society is defined by how it takes care of its "less fortunate" citizens. I couldn't disagree more. From my perspective, the good and noble society is distinguished by how it supports, incentivizes, and rewards its most successful citizens. Without these risktaking and courageous people there would be no resources whatsoever, to help anyone with anything. The greatest threat to our culture, at this point, is not external. It is the continual discouragement and demonization of those amongst us who have done the best. Class warfare and hostility, generated by envy, has destroyed many societies. I fervently hope we can move beyond it.

Personal Notes

My Father and the Racetrack: Old Feelings Never Die

A few weeks ago, Arleah and I were in L.A. spending some time with our son, our daughter-in-law, and our granddaughter. They had discovered a unique place to have breakfast – Santa Anita racetrack – and we all decided to go there one morning. Santa Anita is one of those classical places, rich in history, and replete with memories for those who have even a sparse connection with thoroughbred racing. The breakfast is held in the pavilion-like area right up against the railing of the track, and the timing of it coincides with the working out of the horses. You're literally thirty to forty feet away from some of the most beautiful animals in the world. They are truly magnificent creatures. And nothing on earth moves with their grace, elegance, and raw power.

As we entered the area where we were to have our breakfast, I stopped for a moment to take in the full panorama of the track, the infield area, and the horses in various stages of being worked. It was a beautiful spectacle. I was really enjoying it, when all of a sudden, I was hit with a wave of grief. My eyes teared up and a deep sense of sadness swept thru me, replacing the joy of the previous moment. It really took me by surprise, and for a few moments I had no idea what was going on. Then a picture of my father flashed into my head, and things became clearer.

When I was growing up, there were two things that my father and I did together. We went to Chicago Bear's football games and we went to the racetrack, in suburban Chicago. These were the only places where I saw my father feel anything.
At the Bear's games we would sit quietly, most of the time, freezing our asses off, until an exciting play occurred and/or the Bears scored. When this happened, my father would shoot out of his seat, screaming at the top of his lungs, and pounding anyone around him on the back (as I got older, it was often me). As soon as the play was over, he was back in his seat, looking intently at the field. When I was real young, these outbursts were a little scary. As I got older, I anticipated them, and saw them as part of the game experience.

At the racetrack, the experience was somewhat similar. As the horses rounded the final turn and headed down the stretch, toward the finish line, he was up on his feet, screaming his lungs out. It was like he was instantaneously transported to another world. And, again, as soon as the race was over, he was back in his seat, studying the racing form, preparing for the next race.
The racetrack culture was one of the most unique societies I had ever been exposed to (or have since experienced). It was a weird amalgam of upper middle class professionals (it was said that if you needed a doctor or a dentist, in Chicago, on a Wednesday or a Saturday, you'd best be prepared to go out to the racetrack); and gambling addicts and racetrack touts. The touts were men who spent their whole lives at tracks throughout the country, hanging around the stables, talking with trainers, handlers, and jockeys, and making their living giving tips to well-heeled bettors. If the tips paid off, they got "tipped" with a portion of the winnings; sometimes quite handsomely. My father knew the most well-known tout, a Persian immigrant named "Charlie Potatoes" (no one knew his real name). He took great pride in the fact that he never owned an overcoat, nor ever worked a day in his life at a regular job. One day, toward the end of the season in Chicago, he had a spectacularly successful day, and since he was headed south anyway, he took a cab from Chicago to Miami (I believe he said that it cost $10,000). I have very fond memories of those times. They may have been the beginnings of my lifelong interest in interesting people and unique subcultures.

My father was a kind and gentle man. Everyone said, about him, that he was the easiest going person they knew. His patients worshipped the ground he walked on, and I don't believe that there was a person on this planet that disliked him. He never got angry at anyone or anything. He put up with my grandmother (my mother's mother) living with them, from the day they were married, till the day she died. I think my mother secretly wished that he would have given her an ultimatum that it was either him or my grandmother.

My father gave me a hug and kissed me at my Bar Mitzvah. It was the only time in my life. On his deathbed, when I told him I loved him, he couldn't reciprocate. After I left the room, he told Arleah that he loved me.

Years ago, I stopped feeling angry at him. I'm just sad. My father was embarrassed by feelings, especially with men. I have struggled with that my whole life, and I imagine that I always will. I grieve this regularly, and it frees me up, to do so.

Morrie

N.B. This newsletter is labeled "April" because I got behind, again, and considered the last newsletter to be "February/March." I will try to get on schedule again, but there are no guarantees. As you may have deduced by now, I struggle with getting these out. I very much like the end product, but I hate the process, and still can't figure out why.

Morrie

Tell us what you think – click here to send us an e-mail with your feedback.
morrie@fifthwaveleadership.com

February/March 2010

2010-03-10T08:51:00.000-08:00

Last month's newsletter generated more feedback than any other one that I have sent out, and the feedback was more deeply felt than ever before. My encounter with that angelic little girl touched a number of you, as it had touched me. I want to thank all of you who took the time to communicate your thoughts and feelings to me, and to let me know that I had impacted your life.

The "Political/Cultural" section of this newsletter is a bit different. I was asked, at a meeting of educators and business leaders, to make some comments on future "big picture" issues facing our society, as we slowly emerge from the economic contraction and malaise of the last few years. The comments were well received, so I thought I'd share them with you.

Finally, a shameless plug. I have recently entered into a licensing agreement with Training Implementation Services, Inc., a company founded and directed by Frank Sarr, who has had a long and successful career in the financial services industry. Frank has spent most of his professional life in the training and development of managers, sales associates, and client service representatives. His company now translates intellectual property into distance learning programs that leverage existing technologies and combines them with a high accountability certification process. What appealed to me about Frank's concept is the heavily interactive component that guarantees that the learner-participant not only has absorbed and integrated the material, but has successfully utilized it in their work setting. Unlike almost all self-managed learning programs, this approach utilizes the internet only to deliver content and assure initial understanding of its core principals. Its most distinctive feature is the weekly phone sessions with an experienced trainer who assesses the participants skills and expertise in applying the material in the real world. At the conclusion of a specific program, participants are certified as effective practitioners, with a return on investment assurance that new and productive behaviors have been added to the participants' repertoire.

The unique structure of the program allows significant numbers of people to be trained without ever leaving their offices; with a minimum of time investment; and at a very attractive price point. The flexibility of the learning technology also allows organizations to add their own proprietary information to a training program.

Currently, we are offering programs in "Fifth Wave Recruiting" and "Fifth Wave Leadership." The former is geared toward dedicated recruiters, human resource professionals, and mid-level managers. The latter is designed for mid-level managers, sales professionals, and customer service representatives.

I'd be glad to discuss either program with you and answer any questions about their applicability to your needs and challenges. Just shoot me an email at Morrie.shechtman@gmail.com or give me an old fashioned phone call at 406/756-9270.

Business Tips

Family Secrets in the Workplace: The Cost of Silence

"Family Secrets" is a concept that comes out of the research and practice of family therapy. It refers to the unspoken and often unconscious collusion of the members of a family, to never talk about, or confront, obvious and unavoidable bizarre, dysfunctional, or destructive behaviors, on the part of one or more family members. In some recent work with a corporate client, an analogous behavior popped up, that had enormous implications for the company's bottom line.

In working with this client, I facilitate, along with the CEO, three accountability groups, made up of mid-level managers who represent all of the departments and functions of the company. In the middle of a discussion with one of these managers, about his particular challenges, he revealed that he had felt for some time, that the company had made a clear mistake in hiring a fellow manager in another area. A discussion ensued about the specific behaviors and capabilities (or lack of such) of the manager in question. And it was clear, after a short while, that the performance problems of the manager in question, were directly attributable to the characteristics pointed out by the accountability group participant.

At the conclusion of this discussion, the CEO asked the group to estimate a dollar amount of lost revenue attributable to missed opportunity, poor communication, unaccountable management of staff, and a myriad of dysfunctional behaviors. The CEO emphasized that he wanted them to be specific and very conservative, and to be able to justify the dollar amount with examples. The amount they came up with was sobering – in the low six figures, projected over the course of a year. To say the least, the rest of the group meeting was even more sobering and informative. Well over half the group had similar observations about colleagues, subordinates, and superordinates (including the CEO). This theme was mirrored in the two remaining groups, and at the end of two days of meetings, we had arrived at a total, conservatively estimated amount of two and a half million dollars of lost revenue.

When we asked people why they had not spoken up earlier, and made the company's leaders aware of their perceptions and feelings, they identified attitudes and assumptions about sharing their feelings about other people, that had little or nothing to do with their history with the company, and everything to do with their personal background and history. They initially talked about not wanting to "get people into trouble," but as we explored this, it became clear that the company had no history of summarily firing people who had performance problems, and, quite to the contrary, had an established track record of working with people (and providing resources) to help employees remediate their problems. What became evident, after much discussion, was that people weren't afraid of getting other people into trouble – they were afraid of getting themselves into trouble. And the fear was not of getting fired, but of being disliked and ostracized.

Our work paradigm comes from our personal paradigm; not the other way around. You can talk all you want about being open to people telling you what they actually see and how they feel about it – i.e. telling you the truth. But this isn't going to happen if they're clueless about their underlying belief system about the penalties of speaking the truth.

So what's the lesson here? Don't spend much of your time talking to people about how open you are to their feedback and how much you value honesty and directness. Its like beating your head against a linguistic wall. Instead, do spend your time talking to people about their past experiences in being open and direct; how that went (usually badly); and that you fully understand how risky it feels to level with people. Simply getting this on the table dramatically decreases the anxiety connected with telling the truth. Not only can the truth set you free, it can also drop to the bottom line.

Political and Cultural Observations

Mastering the Future: Preparing for the Coming Cultural and Economic Tsunami

Here are some of the "big picture" issues facing us, as we move into the future. These come from my own kind of "research." I talk to and work with lots of people who actually run businesses; I consume large amounts of information; and I have good intuition.

1. We are not experiencing a classical recession. We are in the midst of a global sea-change in our economic and cultural life due to the explosion of information and its impact on consumer and personal behavior. Consumers will be increasingly unimpressed with brand name products, and in transactional interactions, will be brutally price driven and have the information to back up their position. In relationship-driven purchases they will be unforgiving of poor or marginal people skills, and totally unaccepting of neutral or lousy attitudes. Personal relationships will have higher and higher expectations, and the demands for vulnerability and real intimacy will challenge people at levels they have never imagined.

2. We are never going back to "how things used to be." Everything is undergoing profound changes that will prove to be permanent changes in employment, lifestyle, and sociopolitical attitudes and behavior. More and more people will work virtually or as "free agents;" international mobility will fundamentally redefine the idea of "where do you live?"; and non-aligned voters will supplant party loyalists. As the Great Depression and post WW II affluence reshaped generations, our global crisis and contraction, will reshape us.

3. There will be no significant drop in the unemployment rate in the foreseeable future. An unemployment rate of 5% will be seen as the anomalous period. (The vast majority of economists have always considered 5% unemployment, full employment.) We have overdone so many things, for so long now, that we have almost entirely lost perspective. The creeping sense of entitlement, coupled with the deteriorating attention to accountability, has created millions of "make work" jobs. (On a recent trip through the Pittsburgh airport, I counted 19 TSA workers standing around, chatting and joking with each other. When I asked what they were doing, I was told that they were on a "break.")

4. No matter how much the economy "recovers," businesses will continue to let people go. They have discovered that they can do as much, or more, with less people. This has profound implications for how we help people become marketable. With profits flowing in, unabated, for years, many employers unintentionally became de facto employment agencies, instead of productive businesses.

5. We need to stop directing our efforts toward finding jobs for the unemployed or underemployed, and focus our efforts on giving people the requisite skills to market their ideas and talents to entrepreneurial ventures and to seeing themselves as "free agents."

The notion of finding jobs for people continues to frame them as passive and helpless victims, instead of people in control of their lives. We need to remember that information-intensive cultures push more and more responsibility onto individuals, not less (in spite of what's coming out of Washington).

6. The movement of existing companies will be toward a size model of middle market and small market companies. Those that remain big will become more and more virtual, with people working at home, or in small geographically dispersed pods. Huge, centralized businesses have become lower trust and higher control organizations, and have crippled decision-making, at all levels. This realization has begun a re-ordering of their fundamental structures.

7. The consumption of goods and services having retrenched to 50 – 70% of "pre-recession" levels, will stay there permanently. We will continue to be a consumer driven economy, but we will be putting our purchasing decisions through a significantly modified filter. The blending together of "necessities" and "luxuries" has been shaken at its core, and massive re-prioritization is taking place. Everyone we work with, and everyone I talk with, is seeing a return of the consumer, but at a clearly downgraded level. The challenge to business will be to figure out how to sell less to more people. (Look at Chris Anderson's book, "The Long Tail.")

8. The training of the worker of the present and the future will be heavily weighted toward "soft skills," with an emphasis on people skills and the ability to develop others. Task masters will be more and more expendable. Our technology has reached the point where we can monitor performance and collect data to make decisions, with minimal involvement from people. We don't need managers to watch people work and give them painfully obvious feedback. We need leaders, at all levels, who can help workers figure out how they get in their own way, and what they need to do to change it.

9. The capacity to take risks – financial and interpersonal – will separate the "haves" from the "have-nots," more than any other single factor. Information drives people to higher and higher levels of risk, and challenges them, at a values level, to decide which is more important to them – growth or comfort. What we have learned, in our work, is that sustainable change only occurs when you put important relationships constantly at risk. (Risk, in this context, means continual challenge and higher and higher expectations.)

10. Educational institutions have the opportunity to lead the way in this transition, if they begin to teach students the core skills of relationship-building, decision-making, conflict creation (and management), and the building of intimacy through challenge and constructive confrontation. In order to do this, the educational establishment will have to engage in a massive paradigm shift, from security to excellence. This will be a tall order.

11. We need to prepare our society for radical changes in socio-economic behavior. For example, the coming disaffection with home ownership, and the realization that a fixed asset of that magnitude is increasingly incompatible with a mobile, free-agent culture. In a nutshell, the ability to tolerate and absorb fundamentally different lifestyle and work-related choices, will be pushed to the limit.

Personal Notes

The Personal Side of Politics and Philosophy: Me and Crazy Ronnie

Someone asked me the other day, how I have arrived at my political and philosophical points of view. I could easily identify broadly impactful life experiences like growing up in a neurotic, constantly argumentative sub-culture where dinner resembled "Meet the Press;" going to university in Europe and living with political radicals and revolutionaries; working with politicians; and traveling through much of the world, lecturing and consulting. But as I gave the question more thought, individual encounters came to mind. One that indelibly changed me involved an encounter with a person we'll call Ronnie.

Years ago I worked with Mel Pope, a financial services client in Tallahassee, Florida. Mel was (and I believe, still is) one of the kindest, most gracious, and most generous people I have ever known. If you look up the word "gentleman" in the dictionary, you'll see Mel's picture.

When I came to Tallahassee to work with Mel and his organization, I stayed at Mel's house. His house was situated on a beautiful piece of property, at the end of a very, very long and perfectly straight driveway. One day, when we were leaving Mel's house, to go to his office, I noticed, at a distance, a car turning into his driveway and chugging its way toward us. As it got closer, I saw that it was a wreck of a car; old, huge and dilapidated. In addition, it had all kinds of antenna-like projections sticking out from every possible location. I asked Mel who that was coming toward us, and he told me, "that's Ronnie; I want you to meet him."

The car finally arrived at where we were standing, and out of it popped a disheveled, frenetic, and quite agitated man, talking at us, oblivious to any niceties of conversational interactions. As I remember it, he was telling Mel something about a conversation with the Governor and the state police, and that there was an imminent threat to the planet from God knows where. I didn't need my psychotherapy training to know that Ronnie was nuts. He was what we call an "ambulatory schizophrenic." In Star Trek terms, he operated in a parallel universe. Mel told me, subsequently, that Ronnie lived in his car, monitoring police calls (and anything else he could pick up), and periodically made the rounds of Mel's neighborhood, warning people of impending doom, and, incidentally collecting food and cash. This had been going on for years, and Mel couldn't remember a time when Ronnie wasn't crazy.

At one point, when Ronnie paused to take a breath, Mel told him that he'd like to introduce him to his friend – me. "Ronnie, this is my friend, Morrie. He's a psychologist who comes down here to work with me and the agency." I have never, in my life, seen someone lose all the color in their face as rapidly as Ronnie did, the moment he heard the word "psychologist." He turned white as a sheet, and headed for his car. Mel stopped him and said words that I will never forget – "Ronnie, he won't put you away. He's okay." Ronnie relaxed, though visibly shaken; and after a short while, went into Mel's house to talk with his wife, and get some food or money.

As Mel and I drove away, all my years of crystallizing my thinking about institutionalizing people came together. Right after my psychotherapy training ended, I spent about a year and a half working at a private psychiatric hospital. For a small number of patients it was a good place. It gave them some necessary boundaries that they couldn't find elsewhere, and it helped them organize and manage many free-floating and disparate feelings and thoughts. For most patients, it was a nightmare. They didn't know why they were there; they didn't know why they were being medicated; and they had harmed no one. From their perspective, they were in prison. It became clear to me that they were in this hospital because they were disturbing; not because they were disturbed. (If this distinction piques your curiosity, you may want to look at the writings of Thomas Szasz, M.D., the founder of "radical psychiatry." Szasz was the mentor of one of my early mentors in my clinical career.)

Ronnie did not bother or disturb me. He had created a life that clearly worked for him, and had found a community, of sorts, that helped sustain him. Why would anyone want to put him in an institution? Would it be about Ronnie, or would it be about their own unresolved pain?

We need to think long and hard, in our society, about why we "help" people, and what its really about. How much of our help is for the benefit of the recipient, and how much of it has to do with our unresolved stuff. A crooked motivation always ends up with disabling help. It has been (and remains) one of my missions in life, to hold our culture accountable for why it does what it does, and to continually ask the question: "Who are we really doing this for?"

Morrie

Tell us what you think – click here to send us an e-mail with your feedback.
morrie@fifthwaveleadership.com

January 2010

2010-01-27T08:52:00.001-08:00

Happy New Year to all! I hope for all our sakes that 2010 is a better year than '09 was, and that our adjustment to the "New Normal" goes as smoothly as possible. It's clear that we're not going back to how things used to be or to business as usual. There seems to be an unspoken consensus emerging that the consumption of goods and services is slowly but surely returning, but at a rate of 70-75% of what it was pre-recession. It's also becoming evident that the pressures of a contracting economy have forced organizations (both private and public sector), to assess and audit their workforce, and conclude that they could do more with less. This has put productivity and behavioral demands on executives, managers and workers that we haven't seen in generations (if ever before). One of the most profound unintended consequences of the "Great Recession" has been a sea-changing redefinition of work and the concomitant expectations of the workplace. I saw a great t-shirt the other day-it said, "Genius by Birth, Slacker by Choice." That could say it all!

Business Tips

The Value of Curiosity

Given what I've written above, I don't feel compelled to write a lengthy section on business.

I do want to comment however, on the value and importance of curiosity. I have noticed over the years, a connection between curiosity-about people and things in general-and success in business and personal life. I'm not claiming a scientific correlation here; only a consistent observation. It certainly has been true of my clients and my friends. (I discovered, to my amazement a few weeks ago, that I have worked with almost a thousand organizations and individuals over the past thirty years. I was asked to join the adjunct faculty of an MBA program and I had to put together a resume – a weird experience at this point in my life – and a client list.)

I first discovered this connection, between curiosity and success (and I might add, liking one's work and one's life), through my years and miles of flying. Almost without exception, if the person sitting next to me was curious about who I was, what I did, where I lived, or some other aspect of my being, they were inevitably, successful at what they did and enthused about their life. Sometimes they initiated the conversation; sometimes I did. It really didn't seem to matter.

My most recent experience with this connection occurred on a flight where I met Gene Robbins. Gene is a fascinating fellow who owns a construction company that, among other projects, secures military bases. Gene started out his life in law enforcement, transitioned into traditional construction work, and then created a specialized niche expertise in security construction. He is extraordinarily creative in his work and comes up with solutions to security challenges that none of his competitors have ever thought of. But what I found particularly intriguing was Gene's interest in his people-what makes them tick, what makes them successful, what they struggled with, and how to help them grow. To say the least, we had a compelling and engaging conversation and decided to do some work together.

Curiosity is also a foundation element in building relationships-both work and personal. It is very difficult to connect with someone who has little or no interest in anything outside themselves. The successful salespeople I've worked with have all been information hounds – they have an unquenchable thirst for knowledge about people, relationships and the culture they live in. Similarly, the successful leaders I've worked with have a genuine, abiding interest in who their people are, not simply what they do for them.

In personal life, curiosity is inextricably linked to intimacy. Until I had met Arleah, I had never known anyone who was simultaneously intrigued by Ayn Rand, quantum physics, and the internal workings of machines. Her interests and curiosity were compelling and irresistibly attractive; and is still so to this day. Now that she has a Kindle, her access to new knowledge is almost infinite.

As we wrote in "Love in the Present Tense", couples don't fall out of love, they fall out of respect – respect for their partner's lack of interest and curiosity about the world they live in.

So what's my conclusion? In the workplace, look for people who are curious when you're recruiting folks. How many questions do they ask you and how interested are they in you and your business? In terms of your colleagues, how often do they take the risk of going outside the nine dots and pursuing a new and different idea or behavior?

In your personal life, how curious are you? And how curious and interested are the significant people in your life? We talk a lot about our responsibilities in life? Perhaps one of the top ones is to cultivate our curiosity and that of those we care about. (I realize, as I look back on this section, that it isn't very brief. Somehow brevity and this newsletter don't seem to go together. I need to look at that).

Political and Cultural Observations

The Disabling State

I am repeatedly struck by how seemingly pedestrian interactions can catalyze thinking about profound political and cultural phenomena. About a month ago, Arleah and I had done some work with a client in southern California, and were being driven to the airport by one of our client's employees. The person driving us was a young, Hispanic fellow who did entry level work for our client. After a bit of chit-chat, I asked our driver how long he had worked for our client. He said that he had worked for the client for five years and added that he liked working for the company, a lot. (The driver had no idea of who I was or what work I did with the company). I asked him why he liked working there and his first response was that he worked with people from all over the world (the company is a veritable United Nations) and that they were very nice to him. The next thing he said blew me away – "I also like working here because they made me learn English". I was stunned. I gathered my wits about me and asked why he though that having to learn English was a good thing. This led to a conversation about his goal to become a sales person, his wife learning English, and the opportunities he felt it created for his young children. He also talked about the sadness and puzzlement he felt because his parents decided that it would be easier for them if they returned to Mexico. This young man's politically incorrect point of view got me thinking about what ultimately is at the core of my discomfort, concern and increasing distaste for the Obama administration.

I don't know if Obama is a socialist at heart. The crazy-quilt of his economic policies is only rivaled by the wildly contradictory nature of his foreign policy. While he travels around the world apologizing, at every opportunity, for the seemingly endless misdeeds of our country, we are bombing villages senseless, on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. At one moment we are at war with Al Qaeda, but it is impermissible to call anyone terrorists or Islamo Fascists. (He has no problem, however, reciting the sins of Israelis).

One thing though is consistent and perfectly clear in the policies of his administration. They are fiercely intent and stubbornly insistent upon instituting caretaking as the sociopolitical underpinning of our culture. Every legislative initiative, executive order, and judicial determination has, at its core, the undermining of individual responsibility, the blocking of the natural consequences of poor decision-making (institutional and individual) and the protection of people from themselves. The focus of program after program is to do things for people that they are perfectly capable of doing for themselves, and to convince large segments of the population that they are helpless and incompetent, and cannot take care of themselves and succeed without help from the government. The latest absurdity put forth by the administration is a proposal to certify/license storefront tax form preparers so that "the public" is assured that these folks fully understand the tax code. This is to be administered by the IRS, which by its own admission (verified by many internal audits), can't rely on its own personnel for consistent answers to tax questions. If you're too gullible or too stupid to not question your tax advisor (whether they're a CPA or an H&R Block franchisee) you deserve the results.

The worst thing about caretaking is not its wastefulness and squandering of resources that could be used productively; it is its demeaning of the recipients and the methodical undermining of their self-esteem and belief in their own capabilities. As I've mentioned before, I grew up in the heyday of the Democratic machine in Chicago (and much of Cook County). If you wanted a job in the public sector (and often in many areas of the private sector), wanted your garbage picked up regularly, or wanted to make sure that your kids had summer jobs, you better have had a good relationship with your precinct captain, city councilman, or someone connected to one of them. (Your other option was to know someone in the Mafia). What was even more insidious and destructive was the Machine's commitment to create make-work jobs for those people who had developed no discernable skills in their life and had been so infantilized by government caretaking that they were convinced that they had no value to bring to an employer.

Growing up, I knew about the Machine, but had had no direct contact with it until I was a young teenager. For some reason that escapes me now, I had to go down to the county building in the heart of the city. It was an impressive, ornate structure that had been refurbished in a number of ways. One of they changes involved the installation of automatic elevators. I remember walking into an elevator along with four or five other people and noticing a fellow in a very official uniform, standing in the corner, next to the panel of buttons that ran the elevator. I began to reach over toward the panel, to push the button for my floor, when the fellow in the uniform gave me one of those looks that said, unequivocally, I was about to commit a serious faux pas. What became instantaneously clear was that it was his job to push the buttons. He stood in that elevator all day, asking people what floor they wanted and pushed the requisite buttons. How demeaning, depreciating and dismissive can you get! At the time, I just thought it was weird. I did feel a certain sense of sadness, but I didn't have the life experience or wherewithal to understand the truly tragic implications for that poor soul.

If the Obama administration continues to have its way, we will eventually have a government program for every person in the country who has made poor decisions in their life; who has not planned well for their future; or who grew up with people who couldn't see beyond their own narcissism.

It seems to me that the fundamental challenge of our time is to see beyond the increasingly shrill argument over the CBO's pricing strategies, the falling value of the dollar, or which political party is least irresponsible and petty. I think the real question we need to be asking and answering is – "What price are we willing to pay to live in a society that holds people accountable for their choices?"

Whether I end up rich or poor, struggling or comfortable, it means little to me, if I find myself living in a culture peopled with self-made victims and self-righteous parasites.

Personal Notes

The Face of an Angel

I was in an airport the other day and had one of those emotional wake-up calls. I was standing in the gate area waiting to board my flight, when out of the corner of my eye, I noticed a woman going by me, pushing an unusual looking little wheelchair. Sitting in the wheelchair was a young girl, perhaps seven or eight years old. As they stopped at the check-in counter, I had the chance to focus on the little girl. If there are angels somewhere, they have the face of this little girl. She was the most beautiful child I have ever seen. But as my eyes traveled away from her face, I started to grasp why she was in the wheelchair. Her hands were bent awkwardly at the wrist, and her fingers were misshapen and out of her control. Her legs were pointed in an unnatural direction and they were clearly of no use to her.

As I continued to look at her, I felt my eyes beginning to well up with tears. It soon became difficult to maintain my composure, and I had to walk away to another part of the gate area. There was a part of me that wanted to go over to her mother and ask her if there was anything I could do to help her. There was a bigger part of me that wanted to gather that child up in my arms and make her whole. At that moment, I would have given anything to see her run around that gate area, laughing and giggling.

When we boarded the plane, her mother picked her up out of the wheelchair, and carried her on, placing her in the seat next to her. They sat right across the aisle from me and I regularly glanced over at her. I never saw her say anything – she looked blankly into space-and she eventually fell asleep against the window of the plane. When we landed at our destination, I left the plane, regretting that I couldn't say anything to the little girl's mother that would have made any sense, or would not have left me sobbing. I undoubtedly will never see that child again, but she irretrievably touched me. I have been remarkably calm since I encountered that little child and her mother. I still have my typically strong reactions to the challenges of this time in my life, but they subside very quickly and don't feel like that big a deal.

These last few years have been brutal. Our financial situation has sucked, our boys have had their challenges, my mother's physical and mental deterioration has been gut-wrenching and draining, and my own aging process has been sobering. The challenges, at times, have felt overwhelming, and I've had to battle to regain some perspective. That little child has given me a bunch of perspective.

Morrie

Tell us what you think – click here to send us an e-mail with your feedback.
morrie@fifthwaveleadership.com

December 2009

2009-12-12T08:53:00.000-08:00

Given the Holidays and the accompanying chaos, this will be the last newsletter of the year. I have really appreciated the feedback you've given me, and have been touched by the number of comments about how useful and meaningful the letter has been to a number of you. I will pick up again in January and hope to stick to a tighter schedule next year. I hope all of you have a great holiday season and a happy new year.

Business Tips

Recruiting Winners & Keepers: Effectively and Accurately Assessing Talent

There seems to be a heightened emphasis these days on the selection aspect of the recruiting process. A part of this emphasis comes from dissatisfaction with the results versus the time, energy and resources dedicated to the process. Too many new hires are delivering mediocre performance, melting down at the first encounter with critical feedback or leaving their jobs shortly after beginning them, with no explanation or communication.

From our experience, the reason for this is simple, but not necessarily obvious – We are still hiring people for what they know; not for who they are. The proliferation of information has made technical skills, lots of knowledge, and even brilliance, simply commodities. It has also slowed down and delayed maturation and left people with huge deficits of common sense, people skills and problem solving abilities. Consequently, the selection process needs to focus and zero in on the candidate's life experience more than any other single factor. We need to find out, in particular, the quantative and qualitative nature of the candidate's experiences in two key areas: decision-making and relationship-building. If they are good at those two things, they can usually learn a lot of job content very quickly. If they're not, everything else is usually an agonizing struggle. Towards the end of this section, I'll discuss the key questions that focus in on these characteristics.

What about some of the traditional assessment factors that have been a part of recruiting and selection forever: the resume, formal education, and recommendations?

We have found that resume content is fairly useless. A slew of studies of resumes show that upwards of 70% of them contain wild exaggerations and embellishments as well as outright fabrications. They are good though for two reasons. First, are they neat and clean and don't look like a pet walked on them. Second, does the writing resemble English syntax and grammar? If you want something practical to assess, have the candidate give you a writing sample (the content is irrelevant). The organization and flow of writing is highly connected to logical thinking and what we call "common sense".

The key variable in assessing formal education is when it occurred. An uninterrupted history of schooling - high school, college, grad school – with no interludes of life experiences, do not usually bode well. This more than likely produces someone who is armed, dangerous, and has no aim.

The area of schooling inevitably raises the issue of reputation, an issue I frequently see my clients struggle with. What's a good school? My experience, as student, professor and business advisor, is as follows: the best teaching in America goes on at community colleges; the next best are urban branches of state universities; the next at traditional small liberal arts colleges; and lastly, at the main campuses of state institutions. A good rule of thumb to keep in mind is that the reputation of universities is based, almost exclusively, on non-teaching criteria – publications, research, grants generated; and that students rarely, if ever, see the faculty in a classroom, that created the reputation. Most often, students at high profile schools spend a lot of their time with teaching assistants who frequently struggle with their English.

Given our litigious society, recommendations have ceased to have a great deal of value. People are hesitant to put negative comments (or even mildly critical feedback) in writing, for fear of a lawsuit or other legal harassment. You may have a shot at a sound balanced recommendation, if the recommender is known to you personally and is willing to speak "off the record".

What this leaves us with, then, is a tremendous weight put on the interview; a tool which has not changed much over decades and decades.

The biggest mistake made in interviewing candidates, is to "sell" the candidate on the position and to make the interview as comfortable and enjoyable as possible. The logical absurdity of this doesn't seem to dawn on us. None of my clients have ever hired people to do easy, comfortable, and low stress work. So what do you think we're going to find out about someone's suitability by conducting a comfortable interview? If, then, the interview is going to be a genuinely useful tool, it must mirror the most significant challenges inherent in the job. It must contain feedback to the candidate about how you're experiencing him, and how you feel about his responses to your questions. And it must involve going deep with a few questions, not staying shallow with many questions. For example, don't ever let a "throwaway" response slide. A comment like "You know what that business is like", should invite further scrutiny and drilling down. An in-depth interview is essential, then, if you're going to find out if the candidate's life experience is sufficient to work with (once she's on board) and if there is a significant and meaningful values match.

In terms of interview questions, there are three key areas that will be of immeasurable help in assessing the candidate's life experience and capabilities in the critical areas of decision-making and relationship-building. These areas are: conflict, stress and loss. The specific questions are:

Tell me about a conflict situation that did not go well.

Why didn't it go well?
How was it resolved (if not, why not)?
What did you learn about yourself as a result of this conflict?

Up to today's date, what has been the most stressful experience in your life?

What was its impact on you at the time?
How did it change you?
What did you learn about yourself as a result of this experience?

Up to today's date, what has been the greatest loss you have sustained?

What was its impact upon you at the time?
How did it change you?
What did you learn about yourself as a result of this loss?

The key to an effective selection process is to treat candidates as highly resilient people who cannot only deal with a highly challenging interaction, but who will also respect and be attracted to the organization behind it.

Political and Cultural Observations

The Beauty and Symmetry of our Disagreeableness

I've been involved for some time now, in a running debate with a close friend over health care reform specifically and the political direction of the country in general. We are pretty much diametrically opposed in our points of view. I believe that the current legislation under consideration is a disaster and will create many more problems and burdens than it will solve; and he believes that it will remedy a social ill, long neglected in our country. Likewise, I see the direction the Obama administration is trying to take us in, as moving our society away from the core values and principles that have made us a great nation and he sees that same direction as moving us toward an even further realization of our greatness.

What I have been struck by is that in spite of the fact that we are both strong-willed, opinionated, and deeply convinced of the rightness of our respective positions, our disagreement has not damaged our relationship. And this fact got me thinking about how we deal with our opposing points of view and our disagreeableness in our country and how it is quite different from most other societies in the world.

It is almost impossible nowadays to get away from the heated, acrimonious, and often hostile debate over health care reform and a slew of the other initiatives proposed by the current administration. The divisiveness is at a level I've not seen since the height of protests over the Vietnam War and I can't remember a time when the President was called a liar by a member of the Congress in a public, nationally televised address (I thought it was interesting, telling and wryly humorous that in a BBC interview with a long-standing member of the British Parliament, shortly after Joe Wilson's outburst, the MP said, "We would never call our Prime Minister a liar; an idiot or a moron perhaps, but never a liar").

In most other countries, severe political disagreements precipitate crippling strikes and demonstrations, fisticuffs on the floor of legislatures, brutal assaults on protestors, and military revolts and coups. When I lived in Europe, it seemed like every month or so, daily life and commerce were disrupted or completely shut down by a new labor action, student protest, or the latest anarchist movement calling for the destruction of society as we know it. There would be lots of grumbling and grousing about it, but most people seemed to accept it as part and parcel of what went along with political disagreements.

I have a wondered lately why we handle things differently here; and one of the things that has struck me is that we are the quintessential pragmatists. We certainly like ideas and we're not adverse to a good debate. But when push comes to shove, we get something done and we do what works. Our labor strikes are rarely extended, nor overtly self-destructive, and our political divisions are usually resolved with a clear winner and a clear loser; not a dysfunctional coalition that is incapable of taking decisive action. We compromise on policy and tactics, not on whose values will prevail. We are highly competitive and we love to win. And even though we hate to lose, we accept it; we lick our wounds and we being the process of strategizing for the next battle, committed to being winners again.

Almost without exception, we accept results we don't like and we follow the new rules, knowing that whatever the new game is, we can somehow make it work for us. Part of the reason for this is that our opportunities are so much greater than any other place on earth.

However, our greatest strength is that we continue to reject orthodoxies and unquestioned traditions and readily entertain new ideas, new processes, and new structures. In addition, we have rejected tribalism and rigid social stratification, in spite of numerous attempts to inject them into our cultural fabric. Sometimes these practices and attitudes have worked well for us and sometimes they have caused us much distress. They have certainly made us a target for parts of the world.

All in all, I continue to be impressed by how we deal with disagreements, even with disagreeableness. I know that no one's going to be completely happy with whatever comes out of Washington in the next few months (and even in the next few years), however, I'm equally certain that we will deal with it and adapt to it, and sustain our relationships with each other. I certainly plan to do so.

Personal Notes

The Holidays: Reviewing Necessary Losses

I have just finished looking at my favorite website – "Old Jews Telling Jokes.com" and was aware, after some hysterical laughter, of some sadness about the loss of some rich part of my past. By the way, if you like Jewish humor, this site will not only keep you in stitches, it'll be guaranteed to pick you up on one of those blah days. An example:

Rabbi Goldstein, attending a conference, has just checked into his hotel room, when there's a knock at his door. He opens the door to find a gorgeous, statuesque blond, in a full length mink coat, standing in front of him. She enters the room and before he can utter a word, she drops her coat around her, and is standing in front of the rabbi, completely naked. He mumbles something about why she's in his room, and she tells him that she's a gift from Rabbi Schwartz. He recovers his composure and launches into a rant about being a man of God, pure in his life, and beyond the temptations of the flesh; and how outrageous it is for Rabbi Schwartz to do this, particularly at a religious conference. He picks up the phone and asks to be connected to Rabbi Schwartz's room. When the latter answers, he launches into a tirade about how offended he was and how this was insulting to him. While he's castigating his colleague, the young woman starts walking toward the door. Rabbi Goldstein stops his invective and asks the young woman – "Where are you going?" She responds that she's leaving, and he says –"Don't go; I'm mad at him, not you."

I miss that part of my heritage. I grew up with that humor; almost on a daily basis. It was simply part of our life. Not just professional comedians, but all my relatives were joke tellers. It was the way they coped with the regular and irregular challenges of life; of being immigrants, of being Jews, of running businesses, and of dealing with the characters and kooks in our huge extended family. It's hard to imagine now, but I grew up in a neighborhood with 40 to 50 relatives within a four block radius. As a kid, I never needed money to go to the store and get candy. They knew who I was and who I belonged to, and they kept a running account of what we spent, and settled up at the end of the month. One Sunday night, each month, we all got together at someone's apartment, for an orgy of eating and arguing. We called it "The Cousin's Club." If you didn't want to argue directly, you could play cards and get into an argument that way. One of my relatives, a quiet, good-natured, and very rotund lady, came to the get-together with a huge shopping bag, and went from table to table filling up her bag. All of us kids thought she was nuts, but no one said a word. It was clear, though unspoken, that she was certainly weird, but that there was, and would always be a place for her. Sort of an urban version of the village idiot.

The Cousin's Club lasted almost three generations and then slowly but surely disappeared. Everyone's scattered now-literally all over the globe. There are some small pockets of a few family members living around each other, but they're the exception to the rule. The old culture is dead and diluted; by mobility, by "mixed marriages,' and by success and affluence.

What killed the culture were the aspirations it taught its children. The bantering, the debating, the arguing, were all in the service of raising our expectations. We were taught never to accept the obvious; to ask more questions; to challenge the prevailing wisdom. Sometimes tactfully, more often not. I remember the stir I caused, in my adolescence, by challenging our rabbi on a number of theological and intellectual fronts. It was my first realization of the contradictions inherent in my upbringing and the angst I was heading toward. It was good to challenge, I was told. But not with the Rabbi. The situation was resolved, soap opera style, when the rabbi ran off with his secretary, much to the chagrin of his supporters, but no surprise to his detractors.

The contradictions I first encountered in my teens, grew and deepened as I pursued my aspirations. I went off to college, became exposed to different people than I had grown up with, and different ideas, went on to graduate school, professional school, living in a foreign country, marrying a gentile, and on and on. All of this driven by my early training; to keep learning, to keep exploring and to keep growing. And all of this undermined the glue that bound the old culture together.

All these necessary losses are an integral part of who I am now. I am saddened, at times, by them, and occasionally wish I had some of that old culture back. At the same time, I wouldn't change any of the choices I've made. That old culture, in a very meaningful way, is still a part of me, and I cherish it.

Morrie

Tell us what you think – click here to send us an e-mail with your feedback.
morrie@fifthwaveleadership.com

October 2009

2009-10-13T08:54:00.000-07:00

I seem to be recommending books these days, so here's two more that are worth your time:

"Just Listen: Discover the Secret to Getting Through to Absolutely Anyone," by Mark Goulston, M.D.
Mark's a good friend and one of the few psychiatrists that have successfully made the transition to working with the business community. What has always impressed me about Mark, are his questions. No one asks as effective and penetrating questions as he does.

"Who's Got Your Back?" by Keith Ferrazzi
As well as being a friend, I've had the pleasure of working with Keith and helping him refine his ideas and concepts. He has an extraordinary ability to take subtle and sophisticated relationship-building concepts and translate them into eminently usable tools for leaders, managers, and salespeople. He is undoubtedly one of the most effective consultants working today in the global business community.

Business Tips

Conflict Avoidance and Corruption: Keeping Your Culture Clean

A short while ago I heard an interesting program on the BBC, which focused on a curious thesis: Namely, that there must be something amiss at the Harvard Business School, since a preponderance of C-Suite people from companies that took "excessive risks" and melted down in the recession, had received their MBA's from that esteemed institution. The program interviewed a number of business gurus, including the Dean of HBS, and everyone concluded that the School had missed the boat in not emphasizing "business ethics" to a greater degree, in its curriculum.

Now, the BBC usually does good solid reportage, and tries its hardest to bring in all significant points of view (other than in its editorials, which make Lenin look centrist). But this was, undoubtedly, one of its silliest programs. They insisted on treating ethics as a purely intellectual concept; as a legitimate academic discipline. Their premise was that people do unethical, immoral, even criminal acts because they are thinking poorly. And if they just had more and better information, they would then do the right thing. If this were true, we should have rid our culture of smoking at least forty years ago, and the rate at which convicts return to federal prisons (which have had educationally-based rehab programs forever), should be pretty close to zero.

Business ethics, along with other pseudo-disciplines, is a fantasy. Even as a wet-behind-the-ears undergraduate, "ethics" made no sense to me. From my experience, even then, people didn't do either the right things or the wrong things because they didn't think enough about it. They did what they did because that's the way they felt. Their gut feelings drove their behavior. And now, after thirty years of working with people, as educator, therapist, and consultant, it is crystal clear to me, what exactly it is that corrupts people. Put simply, it is a gut-wrenching fear (for many a sheer terror) of conflict. And most often, a potential conflict created by disappointing others. So, instead of engaging in a painful conflict, people withhold information, cut corners in doing business, hide their troubling behaviors, and ultimately, engage in criminality.

I grew up in Chicago, when two cultural phenomena, which dominated the political, economic, and sociological life of the city, were at their zenith – the Democratic Machine and the Mafia. My extended family knew many people in both organizations. None of those people were stupid; and all of them knew that what they were doing was wrong. What they all shared in common was a deep-seated belief that trying to get what they needed in life, by going through established "straight" channels, would be futile and unsuccessful. What this covered, for each and every one of them, was a paralyzing fear of rejection, disappointment, and conflict.

Later in life, I did one of my psychotherapy internships in the prison system, and a few years later than that, I did law enforcement consulting for about five years. What I learned from those two experiences was that our prisons and jails are not full of evil people. They are jam-packed with conflict avoiders. I can't tell you the number of convicts that told me essentially the same story – "I wouldn't do what you squares do (to get a job, buy a house, etc.), if you had a gun at my head. It's way too hard, and it's only for fools."

Conflict avoidance is fundamentally a dishonest behavior. Not telling people what you really think, feel, or observe, is a form of lying. We learn it very early in life; that's why it's so hard to change it. (When our kids were growing up, they would regularly complain that their grandparents were boring. It took us some time to get up the courage to agree with them. It made those visits a lot less tense when the truth was out.)

Employees who are conflict avoiders are now the greatest risk factor for companies. This gives a whole new meaning to "risk management." I am never surprised when I learn of corruption in a company. I am surprised that there isn't a lot more. A little bit of dishonesty goes a long way.

One more point. As there are "gateway drugs," there are "gateway emotions." I learned recently that when people start talking about feeling "overwhelmed," there is a conflict being avoided. The energy being utilized to not deal with something, builds up such momentum, as to create the feeling we call "overwhelmed." The lesson here is simple, but not necessarily easy. Watch out for your own, and others, conflict avoidance. Nothing can get you into as much trouble. Muster up the courage; bite the bullet, and get it out on the table. You'll not only feel better, you'll avoid a lot of grief.

Political and Cultural Observations

The Obama Administration: On The Cutting Edge of Ignorance

I heard a phrase the other day that caught my attention, because it seemed to capture where we are in the current political landscape – "On the cutting edge of ignorance." There is no dearth of intellectual or academic brilliance in the current administration. They are not stupid. They simply ignore facts and don't let knowledge and experience get in the way of ideology. There are three things that stand out in our current dilemma:

First, the unimportance of simple facts, and the lack of attention to unintended consequences, is nothing short of startling. The discussion of health care/insurance reform is the most cogent example of this.

Second, the ironic nature of the Obama administration's focus on "transformative" change has all but escaped scrutiny. I am less troubled by the attempts to move us toward a European-type nanny state, than I am by the more insidious and regressive attempt to undo the cultural impact of information on all aspects of our lives. What a crowning irony, for the internet President to be the instrument of trying to return us to the pre-information age.

Third, the core similarities between the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration are stunning. Ideology reigns supreme, and ignorance of how our culture works, is identical. (I know it's hard for those afflicted with Bush derangement syndrome to view him as an ideologue; perhaps because they saw themselves in his rigidity.) There is no fundamental difference between Bush's moralizing and self-righteous religiosity, and Obama's country-deprecating monologues and anti-capitalist victim mongering. Both are patronizing and demeaning, and ultimately depreciate people's ability to assess their environment and make choices for themselves.

Let's look at health care/insurance reform. I think that preventive care is a good and noble idea, and it would be wonderful if every citizen could utilize it. Unfortunately, the facts are that the last thing it does is save money. There is not one reputable study that indicates that. In fact, in the case of diabetes "adding in the cost of the preventive services raises the overall cost of care" (Health Affairs journal). And according to the New England Journal of Medicine, ". . . preventive services add to health care costs, not reduce them."

Likewise, why do you think insurance companies exclude pre-existing conditions? Because no other single factor escalates the cost of care for everyone else. Particularly, when these conditions are chronic, debilitating, and require extensive, and expensive care. This is, then, not about punishing patients, nor demonizing insurance companies. It is about reality.

To my knowledge, there has been no public debate over these facts. There would be a way, however, to accommodate both of these issues. Put a cap on malpractice awards and move to a "loser pays" system. And allow insurance companies to cross state lines, and thereby dramatically increase the size of insurance pools. None of this, however, is currently on the table.

As I wrote in my first book – "Working Without A Net" – information impacts a culture, most dramatically, in two ways. First, it significantly increases the nature and frequency of conflict in all relationships. When people have more information, their expectations rise, they challenge more, and this generates more conflict. This may be good or bad, depending upon your point of view (cf. my comments in the "Business" section of this newsletter). The other thing that information does to a society is to methodically erode traditional notions of security, based upon a reliance and dependence upon institutions and organizations outside of the individual (i.e. businesses, government, social safety nets, etc.). It then replaces them with a new form of security, based upon an internal sense of self-reliance and individual marketability. This process has been occurring since the 1980's and has manifested itself in phenomena like free-agent workers, the virtual workplace, the steady erosion of corporate benefits, the redefinition of "community" ala the internet, etc. This has been a scary and disorienting transition, from security being something external, to security being something internal. And for most people this change has come about in bits and pieces, with little realization of the big picture. By and large, most politicians are clueless vis-à-vis this shift, and have done little to help people adapt to this new reality. Obama is not only continuing this tradition, he is trying his best to reverse reality. No one has the power to stop this cultural evolution, unless they can completely shut down the manufacture and distribution of information. It has to be a cruel irony that the maven of information is going all out to combat and reverse its effects.

Ideologues are ultimately elitists and non-risk takers. They hate being wrong, they dread failure, and they want to avoid pain (especially their own) at any cost. They see no point in experiencing the discomfort that comes with growth and learning, and want to construct a social apparatus that is as comfortable as possible, regardless of the price. So the idea that people make choices not to take risks, and that these choices then limit their lives (unless they change them) is abhorrent and repugnant. These people, then, must be protected from themselves and taken care of by others who know better then them, what is good for them.

What we are dealing with now, in the political landscape, is worse, even, than the attempt to generate class warfare. It is much more damaging. It is the introduction of a new domestic colonialism, with its own noblesse oblige. Those without formal education, the requisite job skills, and a lack of relationship-building and decision-making skills, are the new "primitives." The new idiot class that has to be care taken and provided for because of its innate incompetence. With all the resources available to people in this culture, it is not only preposterous to engage in this orgy of victim-mongering, it is shameful and racist. And add to this, the coordinated effort to demonize successful people and organizations (and guilt them into supporting a massive expansion of entitlements) and you have a perfect prescription for dulling this society into mediocrity.

What we are dealing with now is tricky. In my clinical practice it was very hard to help people see how those who had been so "nice" to them could have done them so much harm. It's like being molested by the clergy. Remember that those who are doing things for you and to you, which are "for your own good," usually have the evilest intent.

Personal Notes

The Luckiest Guy In The World

In the midst of our economic meltdown and our political "transformation," I've had an epiphany: I am, without a doubt, one of the luckiest, most privileged people in the world. This realization came about, a few weeks ago, during a fairly pedestrian task that I have probably done, a few thousand times.

On a beautiful sunny Sunday, Arleah and I decided to take the mule (Kawasaki, not animal) and ride down to the mailbox and get the paper. About half-way down, I was struck by how green and spectacular everything was looking that day. The trees were brighter than ever and the mountains seemed taller than I had ever seen them before. All of a sudden, I found myself tearing up and appreciating all the important things in my life. The dogs were running around freely, clearly enjoying themselves. I've always been touched by their freedom (they've never been on leashes); don't quite know why it moves me the way it does. We get to live in one of the most beautiful places in the world, and the community has welcomed us back, with open arms, since we decided to spend more and more of our time here.

I was then struck by the fact that I have always loved my work. I've done five or six different professions by now, and they've all been about teaching people new things and changing their lives. And none of them have ever felt like "work."

I then looked over at Arleah and was flooded with feelings. We've been together now for almost 32 years. I can't remember a time before her and I can't envision a life without her. Her smile and her laugh have always made me feel good with myself and with the world. I have not only always loved her; I have always admired her – her insights, her commitment to her clients, and most of all, her commitment to her own growth. That we found each other has always seemed miraculous to me. Things are good!

I have always, and probably always will, think deeply and constantly about where our world is going, and how it can be better. But I also realize that there has to be some tempering of that. I know now where that comes from.

Morrie

Tell us what you think – click here to send us an e-mail with your feedback.
morrie@fifthwaveleadership.com

September 2009

2009-09-11T08:55:00.000-07:00

Due to a communications glitch, this will serve as the September newsletter and we will be back on track with our monthly distribution.

Business Tips

Whatever Happened To Loyalty? The Old and The New

Over the last few years, I've been asked a lot about loyalty. Usually, the question is – "Whatever happened to it?" And my answer has been – "If you mean the notion of loyalty that we've historically grown up with, it's gone." One of the unintended consequences of the accelerated rate of change we live with has been a significant redefinition of the concept of loyalty.

The old notion of loyalty is based on a backward looking sense of obligation. That is, a feeling of indebtedness for deeds done in the past, that were helpful, sometimes invaluable, and most often, brought meaning and great importance to a relationship. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, nor should this notion be summarily discarded. The problem with it is that it is no longer a sufficient reason for maintaining a relationship, personal or professional, moving into the future. And the reason for this is the amazing rate of change, and the qualitative nature of change. Business success, for example, is now predicated on an understanding of some fundamental shifts in customer behavior, employee expectations, and workplace dynamics. Consumers are no longer impressed with brand names or torrents of information. They do their own research, and they're either ruthlessly price driven, or unforgivingly insistent upon a transparent, honest, and fully engaged relationship. They are certainly not impressed by traditional salesmanship.

Employees now come to work insisting on a recognition of their lifestyle choices and requirements, and a need to have input into decisions that impact their work milieu. Some of this is realistic and quite appropriate, and some of this is right out of la-la land. Either way, it is very different, and demands a different approach to the workforce.

And the workplace itself is undergoing nothing short of a revolutionary shift. Not only are we becoming a nation of service providers and information processors, we are, less and less, working in geographically centralized, behemoth office spaces with hundreds (if not thousands) of colleagues. Working virtually is spreading at an astonishing rate, and there are major corporations that have as much as one-third of their employees working at home or in small pods at a significant distance from the head office. And this does not include the millions of small businesses that integrate work and home, and have fully leveraged telecommuting.

All these changes have had a profound impact on the old notion of loyalty. The saddest, and most troubling, is the fact that those who helped build many businesses are often not those who will create their future. Not because they are untalented or unskilled; but because they choose not to change. The problem arises when they expect to play a continued role in the organization because of what they contributed in the past. Their challenge is to commit to a constant process of re-invention, or to become irrelevant.

This situation creates some very hard conversations. I have participated in hundreds of these interactions, and it never gets easier. And it is not solely the difficulty in telling someone that there is no longer a role for them in the organization, it is more so, the understandable dismay and bitterness over the feeling of having ones past contributions being discounted. There is no way (at least that I've discovered) to make this conversation feel good, for anybody. It needs to be lived through, and it is necessary. It may seem harsh, insensitive and even brutally non-caring. It is, quite to the contrary, just the opposite. People need to know and realize that their choice not to change has enormous consequences. And the only thing that I've seen that brings about this recognition is an emotional shock. Talking about changing, in the abstract, has absolutely no impact.

A few years ago, I worked with a client that made the decision to eliminate most administrative support people, and replace their function with technology. One of the people eliminated was a crackerjack administrative assistant, who had been with the company since its inception. Out of a feeling of loyalty, the CEO created a position for her. She became the "coffee lady," and her job was to clean up the break area and keep it supplied.

This was not enough work to keep anyone busy for forty hours a week, nor did it fit her capabilities. Instead of being confronted with the need for her to modify and upgrade her skill base, she was accommodated and kept around. It was humiliating, and everyone, including her, experienced it as such. Tragically, when the company later downsized, she was out on the street, unemployable, and ended up on welfare.

So, what's the new loyalty about? The new loyalty is based on mutual growth. It requires both parties in a relationship to have a continual commitment to their own growth, if they expect a commitment to each other. If the growth commitment continues, the loyalty is there. If the growth commitment ceases the relationship is at risk. This is true for personal, one-on-one relationships, as well as for relationships between individuals and companies. It has been my experience, that high growth people leave low growth (or no growth) companies and that high growth companies leave low growth people behind.

Underlying the re-invention that I mentioned earlier, growth is fundamentally about continual self-assessment. An assessment of your current skills, knowledge base, attitudes, and risk level. And the question accompanying this assessment is critical – "Is who I am, and what I'm doing, in touch with and in harmony with the world around me?" This involves facing disappointments in yourself and embracing and utilizing these disappointments to go to the next level of growth and development. Acknowledging disappointments is a vote of confidence – in yourself and in others. It is also an act of courage, and a necessity for getting that loyalty that we are all seeking.

Political and Cultural Observations

Should Health Care/Health Insurance, Be A Right Or A Privilege?

Much of the current, often heated debate, over health insurance and health care reform, seems to focus, almost exclusively, on financial issues, service guarantees, care restrictions, and policy control. These are certainly important issues, but from my perspective, they overlook the fundamental question, which has the most profound implications for the future of our culture. And that question is – "Should Health Care and/or Health Insurance, Be A Right Or A Privilege?" Should the provision of health care services be a guarantee – an explicit part of the social contract – or should it be an available service, shaped and defined by market forces, and controlled by the relationship between the provider and the consumer? The answer to this question will determine a lot more than whether or not we get a "public option," or to what degree there are cuts in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

This critical question spins off two more vital questions:
"If Health Care Is A Right, What Are The Implications Of Further Extending Entitlements In Our Society," and "If It's A Privilege, What Are The Implications For Social Cohesion And Cultural Unity?"

As is the fashion these days, let me be real transparent – I do not believe that health care and/or health insurance is a right. I believe that there is no constitutional imperative dictating it, and that, like other social needs – housing, food, jobs – you get what you deserve based on the choices you make and the risks you're willing to take. I am a minimalist when it comes to government and social guarantees because I believe it gives individuals the greatest opportunities for self-realization and success (as well as self-destruction and failure). And as I've written before, both, I believe, are essential for maximizing human potential and freedom.

But, after having taken that position, I have to admit that I have serious concerns about the shredding of our social fabric, if we unequivocally reject a "public option" and all that goes with it. I wonder if we have gone so far down the entitlement path and so raised people's expectations to be care-taken by entities outside themselves, that we could be on the verge of creating an irreparable schism in our culture.

I cannot remember a time in my adult life, when so many people in public life promulgated so many entitlements, and offered to remove so many risks from people's lives. And this comes from individuals of a myriad of political persuasions. I think it is fascinating, that as Obama's poll ratings fall, a lot of folks seem to agree with him that health care is a right, and that we need to do everything possible, to remove risks from our lives. I have never believed, as some on the right do, that Obama is anti-business (just look at how much money and subsidies have gone to Wall Street). I do believe that he and his administration are anti-risk, and are doing everything in their power to punish risk-takers and risk-taking. This culture was built by people who put everything on the line, and created opportunities for the masses that never before existed in the history of the species.

There is a very interesting connection here, between one of the causes of our current economic crisis, and the debate over health care reform. Beginning in the 1970's a movement began in the Congress to "open up" the single family housing market to a broader spectrum of the population. Basically, to people who heretofore couldn't afford to buy a house. This movement culminated in enormous legislative pressure on Fannie May and Freddie Mac (and the banking sector in general) to lend money to people, many of whom had no chance in hell of ever paying it back. What do you think drove this movement? The belief that every American deserved to live in a single family home. That they had a right to it. So, de facto, home ownership became a right. And we have now seen what a mess this created.

This extension of "rights" raises a very knotty question, that, I believe we are right up against, as a society. "Where Do Rights End, And Individual Responsibilities Begin?" About a week ago, I was invited to a showing of Michael Moore's film, "Sicko." It is an extraordinarily well done piece of propaganda on the ills (no pun intended) of the American health care system (and our culture in general), and a celebration of the systems in England, France, Canada, and Cuba. It was fascinating to see what was highlighted, since I have a fairly extensive knowledge of three out of four of the countries (I lived in England, had a Canadian business partner, and traveled extensively in France and went to school with many French people). I was particularly aware of two things during the movie. First, the unquestioning scorn of American culture on the part of many in the audience. And second, my own reaction, especially during the segment on the French system. As I watched the depiction of house calls by French doctors, free medical care for everyone, in-home parenting assistance for new mothers, almost free childcare, and on and on, I found myself, at first, feeling like – "Damn, this is amazing! Maybe this total nanny state stuff isn't so bad after all." It was very seductive. And on the surface, very appealing. Then I remembered what it was like, to spend time in France, and work with French people. The infrastructure there makes New York look like utopia, the government bureaucracy makes you nostalgic for the California DMV, and getting anywhere is a nightmare because almost every day some group is on strike or demonstrating for more time off or more money for doing less. The unemployment rate is sky high, productivity is low, and the slums outside Paris are continually at a flashpoint.

Every form of social organization has its tradeoffs. The question we are facing now is what tradeoffs are we, as Americans, willing to live with? In our system, there are clear winners and losers; mostly determined by choices within their control; sometimes, unfortunately, by forces outside their control. In other societies (third world countries), there are winners and losers, mostly determined by forces outside of most people's control. And then there are cultures (like the Scandinavian countries) where equalizing outcome has so leveled the society that winning and achieving is a moot issue. I believe, by the way, that losing, in our culture, is a unique opportunity to learn, grow, and develop.

Finally, on a practical level, there is no doubt in my mind that our health care and insurance systems need some changing. There is also no doubt in my mind that the changes can best be made through lessening regulation and controls, not by increasing them. We need, for example, to completely sever the ties between employment and health insurance; we need to remove geographical restraints on writing insurance coverage; we need a loser pay reform of our tort system; and we need to dramatically expand the health care services that can be provided by non-M.D.'s, which would have the most profound impact on primary care of anything that has been done for the last fifty years.

But, before we do anything practical, we need to decide what kind of society we want to live in for the foreseeable future. That's what the big debate ought to be about.

Personal Notes

Change and Technology: My Dirty Little Secret

For almost all of my professional life, I have helped people understand and deal with change. Why they struggled with it; why it was so difficult to deal with; and why it was so scary. I have created a unique body of intellectual property around "familiars" and the relationship between change and loss. And, I believe, I've done some pioneering work around the connection between success and loss, and why so many people sabotage their success. All the while, unbeknownst to all but a few people, I didn't know how to turn on a computer, or send a simple email.

I covered up these deficits with a pretty good story; even taught it as a strategy to make busy professionals more efficient and effective. Why would I waste my time in front of a computer, slaving away at a keyboard, when I had assistants that I paid handsomely to relieve me of the details of life? So, I persisted in writing out my outlines, power points, etc., in longhand, on notepaper, and faxing them to my executive assistant. I even had my assistant read all my emails and fax the legit ones to me, so that I could write out my responses and fax it back to her. At least, I reasoned, I was using some technology. (It just took me five minutes to figure out how to underline "was" and "some." I wish I could think like the people who design computers.) I have been ashamed to admit the latter to many people, until I had dinner a few weeks ago with a former client and member of my generation, who confessed to the same modus operandi. (The italics only took me a couple of minutes.) We had a good laugh. It was like two adolescent boys mutually discovering that they kept the same magazine under their mattress. This lead to a great discussion of how our grown children have shamed us into "texting." (My youngest son won't answer his cell phone and has no landline.)

I grew up in an upper middle class professional home. My father was a dentist and my mother was a college educated manager in an upscale retail chain. They were the first in their generation to leave the ghetto and homestead the suburbs of Chicago. Making it, in their peer group, meant doing nothing around the house. In my household, extreme manual labor was watering the lawn. And a screwdriver was a high tech instrument. There was always great angst about who would drag the garbage can the fifty feet to the alley. We had a lawn service and anything that required maintenance around the house, was fixed by one of my father's patients. My job, growing up, was to do well in school, and to learn how to argue.

It has been very hard for me to admit that a lot of technology scares the hell out of me. And even harder to admit, that as smart as I am, I have been convinced, until very recently, that I could not figure out how to use a computer (or plumb the depths of my cell phone). When I finally did come to terms with that reality, I started doing what I have taught people to do for years. I faced my fears and took some risks. Two days ago, in preparation for a phone conference, I developed a talking points document, saved it in my computer, emailed the client, and (to my utter amazement) attached the document, hit "send," and had a great meeting. It worked! I can't tell you how good it felt, and how proud of myself I was. It was right up there with re-setting the clock in my car, last spring.

In addition to all this being a great personal triumph, I now have a new, profound respect for people who struggle with change. I definitely "feel their pain." And I can, in good conscience, recommended facing your fears, "fessing up," and taking those risks.

Morrie

Tell us what you think – click here to send us an e-mail with your feedback.
morrie@fifthwaveleadership.com