ACCOUNTABILITY OVER CONTROL IN SUPERVISION

Organizational leaders to be effective in our contemporary cultural context need to be held accountable without being controlled by their supervisors. To disregard this principle is to invite frustration and confusion in supervision.

The accountability process begins with the supervisor, whether that supervisor is the unit manager, department director, team leader, chief executive officer, or any leader who has others reporting to him or her in the organizational structure. But especially the chief executive officer is the key to successful accountability. No other organizational leader can be an effective supervisor of others unless the CEO professes and models positive characteristics in lieu of control and manipulation of others. The CEO sets the pace.

Supervisors must first give up control if they truly desire effective work in their organizations. When one surrenders the roleou reach your goals?y of micro-manager, one begins the journey of successful leadership that enables and empowers to be successful leaders. In contrast, one pf the fatal errors of a leader/manager is to try to control results instead of influencing thinking. An effective leader/manager seeks to instill positive habits in the lives of those he/she supervises rather than demanding obedience to pre-arranged agendas. (13 Fatal Errors Managers Make and How You Can Avoid Them)

Yet, control as a style of leadership has broad appeal. Control gives everyone in the organizational structure clear lines of authority for policy, strategy, and implementation; consistency of management; and predictability of outcomes. But control, as popular as it is, leaves many, if not most, folks in any organization without feelings of empowering partnership. Control breeds de[endence upon a few key leaders for getting the work of the organization accomplished.

True partnership within an organization includes common commitment among all persons concerned to the the purpose of the organization, the right of anyone in the organization to say “no” to demanding or insulting request, joint accountability to the outcomes of the organization’s work, and absolute honesty in communicating facts and feelings to others in the organization. (Stewardship: Choosing Service Over Self-Interest)

To properly hold an employee accountable the supervisor has the primary responsibility to ask the right questions in a first meeting and subsequent annual meetings, such as-

1.     What are your goals for the coming year?

2.     How do your goals fit with our overall vision?

3.     What strategies will you pursue to reach your goals?

4.     What resources will you need to reach your goals?

5.     What are your standards or metrics for evaluating whether or not you reach you goals?

6.     How can I help you reach your goals?

By carefully listening to the supervisee’s responses to the questions, the supervisor can offer his/her own suggestions and assist the supervisee to craft a performance plan for the coming year. The supervisor will also need to have regular check-ins for consultation and informal evaluations. However, supervisory “nagging” and “over-the-shoulder” micro-managing will not do. As an elementary school principal, I regularly conducted classroom observations with my teachers, often multiple times daily. Not only were these observations for performance checks but also, they gave teachers protection against spurious charges from parents and sometimes from district administrators. When a teacher was charged without evidence for general negligence I was able to document my numerous visits with that teacher and show that charge simply was not real.

The accountability process is obviously more complicated when supervisors are also supervisees. This is generally the case as usually everyone in an organization is accountable to someone else, either individuals or a group. In these situations, the leader must be the model of accountability; what he/she expects from his/her supervisees must also be a personal commitment of hard work, loyalty, dedication to complete the tasks at hand, and long-term thinking and planning.

The supervisor who actively practices accountability over control will probably be frustrated, and perhaps even troubled, by two types of employees- the maverick and the controller. If indeed accountability is preferred over control, as I believe it is, then the process must be effective with all types of employees and not just with the “normal” ones. Let’s take each in turn.

Controllers can either quiet “turf shepherds” jealous of their organizational territory or noisy “crazy makers” who insist on their own way without regard for other persons and the organizational vision. They differ from mavericks in that their issue is one of power and authority. To effectively deal with controllers supervisors must first model positive accountability and then give very clear directions and the desired results. Supervision with controllers must be firm without being domineering.

If a maverick or controller need to be confronted it needs to be primarily through the criteria mutually agreed upon at the first or annual meeting. An open exchange must be conducted focusing these objective performance standards and the supervisor must be prepared to challenge the supervisee if necessary. Failure to do so is an abdication of responsibility for the leader and sets a negative tone for the entire organization.

And the one being supervised also has an active role and responsibility. When supervisees do fail, they tend to do in two areas. First, they are noninvolved, and they exhibit apathy, passivity, and/or cynicism. Submissiveness to the supervisor is not an option. Second, they deceive themselves on what they really need and want. Therefore, they fail to be honest with themselves, their supervisors, and the ones they themselves may be supervising.

In conclusion, the process of accountability has the potential for an organization to have a greater capacity to reach its goals and have a more abundant team spirit among employees.  It is indeed worth the effort.

PETER DRUCKER: A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS

Many folks have heard the name Peter Drucker, but few know much about his life. He first came to my attention as a first-year university student. I was browsing in a campus bookstore and found Drucker’s The Concept of the Corporation. It caught my attention because I had previously thought that a business venture like a corporation just existed without any theoretical foundation. I did not purchase the book but my curiosity was raised. Through the years afterwards I continually heard his name mentioned and came across more of his books. I started to read some of them, and I was hooked. Eventually I was the founding president of the Peter Drucker Society of Kansas City and probably possess the largest private collection of his books in the area.

Peter Drucker was born in Austria in 1909. His family was a part of Vienna’s cosmopolitan elites and often hosted persons like Sigmund Freud and other luminaries. After graduating from our equivalent of high school Drucker traveled to Germany to enroll at the University of Hamburg. Class attendance requirements were loose, so he found time to work as a clerk at a trading company during the day and attend events like the opera at night. Later he transferred to the University of Frankfurt where he received his doctorate in international maritime law. Drucker also worked for the major Frankfurt newspaper as a writer. He embarrassingly recalled that in 1929 he predicted that a major business and economic boom would continue. Several weeks later the Great Depression began.

Another dark cloud would occur with the Nazi rise to power in 1933. When the Nazi banned his first book Drucker knew it was time to move on. Drucker left Germany for England. He worked for a commodities company and wrote The End of Economic Man and The End of Industrial Man. His writing even caught the attention of Winston Churchill. Yet Drucker felt English society was too stiff and formal so he along with his new wife Doris immigrated to the United States where he taught at several liberal arts colleges.

With his arrival in the United States his new country became engaged in World War II. The US Army employed Drucker as a civilian. But no one had a name for his new position so he reached back to the fictional Sherlock Holmes who was self-described consulting detective. Drucker therefore became the first formal self-described consultant at least in the United States. Later during the war General Motors reached out to him and requested him to review their policies, procedures, and general operations. His final report to the General Motors executives was not well received and it was not circulated. But the report became the basis of Drucker’s book a copy of which I found in a university bookstore more than two decades later.

With his professional reputation rising Drucker became a professor at New York University where he wrote seminal books on management. In the 1970s the Druckers moved to California where he joined Claremont Graduate University. He influence blossomed and was able to mentor such diverse personalities as Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church; Caesar Chavez, labor organizer; Jack Welch, CEO of General Electric, and Jim Collins, business writer. Collins, after the publication of his best-selling Good to Great, remarked that his book should have been titled “Drucker Is Right.” Other bo oks by Drucker followed with a total of more than three dozen including two novels. Drucker received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2002 and died in 2005 eight days short of his 96^th birthday.

Drucker’s legacy continues to this day. Among the highlights of his work:

·       He coined the terms “consultant,” “knowledge worker,” “mangement by walking around,” and “what gets measured gets done.”

·       Drucker preferred the descriptor of himself as a “social ecologist” rather than as a consultant.

·       His consultancy style was to ask questions which permitted his clients to come to their own conclusions rather than present a prescribed formula.

·       Drucker’s focus was on mission, people, and results.

·       Management is about people, not commodities; is inter-disciplinary; is integrated with the wider culture; and is leadership.

·       For Drucker, stronger leadership leads to stronger organizations which lead to trustworthy institutions which permit people to have meaningful and useful lives, have a rational chance of equal opportunities, and to trust their institutions.

·       He viewed management as a liberal art and advocated that managers draw on the knowledge and insights of the humanities, social sciences, psychology, philosophy, economics, history, ethics, and the physical sciences because managers must work with people,

·       As a liberal art management deals with the artful use of moral force, societal values and standards, the use and abuse of power, individual character development, innovation and technology, the nature of goof and evil, and the role managers play in a healthy society.

·       Management includes not only the private sector (business) but also the public (government) and social (nonprofit) sectors.

·       Volunteers in organizations should be treated as “unpaid staff” and held to high standards and accountability with the appropriate training and recognition to be successful.

Drucker’s insights, wisdom, and principles are not boxed into a tidy program. Rather, it is a process of application as each situation warrants. Peter Drucker will be with us for decades as he indeed is a man for all seasons.

 

 

 

THINK INSIDE THE BOX (or what's wring with the box?)

The United States Marine Corps is known for its creativity and flexibility. For example, potential Marine officers at Officer Candidate School must face a grueling and often revealing exercise called the Reaction Course. Officer candidates are split into teams of four and taken to an area which resembles a children’s playground. There is rope, a barrel, a high wall, and two wooden poles present. The instructor presents each team with a scenario- one of the team has been severely wounded and the other team members must take him/her over a gully represented by the wall. The team has 15 minutes to accomplish the task.

The officer candidates are involved in a creative process called “think inside the box.” That is opposite of what we are usually taught by teachers and consultants as we are told to think outside the box to be truly creative. While thinking outside the box is seen as the method to break through the stodgy traditional ways of problem solving and can indeed be very seductive, it is in reality a subversion of the creative process if it is seen as the only method to solve problems or even as the primary method. To think that we can pluck ideas from nothingness is to believe in magic, not creativity. Ideas we need to solve our problems are new combinations of existing ideas already in the box. To gain new insights we need to practice identifying, breaking, and creating patterns among the high quality “stuff” we currently possess.

Thinking inside the box is to make greedy, grateful use of limits (Imagination First). When I was an elementary school principal and needed to solve a problem one of the first questions I asked was, “What are my limits or constraints to solving this problem?” Knowing my limits presented me with what I called my “area of maneuver.” Acknowledging our limitations can be incredible prompts to imagination as limits beget inventiveness.

To think inside the box can be first be a solo enterprise and then individuals can be brought onboard to a team if the nature of the problem requires a collaborative effort and if there is ample time for it to be solved. Ideas for individuals and teams to wander inside their boxes include:

·       Listen to each other’s ideas

·       Do not be so quick to dismiss each other’s ideas

·       Challenge assumptions

·       Learn from the past and adapt as needed

·       Consider what you have learned in similar and not so similar situations

·       Create team norms that improve collaboration

·       Spend more time planning before attempting to solve

·       Read the instructions

·       Ask more questions

·       Ask better questions

·       Draw from each other’s strengths

·       Collaborate with other teams

·       Observe and give feedback

·       Seek counsel from others

An example of a solo time sensitive thinking inside the box effort can be drawn from military history. In 1918 during the final weeks of World War I Colonel George Marshall was serving on the planning staff of the American Expeditionary Force in France. One day Marshall was assigned the task of planning a complex battle plan in which about 600,000 American soldiers with supplies and artillery would be removed from an active front to march to another battle without the German forces discovering the move. And the plan had to be completed as soon as possible.

Marshall began thinking about the massive troop movement as he walked trough a nearby French village asking himself, “Has something like this ever be been accomplished before?” When he concluded it had not, he began thinking about the limitations and constraints imposed upon him. He returned to his office at headquarters and spent the night drafting the plan. Marshall submitted his plan the next morning and it was readily accepted by his superiors. The complex move of soldiers was successful and it helped to end the hostilities in a few weeks. Marshall was appointed Army Chief of Staff 21 years later and he also served as Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense.

In conclusion, we live in an era of limitations and scarcity of time, resources, and people if often our reality. By thinking inside the box first we can get the results we desire. The box is our area of maneuver for success.

 

 

  

CRACK POTS MOVE US FORWARD

E.B. White, author of Charlotte’s Web and other popular children’s literature, once remarked, “Genius is more often in a cracked pot than in a whole one.” In that spirit, what do the Apostle Paul, Martin Luther, William Carey, U.S. Grant, Lottie Moon, William Wilberforce, Martin Luther King, George Patton, and Steve Jobs have in common? At one time or another, all of them have labeled a cracked pot, nonconformist, maverick, misfit, dissident, or separatist. Perhaps not readily known or acknowledged during their times all were geniuses in their own ways.

Cracked pots are independent-spirited individuals who do not always go along with the group and tend not to conform to existing rules and regulations. Yet all organizations need them! Why? For the very health and vitality of organizations to fulfill their visions. Charles Handy once dedicated an entire book  on organizational change and development to the observation of George Bernard Shaw that all progress depends upon unreasonable people (cracked pots). Shaw’s contention was that reasonable people adapt themselves to the existing world order while unreasonable folks attempt to adapt the world to themselves. Thus, any significant change will be led by the unreasonable. (The Age of Unreason)

Yet, cracked pots are barely tolerated, if at all, especially by organizations that have become institutionalized. The tragedy of institutionalism, according to Hans Finzel, “…is that the older an organization gets, the less room there is room for the entrepreneurially gifted. Mavericks are messy by nature and calcified organizations chew them up and spit them out with rigidity.” (The Top Ten Mistakes Leaders Make)

Tom Peters advocates that organizations in these changing times need he calls the “genuine off-the-wall sorts,” “weirdos,” and “nuts.” He maintains that revolutionary, extraordinary, and exciting breakthroughs occur precisely because these people are in our organizations. Peters stresses that these people are curious, passionate, flexible, and exciting. (Crazy Times Call for Crazy Organizations)

Cracked pots need also to be decision-makers for organizations. Much of executive decision-making is now being made by teams, not solitary individuals. This is generally a positive move but can also be dangerous. Merely bringing more folks into the decision-making process does not guarantee the results we desire.

Teams can err in this regard through a process called “groupthink.” An analysis by Irving Janis reveals that group members practice self-censorship, pressure others to adopt the “majority” opinion, have illusions of invulnerability, and erroneously stereotype people outside the group, they exhibit symptoms of groupthink. The antidote to groupthink is not even more diversity on the team, but rather the right miz of personalities. (Decision Traps) The prophets of ancient Israel and the court jesters of medieval kings are historical examples of cracked pots who helped to keep groupthink in check. Finzel feels that leaving no room for mavericks in organizations is a “Top 10” mistake for leaders- “…the simple truth (is) that the greatest strides in the advancement of the (Christian Church) have come from the radical fringe, not the institutional core. Likewise, the business and industrial world has been brought from one major era to another by the likes of strange inventors.”

While Finzel confesses that he fears what mavericks in his own organization are going to do next, he more fears that he will lose his mavericks and their achievements to others. Our ability to as leaders to nurture cracked pots for effective organizational life reflects on our own effectiveness. It is easy to employ people who simply “fall in line.” Granted, it is more difficult with cracked pots. But it can be done. Consider the following actions-

1.     Release the “command-and-control” mentality that makes bureaucrats out of leaders. Keep rules, regulations, and policies to an absolute minimum. Challenge conventional methods that do not produce the desired results. Encourage creativity and mistakes- yes, mistakes. They are often the best learning tools.

2.     Become mentors, sponsors, and cheerleaders for your crack pots. They are valuable to your organization as they are not just troublemakers and malcontents. They have ideas they are willing to share and make work to achieve organizational goals.

3.     Give crack pots space to maneuver and leave them alone to work. Insist on clear expectations for results but leave the methods to them except where obviously unethical, immoral, or illegal. Overlook eccentric behavior, dress, language, and work habits. Assign them special projects that takes creativity to complete. 

Organizations need crack pots to advance their goals. Take the time and energy to nurture them for effective work. It is worth our effort as leaders.

 

 

A RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY AND END OF HISTORY?

Two distorted philosophies have risen to attach themselves to the study of history. The first is called the “right side of history.” This philosophy is that history moves in a predetermined and relentless path towards progress. It speaks in a “Marxist twang” of the inevitable victory of liberal democracy and social enlightenment. (Jonah Goldberg) Liberal progressives place their opponents on the “wrong side” (and who really wants to be there?).

Even conservatives can go there. Ronald Reagan placed Soviet communism in the “dustbin” and the “ash heap of history.” Ben Shapiro hailed the western traditions of Greek reasoning and Judeo-Christian moral purpose as the “right side of history.”

Closely related is the notion of the moral arc is that the “moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” The genesis of this assertion was with Theodore Parker, abolitionist minister, in the mid-1800s. About a century later Martin Luther King, Jr. popularized the assertion in a speech and as president, Barack Obama spoke of it.

As positive and reassuring it sounds, the “right side of history” is deficient in several ways:

1.    It assumes moral agency to history that does not exist. History is neither moral nor immoral, it is amoral. It is the blank slate in which the mosaic of human life is painted. Our everyday decisions, some moral and some not quite so, are the fabric of history. (David Graham)

2.    It assumes progress is one directional. Progress of the human condition is not a straight line on a graph but rather a roller coaster often on a backward loop. For every American Revolution there is a French Revolution, for every Magna Carta there is an Edict of Nantes, and for every To Kill a Mockingbird there is a Communist Manifesto. Thus, it ignores the MCN theory of history- history is messy, contradictory, and nuanced. (Graham)

3.    It boosts the hubris of humans to think that we can bend history to our wills, whims, and desires. Reinhold Niebuhr critiques, “Our dreams of bringing the whole of human history under the control of the human will are ironically fated by the fact that no group of idealists can move the pattern of history toward the desired goal of peace and justice. The recalcitrant forces in the historical drama have a power and persistence beyond our reckoning.” Barack Obama echoes Niebuhr by asserting that evil, hardship, and pain exist in the world and that we should be humble and modest in our beliefs that we can eliminate those things.

4.    It ignores some basic lessons of history. For example, Alexander the Great did not conquer the Afghan tribes and neither did the British nor the Russians. So why did we Americans think we were different? After successfully defeating Al Qaeda terrorists in several weeks we stayed to also defeat the Taliban warlords and “rebuild” Afghanistan. This war has been the longest in our history. Another example is the colossal failure of US and UK intelligence agencies regarding alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the resultant invasion and occupation. We ignored the fact that Iraq is not one nation but a group of tribes inhabiting a certain piece of land.

5.    It often results in unintended consequences. Robert Kaplan has several observations in the pursue of spreading democracy and promoting world peace. First, “Democracies do not always make societies more civil- but they do always mercilessly expose the health of the societies in which they operate.” Second, Kaplan agrees with Gaetano Mosca that universal would only occur through a single social order, a single religion, and total agreement on social betterment could be attained. “Even granting that such a world could be realized, it does not seem to us a desirable sort of world.”

6.    It enables the retrospective reading of history that encourages confirmation bias and revisionist history. For example, Geher praises the concept of the “right side” by asserting that in the Civil War Americans died fighting to maintain a certain way of life and a philosophy of being human. It is obvious from the context he is speaking of the Union side of the conflict. But Geher neglects to mention that Americans in the Confederacy were also dying for their way of life and their philosophy of being human. He continues by praising Alexander Hamilton as a person who changed the world permanently and helped to shape the foundation of our democracy. While certainly Hamilton was a brave Revolutionary officer and a brilliant secretary of the treasury, he was by no means a “democrat” in the classic meaning. Jefferson, Madison, and Burr (especially Burr!) considered him to be a dangerous reactionary. (It appears Geher may have researched Hamilton from the Broadway play rather than from any serious biography.)

Herbert Butterfield summarizes, “History is all things to all men. She is at the services of good causes and bad… Therefore, we must beware even of saying, ‘History says or History proves’ … as though indeed, once she spoken, had put the matter beyond the range of mere human inquiry.”

Yogi Berra is even more succinct- “It’s tough to make decisions, especially about the future.”

The second distorted philosophy is termed the “end of history” and it is related to the first. This distortion came to fore after the end of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. Francis Fukuyama argued liberal democracy as exemplified by the United States prevailed because it lacks the fundamental contradictions of communism as represented by the Soviet Union. Thus, our desire for freedom and equality is satisfied. This marks the end of the evolution of ideology and the end of history. Sadly, within a decade after Fukuyama’s thesis the world was embroiled in a Global War on Terrorism as tribalism and fundamentalist ideologies emerged with renewed vigor.

In closing, President Obama is correct that despite our humbleness and modesty in the face of fighting evils in our world, there is no excuse for cynicism and inaction. As the Prophet Amos proclaims in the Hebrew Scriptures, “But let justice flow like water, and righteousness, like an unfailing stream.” (Amos 5:24 CSB)

 

 

ADMIRAL THAD ALLEN: RECONCILING OPPORTUNITY WITH COMPETENCY

Admiral Thad Allen is probably the most famous military person about whom you have never heard. That is due to the facts that he received his raves for traditionally non-military endeavors and before retiring, his service was with the United States Coast Guard.

First, a word about the Coast Guard. Initiated by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton in 1790 as the Revenue-Marine to enforce customs laws, the Coast Guard was assigned more responsibilities through the years. Originally housed in the Department of the Treasury the Coast Guard was called upon to be an active military service during wartime. For example, a Coast Guardsman was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for his support of the Marines during the battle for Guadalcanal in August 1942. After 9/11 the Coast Guard was transferred to the newly established Department of Homeland Security where it currently remains. The Coast Guard is the only military branch with domestic law enforcement powers in addition to coastal defense and search and rescue.

Second, a word about Thad Allen. Born in California in 1949, Allen moved often as a child since his father was a career enlisted Coast Guardsman. After graduating from high school in Arizona he attended the United States Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut where he also played football.  Allen graduated in 1971 and was commissioned an officer. He then began the journey of working up through the ranks with various assignments. He developed his leadership competencies as a self-described life-long learner including earning master’s degrees in administration And management from George Washington University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Allen’s career reached its peak in 2006 when he was named the Commandant of the Coast Guard and he retired in 2010.

Now, a word about the two events from which Allen earned his accolades. First was Hurricane Katrina which devastated New Orleans and the surrounding area in 2005. While serving as Chief of Staff to the Commandant Allen was designated the deputy to the Principal Federal Officer (PFO) of the recovery efforts. Just days into the operation the PFO was relieved due to in competence and Allen was appointed his replacement. T

he second event was the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. Allen was in his final days as Commandant when he was appointed the National Incident Commander to coordinate containment and cleanup of the spillage. In fact, Allen retired from the Coast Guard during this operation and stayed on until his assignment was completed. In both endeavors Admiral Allen was praised for his bias for action, his integrity, his energy, his willingness to deviate from protocol to serve people more effectively, and his creation of a “unity of effort” among numerous government agencies and private enterprises.

From my reading of Allen’s achievements, I have gleaned some “Allenisms” on leadership:

·         Have a simple set of core values

·         Leadership is the ability to reconcile opportunity and competency

·         One needs to be a lifelong learner and intellectually curious- one becomes better at recognizing opportunity and having a larger base of potential when an opportunity presents itself

·         One should focus on trying to optimize what skills and talents one has

·         Leaders are responsible for their own morale

·         When faced with a complex, fast-moving crisis, leaders must constantly adapt their mental models and create a “unity of effort”

·         Three ways to deal with change- adapt, manage, or suffer

·         Keep a steady focus and do not become too caught up in the moment

·         Keep a list of “Dogs That Hunt”- persons who get results- and utilize their talents as needed

·         Be aware of social media and the 24-hour news cycle

·         If you’re not visible to your people out on the boats in 110-degree heat, you’re not a credible leader

I am looking forward to the day when Admiral Allen writes his own book on leaders and getting things done.

DECOLONIZE MY BOOKSHELF?

For the past several decades I have believed that booklists are political tools. Political in this sense does not mean partisan but rather power. Power is either shared or consolidated. Booklists, whether required reading or optional, either share the power of knowledge to as many persons as possible or consolidate that power to as few as possible.

Since college I have also believed that an educated person is one that reads widely or at least reasonably so. For example, my home library (“bookshelf”) contains volumes from American, world, ancient, and military history; biographies; Bibles, theology, and other Christian literature; political and moral philosophy; leadership theory and practice; and some self-help. I also possess perhaps the fullest collection of Peter Drucker books outside of a university library in the immediate area. My books, if they have an explicit bias, tend towards conservative and libertarian viewpoints. I generally do not read works of fiction as I prefer to watch the movie or television adaptations. 

So, my bookshelf expresses my interests. And I expect the bookshelves of other educated persons express their own particular interests. Now there is a new type of booklist appearing hyping itself as optional but almost certainly will become required for some to show their ideological purity. This new booklist is called “decolonize my bookshelf” and it works like this in two steps- 1) remove from my bookshelf any books authored by Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, any biblical writer, Locke, Austen, Dickens, Melville, or any “old white guy/woman” in particular or anyone whose writings are foundational to Western Civilization in general and 2) replace them with volumes whose authors are self-described marginalized people (usually still living). This process will prove that I as a white male feel guilty of being born with those immutable qualities and that I am worthy to be labeled “woke.”

While I am not opposed to reading the latest from the marginalized author de jour or even from  the latest mainstream author de jour, if I do indeed read them, as opposed having them summarized for me by media commentators, they will not gain a place on my permanent bookshelf if I do not feel they have lasting value for me. Rather, I will sell them at my local second-hand bookstore (I will not burn them!). Yes, my reading is meant to stretch my intellect and my imagination but not undermine the legal, moral, and social foundations of a good civilized society; this includes bombastic writers from the right and from the left.

I am not opposed to booklists as I have created a few myself. But like any other good tool a good booklist must be functional and must be optional. If another tool (booklist) performs better, then switch tools. And a wise worker (reader) will keep both a wide variety of tools (books) in his/her toolkit (bookshelf) and be familiar with what else is out there. But to systematically “decolonize my bookshelf” to prove my virtue to an already disapprovingly audience is to violate my sense of curiosity and intellectual adventure

LESSONS FROM THE ROYAL NAVY

About a decade ago I was browsing in the history shelves of my local bookstore and found a paperback copy of To Rule the Waves by Arthur Herman. His book is a history of the British Royal Navy from its beginnings to the modern era and how it shaped the modern world. It is richly detailed providing more than enough information even for the serious reader like myself. Yet the book contained several nuggets of wisdom for the disinterested reader of naval affairs, so much so that as an elementary school principal I shared that wisdom with my teachers and will also do so now.

The first nugget is that an organization have been founded in a morally muddled morass but may become a truly moral agent for good. Francis Drake, Martin Frobisher, John Hawkins, and their ilk are not only considered Britain’s earliest naval heroes, but they were also state-sponsored pirates. The Royal Navy rose from a government sanctioned sea terrorist operation to defend their homeland from the Spanish Amanda to assisting in crippling the global slave trade to again defending their homeland, with the assistance of the Royal Air Force, from Nazi aggression. Organizations can indeed do good notwithstanding the purposes of their founding or past derelictions.

The second nugget is that as character is vital for persons, reputation matters for organizations. In 1940 as Greece was collapsing to advancing German forces the Royal Navy began rescuing British soldiers and their allies from the island of Crete. As the German air force was pounding the British ships and in the midst of the attack ships’ captains requested permission from Admiral Andrew Cunningham to break off the evacuation. Cunningham replied, “It takes the Navy three years to build a ship, it would take three hundred years to build a new reputation. The evacuation will continue.” So it did at the cost of eleven ships sunk and eight others heavily damaged but the Royal Navy count be counted on complete their missions despite adversity.

The third nugget is thinking “inside the box.” As organizational resources become scarce and growing wish lists are unfulfilled, effective leaders must look inside their organizations to secure resources to get the job done. First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Henry Leach on March 31, 1982 found himself uninvited to the meeting called by Prime Minister Thatcher to plan a response to the Argentine attack on the Falkland Islands. But Leach persisted and got himself into the room. Finally Thatcher asked him, “First Sea Lord- what precisely do you want?” To which Leach responded, ‘Prime Minister, I would like your authority to form a task force which would, if you so required, be ready to sail for the South Atlantic at a moment’s notice.” “You have it,’ Thatcher said.

In three days a fleet task force sailed- two aircraft carriers and an amphibious assault ship, all soon to be slated for scrap; merchant and cruise ships converted to troop transports; and four deep-sea fishing trawlers converted to minesweepers as well as 16 destroyers and frigates. This motley group sailed eight thousand miles and won a victory to take back the Falklands. Leaders, like Leach did need to look first inward for needed people and resources instead of issuing unrealistic wish lists.

Finally, all organizations, including the Royal Navy, have cycles of growth and decline. Britain’s “first service” grew from isolated ships exploring and pirating the globe to massive battle fleets to ad hoc task forces. Mission must always be primary to organization and resource allocation. Wise leaders know and understand the “times” and make their plans accordingly.

THE CROSSINGS IN 1776

During the recent long Fourth of July weekend I turned to YouTube to watch snippets of the film musical 1776, one of my favorites since my wife and I first viewed it in Oklahoma City in 1972. Although there are numerous historical inaccuracies and being a musical as such, 1776, I believe, captures the essence of the independence debate in the Continental Congress resulting in our Declaration of Independence. While I realize that our Founders were not perfect, they did set in motion an empire of liberty that is self-correcting in its imperfections. Therefore, I concur with Abraham Lincoln, the heir to the Founders, that the United States is the last best hope of the world with ideally that our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

I also turned to YouTube to watch an entire film entitled The Crossing starring Jeff Daniels as George Washington. The movie premiered in 2000 and my wife and I eagerly watched it from our television. The Crossing depicts in a fairly historical way the dilemma General Washington faced as his army was in full retreat before the British forces. The Continental Army found refuge in Pennsylvania on the west bank of the Delaware River but Washington knew that once the river surface totally froze that the British and their Hessian mercenaries would cross over and the American defeat would be inevitable and independence would be lost.           

Washington also knew his army was dwindling due to illness and desertions as well as many enlistments were up in less than two weeks. So he devised one of the greatest tactical maneuvers in all of military history. In rain later turning into a blizzard the first American offensive amphibious operation was executed. On the night of December 25-26, 1776 several thousand soldiers with some horses and artillery were hauled across the Delaware River to the east bank in New Jersey, a watery transfer of up to 300 yards. The army assembled and marched ten miles to Trenton. There they surprised a Hessian regiment and after a brief engagement captured hundreds of the enemy with their weapons and supplies. The Americans retreated back across the river with their prisoners and bounty later recrossing to win yet another battle at Princeton. The army stayed intact and independence survived.

My YouTube viewing revealed two crossings- the Continental Congress declaring independence and the Continental Army securing independence. The lesson for leaders that it is not enough to have purpose in desiring an end result as leaders also need power to achieve the desired result. Leaders need to use both purpose and power in tandem to be successful. We owe a debt of gratitude to the Continental Congress and the Continental Army for our independence. May we celebrate both on each July 4 and the ideals of liberty, freedom, and justice for all. We Americans have come a long way and we have a way to go.

CALLING FOR LEADERS

In November 2010, The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed entitled “How to Find a Good Leader” authored by former presidential speechwriter Peggy Noonan. In her piece Noonan identified eight desired characteristics for political leaders but the characteristics could certainly describe what we search in leaders of any organization from Student Council to City Council to National Security Council. Her characteristics “in skinny” are:

Ø  When people have real leaders, there is a feeling of security

Ø  A leader is someone who first of all means it, and you can tell

Ø  Great leaders are capable of arguing for the things they believe in

Ø  Good leaders live in the real world

Ø  A leader is aware he is the object of many eyes

Ø  A leader isn’t just trying to survive for himself

Ø  A serious leader bothers to have command of the facts

Ø  A shrewd leader knows what time it is

Interestedly, sprinkled in her list are some leadership adjectives- great, good, serious, shrewd. Overall, Noonan produced a list that can withstand the tests of time and crisis. Humbly, I will add three more characteristics of good leaders we need to consider.

First, we must recognize that all leaders are flawed, some more so than others. If we elevate a leader to a pedestal, we will eventually be disappointed. Even the “great” leaders like Washington, Lincoln, Churchill, or Robert Kennedy did not reach perfection. We do indeed need leaders to be heroes but not idols. How did a good leader overcome a weakness or recover from a mistake or atone for a moral lapse? Leaders are good when they are honest about their failings.

Second, good leaders are known also by the people who surround her. Leaders are good because they are effective in working for the common good of those they serve. A large part of effectiveness for any leader is to select good advisors, whether formal or informal. Good advisors enhance the strengths of a leader and also blunt the leader’s limitations.

Third, and finally, look to what the leader has previously accomplished. In political elections voters have usually a binary choice of two leading choices. In selecting leaders for civic organizations search committees often narrow their lists down to three finalists. The experiences of candidates should be thoroughly examined not so much  in terms of the positions held but in terms of what did they accomplish. Were goals reached? Did things get done in the right way?

I am sure that there are other desired characteristics for good leaders as attested by the vast volumes of leadership books, articles, podcasts, etc. Nevertheless, Noonan’s list augmented by realizing all leaders are flawed and good leaders choose good advisors and get things done. We are calling for these folks to step forward and lead, soberly remembering we get the leaders we deserve.