Goertz’s Gumbo

I am going to present periodically questions about topics we run into on a daily basis and see if we can get some of the readers to weigh in with their points of view.  All the topics could present ethical dilemmas.  In fact, the first question to answer is whether you think there is an ethical question presented at all.  If there is, what side of the fence would you fall on: ethical or unethical?  Assume you are a community leader who is in the public eye.  You are frequently asked your views on a variety of current events.  So here we go.

We hear a lot of news about the presidential election and one of the stories that has caught my attention is Operation Chaos.  For those who are unfamiliar with this Operation or think it is a new Iraqi battle plan, let me give you a quick overview: The creator of Operation Chaos is Rush Limbaugh, a conservative radio talk show host.  Through his radio show, he is encouraging Republicans to register for the primaries as Democrats and vote for Senator Hillary Clinton.  His goal is to have Senator Clinton win the nomination for the Democratic Party so that she faces Senator John McCain’s in the November election.  Limbaugh believes Senator Obama is the stronger of the two candidates and lis ikely to present a bigger challenge to Senator McCain.  Limbaugh also likes the “chaos” he claims to have created by lengthening the battle between the two Democratic nominees.

There you have it.  Whether you like it or not is not the question.  It certainly is not illegal or it would have been stopped.  The question is whether it is ethical.  And what is the “it?” Is it ethical for Limbaugh to be using his position to lead this effort?  Is it ethical for Republican voters to register as Democrats and vote for Senator Clinton? Can you identify any other ethical questions?  If you were that community leader who is asked to comment, what would you say?  

When studying the issue of immigration in our country, I’m reminded of the words frequently used by Sgt. Joe Friday in the hit television series Dragnet: “All we want are the facts, ma’am.” I guess you could say this about many issues in the world today.  We don’t lack information.  In fact (pun intended), we are inundated with information on just about every topic imaginable.  The difficulty is assessing the accuracy and sufficiency of information that is necessary to conclude it is a fact - meaning it is the truth.   

I’m not that knowledgeable about the immigration controversy, but I know much more today than I did last week.  I thank, in part, Ada Volkmer and Lina Herrera-Hernandez for that.  They both spoke to the Leadership Asheville 26 class about their organization, Coalicion de Organizaciones Latino-Americanas (COLA) and the many myths surrounding undocumented immigrants.  Some of their information certainly contradicts much of what you read and hear.

There is no question that entering the United States without documents is breaking the law.  The Pew Hispanic Research Center issued a report that says there are approximately 11 million illegal aliens out of a total of 34 million immigrants residing in the United States. Six million of them are Mexicans.  The Center estimates that 80% or 4.8 million of the Mexican migration to America is illegal. 

It is unbelievable that 11 million people are illegally residing in this country.  Why hasn’t something been done?  Our economic interests are certainly a factor. The business community needs these workers to fill the most undesirable and lowest paying jobs.  These jobs tend to be in a limited number of fields such as agriculture, construction, hospitality and food preparation.  Each year 10,000 visas are available to low-skilled immigrant workers, while the market annually hires 450,000 of these workers.  In the United Staes, many businesses are benefitting from this steady stream of undocumented, low-wage workers. 

Why do these undocumented workers come? Researchers have concluded that crossing into the United States, no matter how dangerous, is a product of: (a)high demand for low-wage workers, (b) a poor standard of living in their home countries, and (c) an immigration policy in the United States that allows limited options for legal entry.  As a country, it seems disingenuous to speak about crackdowns on illegal aliens while the business sector hires them in record numbers to fill jobs people in the United States do not want.   It begs the question what does it really mean to be a citizen of the United States.  If a person wants to live here, makes a contribution to our economy, works to assimilate into society and pays taxes, shouldn’t we be thankful that person is here?  On this basis, it seems illegal immigrants deserve better treatment from us and a reexamination of our policies.  We should either enforce our current immigration policies to the detriment of our economy, or we should develop more options for these people to live and work here.  It seems we need a policy that reflects our need for these workers and the benefits of a more diverse society, as well as, our need to control the chaos represented by 11 million undocumented workers.  

I clearly have more to learn about this issue, but I know enough now not to perpetuate myths that only create confusion.  As voters and community leaders, we are obligated to learn the facts.  I read somewhere that democracy isn’t a spectator sport and the immigration debate is a perfect example of an area where work is required to become an informed citizen.

I was reading a leadership research paper the other day and it included an excerpt from a speech made by Frederick Douglas in 1857. 

I am not trying to abolish conflict.  There is great value in healthy conflict.  And the dangers of group-think are real.  Conflict can inspire creative leadership.  Where there are fundamental conflicts over values, they should not be ignored in a sentimental yearning for consensus.  The problem in our communities today is not that we have conflict, but that we manufacture conflict and exaggerate differences to the point where it is very difficult to make meaningful change.  Too often we abandon basic civility and cannot disagree without questioning the motives of our adversaries.  Our standard as we debate should be similar to doctors’ Hippocratic Oath: “Do no harm.”  Disagree, but don’t tear the community apart as you do.

How incredibly insightful and applicable to our communities 150 years later.    Douglas’s speech reminds me of a saying John Wooden, the great UCLA basketball coach, would say to his teams: “Feel free to disagree, just don’t be disagreeable.”

I guess there is some cold comfort to know that this problem has been around for a long time, but does that suggest a lack of realistic solutions?  And if there aren’t any solutions, can we make improvements? Where would we start? It sure would be nice to have people like Frederick Douglas around to help us.  My guess is that what we would identify would be a whole lot easier to say than do.

 Where could we start?  One place might be to take more time in converstion with each other.  If we get to know each other a little better, maybe we wouldn’t be so quick to question each other’s motives.  Trust and mutual respect might follow.

Another area for improvement might be the topic of our conversations.  In our effort to find easy and quick solutions to our problems, we often neglect discussions that center on interests we share.  By going straight to solutions, you can quickly splinter a group into its different factions.

I know what you’re thinking–I’m incredibly gifted at stating the obvious.  I said above that many of the solutions would probably be easy to say, but hard to do.  What are your thoughts on this issue? 

I close this post with the words of Parker Palmer, a Senior Advisor to to the Fetzer Institute.  He said: “Let’s learn to think of community as a gift we have been given - and then embrace the hard work necessary to receive that gift.  The work of community involves discipline and dialogue and accountability.” 

 It looks like a great prescription to me.  Let’s start setting the example and maybe we can create a new virus that will spread.  A virus that could transform our community. 

As I continue to think about ethics and leadership, I am always interested in reading about stories containing real life ethical dilemmas.  The best ones involve the toughest ethical decisions of all - right versus right decisions.  These are the ethical dilemmas that pit one right value versus another right value.  For example, justice versus mercy, short-term versus long-term, individual versus community and truth versus loyalty.

For this reason, I was particularly interested in the Joe Darby story.  You may have heard of him.  He is best known as the whistleblower in the Abu Ghraid torture and prisoner abuse scandel.  

At the time, Darby was a U.S. Army Reservist who served as an M.P. at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.  After learning of the abuse, Darby was the first person to take steps to alert the U.S. military commander.  Darby had agonized for a month beforehand, but finally decided to blow the whistle on his former friends explaining “It violated everything I personally believed in and all I’d been taught about the rules of war.”

While Darby has been praised by many for his commitment to truth, justice and mercy, he has also had to face the wrath of those people who feel that what Darby did was unpatriotic, un-American, even faintly treasonous. “Hero A Two-Timing Rat,” was a headline from the New York Post.  For these people, loyalty is to be valued above all else, particularly in the military. 

Most of us are paralyzed by this type of ethical dilemma and of what other people think.  Effective leadership requires people to break through those fears about personal consequences and do what is right.   This courage gives people a certain freedom to stand up for something. Joe Darby did just that.  He referred to his core values and determined what he witnessed was terribly wrong.  He made the tough choice and has been correctly commended for his personal courage and sacrifice.    

We all hear the clever cliches about change:…nobody likes change…change is the only constant…change or die.  For me, Woodrow Wilson’s quote sums it up best: ”If you want to make enemies, try to change something.” 

Few people like dramatic change in their personal lives, organizations or communities.  It can cause a mix of emotions, including anxiety, fear and resistance.   We also know change is inevitable.  Especially today, where the pace of change is arguably faster than at any point in human history.  Change is a primary reason why leadership today is such a valued commodity.  John Kotter, a Harvard Business School professor, believes that leadership is about helping others cope with change; whereas, management is about dealing with complexity.  I would say we’re living in a period of unprecendented change and complexity.  What are the ramifications of this environment on our community leaders? 

At the risk of stating the obvious, they are numerous.  Too numerous to cover here, but there is one I would like to identify.  Change isn’t something that just happens to us.  It is something leaders also try to create.  For example, Jack Welch, the former CEO at General Electric, use to say that the rate of change inside an organization had to exceed the rate of change outside an organization.  That’s why Welch made change at General Electric the rule, rather than the exception.  It’s certainly disruptive and scary.   

I believe communities should consider Welch’s words. Of course a community context is different than a corporate one, but community members need to accept change as an unavoidable reality.  We must realize that the pace of change may often cause us discomfort and concerns over uncertain outcomes. 

Community leaders need to be fearless, courageous and empathetic.  When advocating new ideas, they will certainly make enemies.  That’s why true change leadership is not about popularity.  It is ultimately about people from all parts of a community who are interested in change and willing to work and sacrifice for it.  These change leaders know it is far better for communities to chart a collaborative course rather than have their futures dictated entirely by external forces. 

Every year in our Leadership Asheville program, Dr. Dan Pierce speaks to the class about the history of Asheville.  I never tire of hearing him talk about the financial adversity that plagued Asheville.  What’s more amazing is that Asheville is one of the few cities, if not the only city, in this country that completely paid off  its outstanding debts dating back to the great depression. And it took 50 years to do it.  During the 1970’s, the city emerged from insolvency and began a 30 year period of phenomenal growth which continues today.

It must have been very difficult for Asheville’s community leaders to persuade many area citizens of the need to stay the course.  I’m sure there were different ways legally to avoid the obligation.  There must have been because other communities around the country chose those alternatives. 

This history has rightfully caused the community to be very cautious about borrowing money.  It’s very difficult to reach consensus on what level of borrowing is reasonable and healthy for the future of a community.  Just look at the discussions revolving around our national debt. This is a frequently debated and an emotionally-charged topic. 

Separately, we often hear from financial planners about reasonnable levels of personal debt given one’s income.  This tends to be an area of focus when buying a home or when we need to make significant repairs or improvements to it.  Usually a combination of debt and equity is involved. 

When compared to the rest of the world, there is no question that we tend to be a country that lives beyond its means.  However,  communities today face significant infrastructure challenges.  The combination of explosive growth and 50 years of insolvency have certainly taken a toll on greater Asheville’s infrastructure.  How long can we avoid tackling some of these major projects?  Well, I guess where you stand depends on where you sit.  

At a high level, I view government’s primary role is to keep us safe and provide us a first rate education. So my answer would be that we can decide as a community to delay anything and everything that doesn’t fall in either of these two categories.  Therefore, if problems such as: water, roads, water/sewage pipes, bridges, electric power, air, vaccines, schools, etc. relate to issues of ”safety” or “education,” as many of them do, we don’t have a choice.  I know this still leaves the door wide open to debate about how much we do in each of these areas. Many of these discussions don’t have easy answers, nor is money necessarily the only answer.  Yet, similar to a homeowner who has to replace a leaky roof, it won’t happen without spending money and we do it because we want to protect our home. 

It seems to me we are facing similar expenditures in our community.  How do we decide as a community which capital repairs and improvements can’t be ignored? Can we learn anything from our prior community leaders?  Warren Bennis, a noted scholar in the field of leadership, refers to management as “doing things right” and leadership as “doing the right things.”  What is “doing the right thing” regarding our community infrastructure? Similar to our past, I’m sure the answers won’t be popular or painless, and we need to be open to all our options for covering the costs of these priority projects.     

In 1996, Jim Collins wrote an article titled “Book Value.”  I was certain his article would focus on his best-sellers: Built to Last and Good to Great.  Instead, he encourages managers/leaders to read fewer management books.  In fact, he recommends that only one in twenty should be a business book.  This got my attention because my bookshelves were filled with management and business books and my collection of leadership books was beginning to grow quickly.

He went on to write that he was convinced that: “…you can improve your leadership capabilities by drinking deeply from the well of great books that have been published in a wide variety of disciplines.” He is of the opinion that there have been very few great business/management books written over the last fifty years.

Collins goes on in the article to write:

 More important, outstanding leaders and thinkers often get their best insights by reading outside their primary field. Abraham Lincoln, for example, forged his thinking on the slavery question by reading Euclid’s ancient treatise on geometry and then applying the concept of logical proof to the great issue of the day. Charles Darwin read about Adam Smith’s economic concept of the “invisible hand” while struggling to formulate his biological concept of natural selection (which, of course, became the invisible hand in the theory of evolution). Peter Drucker told me that the most influential author in his intellectual development was the Danish existentialist philosopher Soren Kierkegaard. The great entrepreneur Henry Ford avidly read essays by Ralph Waldo Emerson and applied Emerson’s ideas to his company.

His most highly recommended selections are:

• Chimpanzee Politics, by Frans de Waal.
• The Guns of August, by Barbara W. Tuchman.
• Influence, by Robert B. Cialdini.
• The Psychology of Attitude Change and Social Influence, by Philip B. Zimbardo.
• In Love and War, by Jim and Sybil Stockdale.
• Means of Ascent, by Robert Caro
• Truman, by David McCullough.
• The Panda’s Thumb, by Stephen Jay Gould.
• The Plague, by Albert Camus.
• The Second World War, by Winston S. Churchill.
• How to Listen to and Understand Great Music: The Greenberg Lectures, by Robert Greenberg, as part of the Superstar Teacher Series.

On his website, Jim Collins provides a much longer reading list. 

If you’re interested in developing your leadership and reading some great books at the same time, Jim Collins’s recommended book list is a good place to start.  I believe we learn a great deal by examining leadership through many different disciplinary lenses.  I continue to teach courses in leadership studies out of UNC Asheville’s Interdisciplinary Studies Department.  My current academic project is developing a literature-based course on leadership and ethics.

In Stanley Fish’s blog today in the New York Times, http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/?hp, he writes about an interview he did with a reporter from the British Broadcasting Company.  He was only one of many who were being interviewed for a series of programs and films that bear the general title “Why Democracy?”  The final question put to him was, “Whom would you vote for as President of the World?” He said:

I know whom I’d like to vote for. Someone wise, learned, strong, courageous, compassionate, authoritative, incorruptible, inspiring, capable and good-looking. No one living (or dead) came to mind, so I settled for a fictional character, Atticus Finch, at least as he was played by Gregory Peck. (Morgan Freeman in any number of roles is another possibility.)

What would you have said to this question?  After a few minutes thought, I also came up with a fictional character; the Architect in Twelve Angry Men as he was played by Henry Fonda. 

Fish wants someone who is “…wise, learned, strong, courageous, compassionate, authoritative, incorruptible, inspiring, capable and good-looking.”  All of the above are important and contribute greatly to core leadership practices for the 21st century: 

• (1) Exerting influence without legitimate authority

• (2) Resolving conflict

• (3) Making ethical decisions

• (4) Including different points of view

• (5) Creating change 

Today, leadership has a great deal to do with influencing others.  Although the Architect uses inspirational appeal, albeit non-emotional, to appeal to the juror’s senses of justice and humanity in their being willing to invest more of their time in the decision, his most common tactic is that of rational persuasion. He points out discrepancies and logical flaws in the testimony used to accuse the defendant. 

You often hear it said about certain movies (e.g., Wag the Dog, The China Syndrome and Taxi Driver) that they are examples of “life imitating art.”  It typically is used to refer to more negative aspects of reality.  It would be great if we could think of dozens of people to vote for as President of the World.  Atticus Finch and the Architect serve as great examples of effective leadership, but unfortunately they can’t serve in leadership roles in the real world.       

When people hear I work with Leadership Asheville, they often launch into a discussion about leadership and what it means.  When asked about my definition, I struggle to decide which of many answers to provide.  There is the more academic approach which covers more than 200 definitions and no real consensus on the best ones.  There is the definition we use in Leadership Asheville which emphasizes relational and process-oriented aspects of community leadership.  As you can imagine, by the time I start delving into these complexities, people’s eyes start to glaze over.  That leads me to my more recent approach to this question.  Shift the conversation from leadership to leaders.  Who are leaders? Leaders are people who have followers.  It’s short and sweet.  It also focuses on an important aspect of leadership which often gets overlooked.  Leadership doesn’t exist without followers. 

This approach though is not without its complications.  It raises questions about whether leadership is a value-neutral term.  In other words, Hitler had followers so was he a leader?  We’ll save this discussion/can of worms for another day. 

Robert Goffee and Gareth Jones wrote a great article for the Harvard Business Review titled Why Should Anyone Be Led by You?  It’s a challenging question and one that should get asked of anyone applying to important leadership positions around the world.  This question could be added to the tests I referred to in my posting about presidential leadership.

In addition to a long list of skills and abilities normally associated with effective leadership, Goffee and Jones have discovered through their work that inspirational leaders also share four unexpected qualities:

1. They selectively show their weaknesses.
2. They rely heavily on intuition to gauge the appropriate timing and course of their actions.
3. They lead followers with something they call “tough empathy.”
4. They reveal their differences and thereby capitalize on what’s unique about themselves. 

Leadership will continue to be a closely examined phenomenom. There will always be many more theories and questions than there are answers.  It’s hard to know what advice to follow.  In the last few years approximately 2,000 books on leadership were published annually.  A good first step to understanding what it takes to be a leader is to embrace the four leadership qualities listed above.  Taken together, they tell you to be authentic.  Be yourself. 

Bill George, a former CEO of Medtronic, has written two books on leadership in a corporate context.  He also wrote a very good article last year in U.S. News and World Report, titled, Truly Authentic Leadership.  In the article, he writes that America’s new leaders all exhibit authencity.  So the next time we think about improving our own leadership effectiveness or analyzing political candidates’ leadership capability, we should start by focusing on authenticity.  Authentic leaders are ones we should consider following.     

These days the word “test” is usually included in my family’s daily discussions.  My daughter is a high school senior.  Tests are her primary focus: class tests, AP practice tests, SATs, etc.  My wife is the Director of a school’s admissions department and she is constantly administering entrance exams.  My days aren’t filled with tests, at least not the traditional ones, although I do prepare tests for my students.  I have to say creating the tests is a lot more fun than taking them.  Although grading tests ranks right up there with taking them.

I’m not too old that I can’t remember one of the most stressful times of my life-the Bar exam.  If you’re unable to pass one test, three years of study go down the drain.  I also remember all the exams required to obtain licenses in the securities field.  When you think about it, we’re all having to periodically take tests: drivers license renewal, health insurance, employment,  continuing education, etc.

This indirectly leads me to two questions.  First, what are some of the most important jobs in our country?  Most people would say the Presidency of the United States, and I would add being a parent is right up there.  What do you think? 

And my second question: Why don’t you need to take a test before you can be eligible to hold arguably the two most important jobs in our country-the Presidency and parenthood?

You might say that the process of running for office is the test candidates must pass, but I’m not sure I learn much about a person’s leadership abilities.  I learn how much financial support they obtained.  I learn about the image they want to project.  I do get a glimpse of their communication style, but there is much more I would like to know.  Wouldn’t it be interesting to develop a battery of leadership tests each candidate would have to take?  What would you want to know?  What test would you create?

As for parents, we know people can easily become mothers and fathers.  The biology is pretty straightforward.  Does that automatically make them parents?  Isn’t parenting a process related to raising a child?  What should more of our aspiring parents learn about raising a child?  How do they learn it? 

To me the parenting concept is similar to leadership-position doesn’t make it so.  In other words, being president of anything doesn’t make you a leader and having a child doesn’t automatically make you a parent.