博客存档

On Leadership

6/26/2019

The Oracle, a recent novel by Clive Cussler and Robin Burcell, heads each chapter with a proverb from the African continent. Three are:

Kenyan proverb: A leader who does not take advice is not a leader.

Nigerian proverb: In the moment of crisis, the wise build bridges, the foolish build dams.

Ethiopian proverb: The fool speaks, the wise man listens.

Simultaneous with reading this book I was wrestling with the concept of leadership, something I’ve thought a lot about the last couple of years. This is perhaps my fifth attempt to put words to it, having rejected paragraph after paragraph until nothing is left. My difficulty probably is a reflection of my lack of experience. After all, I’ve spent a lifetime, not always successfully, avoiding holding an administrative position.

I’ve come to the realization that if I can’t discuss what leadership is, perhaps I should instead consider what it isn’t. Because I’ve seen instance after instance of exactly that.

It’s no coincidence that my thoughts on the subject have surfaced in conjunction with the term of our current president, but his is not the only individual to drive them. However, his style provides example after example that makes me wonder why anyone works for him.

A leader shouldn’t surround himself with sycophants who play to his ego.

A leader shouldn’t assume he knows more than everybody, including experts. For example, our president does not know more than scientists or generals.

A leader shouldn’t humiliate publicly those who work for him or attack viscously on a public forum those who oppose him. Not a great way to foster loyalty or respect.

A leader shouldn’t drive wedges into crevices that already divide, splitting factions even more. What’s the advantage of that?

A leader shouldn’t define success only in terms of what he considers complete wins, for then alternative solutions that might be better overall are automatically off the table.

Admittedly, the preceding comments have been inspired by our president, but he is not alone in those types of actions although he certainly exhibits them to an extraordinary degree.

A leader shouldn’t place his organization in financial stress because of actions within his control. This occurred recently when good people from my university made poor choices on the spending of money, using a pot designated for one purpose to fill an undisputed need for another. They should have known better and they paid a heavy price for it.

A leader shouldn’t take advantage of his power over others to force people into situations they feel helpless to avoid, from carrying out non work related tasks to sexual favors. I have been astounded by recent revelations showing how widespread this practice has been, involving politicians, businessmen, entertainers, orchestra conductors, educators and more.

These are a few of the areas where it’s clear to me a person in a leadership position is not acting in a leadership manner. But understanding that doesn’t seem to help me get a handle on what a good leader is. Sure, none of the preceding activities should play a roll. But what should?

I did not like the policies of the first president of the university where I taught. I and many others were outspoken in our criticism. But not once was there a hint of retaliation or censure. Seems to me he was a true leader, willing to make tough decisions but being comfortable with opposing views. Okay, I guess I do understand one aspect of a true leader.

However, as I continued pondering the definition, I came no closer to a definitive answer. Finally, Realization One, I accepted I probably never would because I don’t live in the world of power nor do I want to.

But then, Realization Two, I came to understand there are many kinds of leaders beyond the confines of government, industry, education, health care, and board rooms.

In fact, every one of us is in a potential leadership position. For every one of us, there are people who look to us for advice, love, comfort, direction. They might be children, coworkers, spouses, parents, friends, strangers.

How we respond indicates the kind of leaders we are. Do we lead by doing what is right? Do we lead by kindness and concern? Do we lead by understanding and acceptance? Do we lead by searching for the best (or least bad) solution when there is no good solution?

Many fail this kind of leadership test. But many more, whom the world might consider “ordinary people,” do not. And these successes make society work.

Let’s all try to be good leaders. And perhaps take some lessons from Africa.

1 Comment

Term Limits—Blame the Right People

6/19/2019

2 Comments

More than 80% of voters want term limits placed on members of Congress.

There’s one already on the president.

A majority want limits on Supreme Court justices.

In my state there are limits on legislators.

There has been a recent local push to apply them to school board members.

I am opposed to term limits for any elected office, and I am definitely in the minority.

There are many arguments in favor of them.

Those in Washington do not represent the interests of the people. But whose fault is that? Folks want to throw the bums out, as long as the bums aren’t their own representatives. If they elect a bad person and he gets removed by term limits, why should we expect them to elect a better one next time?

It’s important to pass the torch to the next generation and open minds to new ideas. Certainly true as the current Democratic leadership proves daily. However, youth does not imply wisdom and often needs guidance from those with experience. Look at several of the new crop in Congress.

It’s what the people want. If so, the people have a method to accomplish it. We call it voting. Blame the right people: the voters.

It gets rid of the career politicians. Really? Doesn’t seem so to me. Politicians hang around forever. They simply change jobs. And instead of working at the job they have, gathering the experience required to do it better, they waste huge amounts of their time and our money planning their next move when limits force them to run for a different position.

More options for voters since now many entrenched run unopposed. Again, whose fault is that?

Money usually follows the incumbent. Certainly true. But it’s the voters who must rationalize not electing someone with enough strength of character to resist the lure of the dollar. And there’s no guarantee someone new will be any better.

Long time office holders treat it as a career. I wonder what’s wrong with that. Do we say doctors are evil because they have a career, or anyone who is loyal to his employer? In fact, doesn’t time in the same field develop expertise? Anyone examining the myriad problems affecting our country or community understands thorough knowledge is important. So it seems to me it’s not at all bad to have someone stay in the same job. And again, voters can end a career if they want.

Length of time in office increases opportunities for corruption, corporate interference, and lobbyists. From what I’ve seen, those evils thrive just fine with term limited representatives.

At the local level, limits will increase the opportunity for good people to come forward and lead. I agree to some extent with this, but, if these folk are so good, why can’t they demonstrate that without the assistance of limits?

Less opportunity for an office holder to outlast his usefulness. Not sure what that means. Usefulness isn’t a function of time, it’s one of capability and strength of character—and sometimes experience.

Encourages people to vote. What? We have to make openings so citizens will employ one of the most precious rights they have? Terrible! And sad.

If a politician knows he’s out soon, he’ll feel less constrained and will advance beneficial policies. So this is saying he hasn’t the strength of character to do that all along? And this is a two-edge scimitar. A person could just as easily have hidden his evil intent and then wreak havoc in the last term. Can you imagine what our current president might do if he thought he was coming to the end of his “service?” That’s one of many reasons why we must in the next election make sure he does not reach his term limited exit.

I understand the current disgust with the political landscape, some at the local level but more at the state and national. Although I’ve argued against all the points in favor of term limits, I recognize some of my arguments are flimsy. But none of the arguments gets at what is my main concern.

I am terrified of losing faith in the voters to control our destiny. Term limits say in no uncertain terms that the voters cannot be trusted. While a stack of evidence reveals the probable truth of this accusation, the dangers of “fixing” it by artificial means is frightening. It is saying, “You voters messed up, but we’ll make it right for you and you’ll only have to give up a little of your control.” But I worry that giving up a little today will be followed by a little more tomorrow, and then a little more the day after.

This is no idle concern. Legislators work fervently to reduce our power. This couldn’t have been made clearer in my state’s recent legislative session where past citizens’ initiatives were watered down and future ones made more difficult to achieve.

So think about the supposed benefits of term limits, and be cautious about what you want.

2 Comments

Laws of Life

6/12/2019

0 Comments

Over the course of eight decades I’ve had the opportunity to develop rules for living. Viewed through the prism of experience I have concluded there are two basic laws.

Law 1: If it can’t hurt you and it might help you, you have to do it.

This law was inspired by witnessing my widowed and blind mother wishing to go to dinner and spend some time with friends. When I visited her, which I did most days, she expressed her desire.

“Great,” I said, “Why don’t you give the Jones or Smiths a call?”

“They’re probably busy,” she responded.

So she didn’t call, directly violating Law 1. It drove me crazy. She wanted to do something fun. She had friends she enjoyed and who enjoyed her. But the possibility of a fun evening was rendered impossible because she broke the law.

True, her friends might have been busy. If so, they would have expressed sorrow at not being able to join her and perhaps suggested an alternative date. But the likelihood is they would have been available and would have enjoyed meeting. By not placing the call, there was no hope of a fun evening.

Now a word does have to be said about the “it can’t hurt you” part. There usually is some “hurt,” but often it is so minor that representing it as nothing is no stretch. For example, in the above scenario placing a phone call takes some effort. And I suppose there would be disappointment if the answer had been no. However, compared to the enormous positive result if the friends agreed to go out, or reschedule, I feel the effort and possible “hurt” are insignificant.

I have observed people violating the law over and over to their detriment.

Here’s the second law.

Law 2’: Never do today what can be put off until tomorrow.

What! That’s a terrible law. It’s nothing more than an old joke. It encourages procrastination and that can have unpleasant repercussions. It can irritate folks who are depending on you to fulfill some required task. Aha, but that isn’t my law. Here’s the real Law 2 which turns the joke into a powerful guide.

Law 2: Never do today what can be put off until tomorrow unless you are absolutely sure it has to be done in which case you might as well go ahead and do it.

This law was developed shortly after I joined academia. We had a Dean, a nice enough fellow, who loved statistics, reports, and dotted i’s. He would issue a series of commands for faculty to prepare information and forward it to him. I learned that if you didn’t respond, more often than not that was the end of it. Never a further request, so I eventually figured submissions weren’t important, saving myself considerable time.

This explains the reason for the first part of Law 2: to protect you from making effort that isn’t really required. I’ve found that often is the case.

But what if effort is indeed necessary? Then the law places heavy responsibility on you to do the things that truly have to be done, and to do them in a timely manner. Procrastination is not a plus with this law.

So paying bills is important and shouldn’t be delayed. On the other hand, filling out surveys could be a waste of time and easily ignored.

Of course, it’s clearly tongue-in-cheek to say these laws are all it takes to have a good life. Surprisingly, though, I have found applications for them over and over. I invite you, as you make decisions in your life, to determine if either applies. You might be surprised how often they do.

0 Comments

Sure Is Hot

6/5/2019

2 Comments

The latest issue of the NYU Alumni Magazine has an article that begins, “It’s not news—climate change is real—but the matter gets more urgent by the day.”

Candidate Trump declared climate change is a Chinese hoax.

In 2007 NYU promised to cut carbon emissions by 30% in 10 years, a difficult goal because more than half its buildings were over 60 years old and some over 100. In 2012 the goal had been achieved, five years early!

A recent article from the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/27/us/politics/trump-climate-science.html) stated ex astronaut petroleum geologist James Reilly, now White House appointed director of the U. S. Geological Survey, has said only computer-generated climate models that project the impact of climate change through 2040 will be produced by his office.

So, what we have on the one hand is a respected research university fearful of climate change and willing to take on the expense and passion to do something about it.

On the other hand we have a nonscientist uncurious professional liar and an ex astronaut who is afraid of data that will show how much out of touch his boss is, because estimates get a lot worse between 2040 and 2100. I’m glad Reilly isn’t an astronaut anymore, because that’s a scientifically based occupation.

By the way, NASA has placed its blessing on the accuracy of long-term earth temperature estimates and stated the methods are accurate to within one tenth of one degree Fahrenheit (https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2876/new-studies-increase-confidence-in-nasas-measure-of-earths-temperature/).

How can anyone not be impressed by the obvious competence on one side and the obvious shenanigans on the other.

Well, I am sick of it.

I’m sick of Trump unraveling policies of the past that aimed to curb greenhouse-gas emissions.

I’m sick of Trump moves such as pulling out of the Paris Agreement and for being unwilling to sign a communiqué to protect the melting Arctic region unless all references to climate change are stripped.

I’m sick of actions like appointing aging retired ex-Princeton physics professor William Happer to consult on administration efforts to debunk climate change. Former colleagues at Princeton express chagrin at Happer’s current stance, backed as he is by John Bolton and funded by billionaire climate science debunkers Robert and Rebekah Mercer.

I’m sick of arguments fearful of economic damage if we stop using oil and coal.

I’m sick of people who dare not think of the future, who are concerned only with today and making money.

I’m sick of Trump trying to intimidate other nations who want to do something about the problem.

Here’s the truth of the matter. Anyone not working to curb climate change is committing murder. Yes, murder! First, of our planet which cannot survive forever on a diet of neglect. And of untold numbers of animal and vegetative species. And, indeed, of humans many of whom will be unable to survive the rise in sea level, increased warmth of their homelands, droughts, and a host of other horrors.

So anyone who believes climate change is a hoax, who thinks withdrawing from international efforts to control it is a great idea, who thinks the answer is more coal and oil, who believes aiming for a greener lifestyle is terrible, who is against solar power, is against wind power, who believes it’s not getting hotter, who thinks there’s nothing to it because it was cold today, I say to you, you are acting criminally.

I know some of you who feel this way gush over your grandchildren. Please don’t. Because you don’t really care about them. You might survive just fine. Your children may not be unduly affected. But your grandchildren probably and great grandchildren certainly will suffer.

If I’m wrong about you, and you do care about your descendants, then accept the truth and do something about this threat to our planet, and demand your leaders do the same.

After all, it’s a job for all of us.

2 Comments

On Leadership

Term Limits—Blame the Right People

Laws of Life

Sure Is Hot

Author

Archives

Categories