What has been most disappointing after your initial interest? Religion. As a child I was fascinated with Oral Roberts on tv, then the ceremonies my parents took me to on certain holidays, then in my mother’s second husband’s religion. Jumped in hook, line, and sinker. Took classes in high school, went on a mission, paid my tithing, obeyed all the rules, became a leader, then by age 48 had a mid-life crisis—wanted to die from the stress of “be ye therefore perfect even as your Father in Heaven is perfect” and the hundreds of other commandments. I decided to start over and began reading widely including things we were told not to read. A whole new world opened up—cosmology, evolution, evolutionary psychology, particle physics, mental illness, changes in “eternal” laws, equivalent passion evident in many different religions, hypocrisy—and religions all became clearly to me large mountains of mythological rubbish being foisted on defenseless children worldwide. My reading and study eventually culminated in an attempt to provide a science-based alternative to the world’s scriptures, A Song of Humanity. A Song of Humanity 600 pages, 20 pages of single spaced references, 920+ footnotes tracing the origin of the Earth and the rise of Homo Sapiens—a rational guide for living that parents can read to their children. Presumptuous, I know, but I couldn’t die without trying to provide an alternative. I never believed in complaining without providing an alternative. In the end, religion of all sorts (I’ve traveled all over the world and read the Koran, Bagavagita, Tao de Ching, Book of Mormon and others and encountered their adherents) seemed to me localized mythology passed on by parents who never challenged what their parents taught them—generation after generation. Religion turned out to be the biggest disappointment in my life. SO attractive early in life, so unfulfilling later in life, and so difficult to leave when you once believed in the horrors to be put on those who step away. When I looked at the violence that various religions have foisted on the world over the millennia, I was appalled and eviscerated. Mustering the courage to question my “truths” was the hardest thing I’ve ever done. People like Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Infidel) have my great respect. It’s a very difficult thing to break out of one’s early childhood imprinting and choose a different path. Historically, millions have been killed for trying to do so. Posted on Quora.
Sunday, November 10, 2019
Learning Life's Lessons
Are life's lessons worth the cost of learning them?
I think this varies from person to person. Some people never learn, they just go through life undergoing as Saul Alinsky once wrote a series of happenings that pass through their systems undigested. Some of the lessons I’ve learned took years to emerge and become apparent. The folly of religion. The white-washed histories of many countries. The challenges of living with birth defects or mental illness. The persistence of early childhood teachings imprinted on defenseless children by their parents. Freud once noted that we spend our adult lives dealing with the residue of our childhoods. I’ve seen that so many times here and there. The mountains of mythological rubbish taught with violence by so many different religions. In the end, if one learns a lesson, it’s worth it. In a conference session I once taught about this very topic, sharing one’s life’s lessons with others, a colleague said wait a minute, that’s like sharing your pearls before swine. I knew what he meant, I’d read that scripture many times. My reply was if you worked hard and suffered to learn an important lesson, why would you want to take it to your grave with you? Why wouldn’t you want to share that with your fellow pilgrims? Who says they are swine?
I think this varies from person to person. Some people never learn, they just go through life undergoing as Saul Alinsky once wrote a series of happenings that pass through their systems undigested. Some of the lessons I’ve learned took years to emerge and become apparent. The folly of religion. The white-washed histories of many countries. The challenges of living with birth defects or mental illness. The persistence of early childhood teachings imprinted on defenseless children by their parents. Freud once noted that we spend our adult lives dealing with the residue of our childhoods. I’ve seen that so many times here and there. The mountains of mythological rubbish taught with violence by so many different religions. In the end, if one learns a lesson, it’s worth it. In a conference session I once taught about this very topic, sharing one’s life’s lessons with others, a colleague said wait a minute, that’s like sharing your pearls before swine. I knew what he meant, I’d read that scripture many times. My reply was if you worked hard and suffered to learn an important lesson, why would you want to take it to your grave with you? Why wouldn’t you want to share that with your fellow pilgrims? Who says they are swine?
After retiring, I wrote A Song of Humanity: A Science-based Alternative to the World’s Scriptures to try to provide a summary on One Man’s life’s lessons. In my case, it’s all out there for others to see, read, reflect, reject, or incorporate as they wish. A Song of Humanity Posted on Quora.
Friday, December 14, 2018
Broadcasting Interviews
With the change in the news format to the widespread use of journalist panels to interpret and comment on the news, we are all bombarded with hundreds and hundreds of examples of broadcasting interviewers and respondents. Some of them are extraordinarily talented and insightful, some of them so painful and tortuous to listen to, one almost has to turn the tv/radio/cell phone off.
What does it take to make a good on-line/on-air presence?
1. Ask open-ended questions. When an interviewer asks a close-ended question that can be answered with "yes" or "no," they are demonstrating their lack of skill and education. Sure there are times when an interviewer wants to nail down a respondent by "forcing" them into a yes/no response. This is more common in political interviews than other places. That said, when an interviewer wants to get some perspective and human interest, a yes/no question is the kiss of death.
2. Ask sensitive questions. Asking "How are you feeling?" is one we often hear in the midst of a tragedy of one kind or another. "Your child was just killed. How are you feeling?" C'mon! Not the time and place. Have you ever been appalled by the questions asked on national television? OUR feelings at the time are annoyance, even outrage at the insensitivity. Perhaps we should let the interviewee choose how deeply and personally to respond. "Tell us, please, what happened?" Another less invasive option might be, "What's your assessment of the situation leading up to the event? What premonitions, if any, did you have?" "How will you and your family plan to grieve/mourn this event?" I realize many interviewees are dumbstruck in front of a camera, and it's not always easy to get someone to open up on camera despite the way that most humans gravitate to them. And this is where a journalist demonstrates his or her skill or lack thereof. The choice of interviewee is important. Some pre-interview conversation will help the interviewer gauge how much they will have to "lead" the respondent--or whether they should seek someone else to reflect the situation.
3. Be clear and eliminate "meaningless fillers." Two of the world's foremost experts on the golf swing are Hank Haney and David Leadbetter. As an avid golfer, I've read their books. So, I was eager to hear their exchange on national radio (XM golf channel) recently. After five minutes, the language was so tortuous, so painful to listen to, I had to turn it off. It seemed they both had attended the same broadcasting seminar--and came out with identical styles. The number of a) affected stammering (I, I, I, etc.), b) "I mean"s, c) "Look!"s and d) "You knows" completely overwhelmed whatever content they were trying to convey. I greatly respect these men--and their radio speaking style was nearly unintelligible. One day later, I listened to an interview of Adam Scott, a globally famous player. In contrast, his language was clear, concise, almost completely devoid of fillers (ZERO uh's, um's, look's, I mean's, and stammering). This was sooo refreshing by comparison. Now, Scott is not a professional broadcaster (although he is doing some), and one could argue that Haney and Leadbetter are--or are trying to be. You might say, lighten up, Jim! Okay. I stuttered so badly in high school, I couldn't get two words out back to back. I'm told it was torture listening to me in church or conversation. I worked on it. And made huge changes. Maybe that's why this bugs me. If Haney and Leadbetter would work on this the way they ask aspiring golfers to work on drills to improve their golf swings, they could improve their broadcast presence by leaps and bounds. I hope they will, because they have so much to offer.
4. Don't over-contextualize or interrupt. Many interviewers try to set the context of the interview so much that they leave little time for the respondent to speak. Most of us like to hear ourselves talk and express our views. The role of an interviewer, however, is to draw out the views of the subject. On TV and radio, one may need to give one sentence of context--but a whole paragraph is often distracting--and confusing to the subject: "Which if any question in there did he/she want me to comment on?" The interviewer in the Adam Scott interview is a high energy individual and could hardly contain himself from interrupting and offering his point of view. If interviewers remember than the public wants to hear from their subjects, not the interviewers, and can frame clear and concise open-ended questions, their interviews will have much more impact.
5. Delivery style matters as much as content. The point here is that those in the public eye have a responsibility to be professional, not only in their content, but also in their delivery. Particularly those who are conducting the interviews, the onus is on continuous skill development so that interview #1,000 is much better than interview #10 was. We listeners, trained and lay alike, can and will choose whether to continue listening. We vote with our choices. "Stay with us" is not enough.
6. Pay attention to your grammar. "They gave Thom and I a good interview." No, no, no. One of the simplest English grammar principles is the difference between nominative and objective cases. Journalists should know that difference. "They gave I a good interview?" Nope. Objective case there. There are millions of people in the world trying to learn English by listening to radio and TV and watching movies. Please be good examples.
I once had a license plate that read "Be BETR." My intent was simply to encourage people to live in a continuously learning and improving way. I was brought up short one day when a colleague said, "Who the f*** are you to tell me to be better!" Hmmm. Not my intent---AND that is how the message was interpreted by at least one person. I changed my plate.
Who am I to encourage Hank Haney, David Leadbetter, Michael Breed, and the flock of interviewers on CNN, FOX, NPR, XM, Golf Channel, ESPN, etc. to think about their delivery as much as their content--and seek to improve? Just one person, a listener, kindly given a public school education in a remote rural state (Idaho), a consumer of broadcast interviews, and one who has practiced what he proposes.
What does it take to make a good on-line/on-air presence?
1. Ask open-ended questions. When an interviewer asks a close-ended question that can be answered with "yes" or "no," they are demonstrating their lack of skill and education. Sure there are times when an interviewer wants to nail down a respondent by "forcing" them into a yes/no response. This is more common in political interviews than other places. That said, when an interviewer wants to get some perspective and human interest, a yes/no question is the kiss of death.
2. Ask sensitive questions. Asking "How are you feeling?" is one we often hear in the midst of a tragedy of one kind or another. "Your child was just killed. How are you feeling?" C'mon! Not the time and place. Have you ever been appalled by the questions asked on national television? OUR feelings at the time are annoyance, even outrage at the insensitivity. Perhaps we should let the interviewee choose how deeply and personally to respond. "Tell us, please, what happened?" Another less invasive option might be, "What's your assessment of the situation leading up to the event? What premonitions, if any, did you have?" "How will you and your family plan to grieve/mourn this event?" I realize many interviewees are dumbstruck in front of a camera, and it's not always easy to get someone to open up on camera despite the way that most humans gravitate to them. And this is where a journalist demonstrates his or her skill or lack thereof. The choice of interviewee is important. Some pre-interview conversation will help the interviewer gauge how much they will have to "lead" the respondent--or whether they should seek someone else to reflect the situation.
3. Be clear and eliminate "meaningless fillers." Two of the world's foremost experts on the golf swing are Hank Haney and David Leadbetter. As an avid golfer, I've read their books. So, I was eager to hear their exchange on national radio (XM golf channel) recently. After five minutes, the language was so tortuous, so painful to listen to, I had to turn it off. It seemed they both had attended the same broadcasting seminar--and came out with identical styles. The number of a) affected stammering (I, I, I, etc.), b) "I mean"s, c) "Look!"s and d) "You knows" completely overwhelmed whatever content they were trying to convey. I greatly respect these men--and their radio speaking style was nearly unintelligible. One day later, I listened to an interview of Adam Scott, a globally famous player. In contrast, his language was clear, concise, almost completely devoid of fillers (ZERO uh's, um's, look's, I mean's, and stammering). This was sooo refreshing by comparison. Now, Scott is not a professional broadcaster (although he is doing some), and one could argue that Haney and Leadbetter are--or are trying to be. You might say, lighten up, Jim! Okay. I stuttered so badly in high school, I couldn't get two words out back to back. I'm told it was torture listening to me in church or conversation. I worked on it. And made huge changes. Maybe that's why this bugs me. If Haney and Leadbetter would work on this the way they ask aspiring golfers to work on drills to improve their golf swings, they could improve their broadcast presence by leaps and bounds. I hope they will, because they have so much to offer.
4. Don't over-contextualize or interrupt. Many interviewers try to set the context of the interview so much that they leave little time for the respondent to speak. Most of us like to hear ourselves talk and express our views. The role of an interviewer, however, is to draw out the views of the subject. On TV and radio, one may need to give one sentence of context--but a whole paragraph is often distracting--and confusing to the subject: "Which if any question in there did he/she want me to comment on?" The interviewer in the Adam Scott interview is a high energy individual and could hardly contain himself from interrupting and offering his point of view. If interviewers remember than the public wants to hear from their subjects, not the interviewers, and can frame clear and concise open-ended questions, their interviews will have much more impact.
5. Delivery style matters as much as content. The point here is that those in the public eye have a responsibility to be professional, not only in their content, but also in their delivery. Particularly those who are conducting the interviews, the onus is on continuous skill development so that interview #1,000 is much better than interview #10 was. We listeners, trained and lay alike, can and will choose whether to continue listening. We vote with our choices. "Stay with us" is not enough.
6. Pay attention to your grammar. "They gave Thom and I a good interview." No, no, no. One of the simplest English grammar principles is the difference between nominative and objective cases. Journalists should know that difference. "They gave I a good interview?" Nope. Objective case there. There are millions of people in the world trying to learn English by listening to radio and TV and watching movies. Please be good examples.
I once had a license plate that read "Be BETR." My intent was simply to encourage people to live in a continuously learning and improving way. I was brought up short one day when a colleague said, "Who the f*** are you to tell me to be better!" Hmmm. Not my intent---AND that is how the message was interpreted by at least one person. I changed my plate.
Who am I to encourage Hank Haney, David Leadbetter, Michael Breed, and the flock of interviewers on CNN, FOX, NPR, XM, Golf Channel, ESPN, etc. to think about their delivery as much as their content--and seek to improve? Just one person, a listener, kindly given a public school education in a remote rural state (Idaho), a consumer of broadcast interviews, and one who has practiced what he proposes.
Tuesday, October 30, 2018
Prejudicial Violence
Verbal and physical violence against minorities, Jews, gender orientation (GLBTQ) and our common environment seem to be on the rise. All of this is based on what Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman called "fast thinking," judgments based on people's beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence. People's Values, Assumptions, Beliefs, and Expectations about the way the world is or should be (VABEs) drive judgments regardless of the scientific evidence. This is an age-old phenomenon AND it's past time for modern humans to acknowledge the scientific facts:
- All homo sapiens grew out of the rise of the species in Africa. We have traced the dissemination of homo sapiens DNA as we spread out across the world. We are ALL members of the same race/species. The distinctions people focus on today are not racial, they are based and normal genetic variations in skin color and in facial features. C'mon, people! We are all the same race! Those who say otherwise are unaware of or unwilling to accept the evidence.
- Gender is not and has not been since the beginning of mankind (homo sapiens) a binary phenomenon. Our earliest recorded history reports that some percentage (about 10%) of the population worldwide are not clearly male or female: some are born with an attraction to the same gender, some with an attraction to both genders, some even with indistinct physical genitalia. Get over it! It's a demonstrated fact of genetic life.
- Religions develop distinct cultures. Culture is a set of shared VABEs. Cultures can be strong or weak--and they are often based on myth, inaccuracies, falsehoods, and flat-out dysfunctional assumptions about the way the world is--or should be. I outline in A Song of Humanity: a Science-Based Alternative to the World's Scriptures in the book of Gods how varied and utterly uninformed the various views and constructions of "god" that homo sapiens created were. Early homo sapiens did not understand the sources of famine, thunder, lightning, earthquakes, etc. and fabricated stories to explain those natural phenomena. We have, especially in the last 150 years, uncovered so much based on physical evidence that it's long since past time to let go of those "ancient" historical "sacred" writings and acknowledge and adapt to what we now know. The perpetuation of vehement belief in these inaccurate depictions of the nature of the world we live in amounts to mental, emotional, and physical violence to both "true believers" and "infidels" alike.
- In an historical world with apparent boundless resources, humans learned to dominate their own territory and to protect themselves from their neighbors by force. In a modern world where travel and communication have grown exponentially, we can no longer ignore the "commons," the impact our individual behavior has on the global community as a whole. To ignore the health of the "commons," is to ensure the erosion of our planet and our mutual destruction.
We need a new set of VABEs, a new set of values, assumptions, beliefs and expectations about the way the world is or should be. Those "new" VABEs should be:
- We are all brothers and sisters of the same human race. There is no basis for judging others on the basis of the color of their skin or their facial features. We should judge each individual by their behavior.
- Our religions are based primarily on where we were born. We should tolerate everyone's beliefs so long as they don't try to foist them on others--by peaceful or violent methods. Worship how you wish and let others do the same. AND pay attention to the replicated, evidence-based discoveries of science.
- No one asked for their gender orientation; they didn't apply for or ask for what they got. Gender orientation is a function of genetic reproduction of DNA. Therefore, we should allow people to practice their sexual preferences freely--so long as they don't force or harm others.
- Mental illness is also a function of genetic reproduction. Society should acknowledge this and provide for the mentally ill. Paranoid schizophrenia for example afflicts 1% of the population world-wide.
- We all should leave our immediate area better than we found it. Account for and manage your own waste--of all kinds. Those who continue to extract more than they contribute (in whatever profession) should be constrained by the pressure of the rest of the people who live in the global commons.
Verbal and physical violence against minorities, other religions, those with variations in gender orientation, and the common environment has no future. Variations in skin color, facial features, religious beliefs, gender orientation and environmental health are not going away. The only way we can learn to live together is to re-examine our own VABEs, acknowledge the dysfunctionality of many of them, and replace them with new VABEs that ensure our personal freedom of choice and a healthy commons upon which we all depend for survival.
Sunday, August 13, 2017
On Racism in Charlottesville, VA August 2017
The violence in Charlottesville over the weekend does not reflect an issue for Charlottesville, for Virginia, or for America--it is a human global issue. The same thing has happened and is happening in India, South Africa, the UK, the Balkans, Afghanistan, China, Japan, Australia, Central America, Ruanda/Burundi, EVERYWHERE, wherever you look. Fanatic supremacists have plagued us since before history. (See the Book of Conquerors in ASOH, op cit) The contexts are different, but the human nature is the same.
The real question for me is "what does one do with this aspect of human nature?" Yelling, cursing, and fighting has not and will not change people's values, assumptions, beliefs and expectations about the way the world is or should be (VABEs).
What's YOUR answer? (DOn't complain unless you have a solution.)
My answer is as follows:
1. Continue legislating to prohibit hateful, violent aspects of free speech. Prosecute violators. This is a delicate issue since we all want to have the right (granted by our government) of freedom of speech and assembly. See the Book of Rights and Laws in my book, "A Song of Humanity: A Science-based Alternative to the World's Scriptures." at www.nadobimakoba.com or www.a-song-of-humanity.com.
2. Encourage and educate parents to teach their children that we are all human brothers and sisters regardless of color, gender or religion. We are all of the human race and all of our lives matter.
Parents who teach their children to hate should not be tolerated/encouraged by their cultures or their religions. This is difficult; how does one "manage" what parents teach their children by example or precept? Government standards of education could/should disallow teaching hate of other "non-believers". I have offered an attempt at this education, again, with my latest book, A Song of Humanity: A Science-based Alternative to the World's Scriptures. The Book of Genesis describes how humans came to be and the Book of Exodus describes how Homo Sapiens spread across the face of the Earth.
Parents who teach their children to hate should not be tolerated/encouraged by their cultures or their religions. This is difficult; how does one "manage" what parents teach their children by example or precept? Government standards of education could/should disallow teaching hate of other "non-believers". I have offered an attempt at this education, again, with my latest book, A Song of Humanity: A Science-based Alternative to the World's Scriptures. The Book of Genesis describes how humans came to be and the Book of Exodus describes how Homo Sapiens spread across the face of the Earth.
3. Legislate the parameters of assembly. For example, permits to assemble might / should not permit weapons -- even in open carry states. "Weapons" includes cans of concrete, mace, hand guns, batons, etc. Prosecute violators.
4. We should encourage people to travel, to get out of their counties and see the world. That said, unless one is open to other ways of doing things, that might not help -- AND it would help many to see and perhaps appreciate other ways of doing things.
5. Finally, we should encourage inter-faith, inter-political, inter-tribe, and inter-color marriages. The more we inter-marry the more we are likely to become more tolerant. Sadly, we constantly read of groups teaching against this and even of parents disowning or killing their children for dating "non-believers." This is true of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and so many more. Of course, this goes deep... and back to what is taught in the home.
JUDGE LESS, CARE MORE! Allow other people their point of view -- but not their violence or forceful imposition of hate on others. Live and Let Live. I personally condemn oppression in any form unless it is in response to others violently breaking the law. Given history, though, it seems that violent extremists will continue to pop up wherever there are humans. Perhaps legislation and prosecution are the only practical answers. And that we know from WWII requires a careful drawing of the line between what's allowed and what's not.
Okay, what's your view? What do you think we should do to address this wide-spread issue?
Saturday, December 24, 2016
A Song of Humanity: A Science-Based Alternative to the World's Scriptures
The human race, homo sapiens orWise Man, has existed on the Earth for less than 200,000 of the 4,500,000,000 years the Earth has existed. Over time, various groups of Wise Men formed their beliefs about where we came from and how things are. When man learned to write, he codified these beliefs in scriptures--The Bible, The Koran, The Bagavagita, The Tao de Ching, The Book of Mormon, and others. Since those ancient explanations were written, our scientists in multiple fields have learned a lot about the origin of the universe and of mankind. Yet millions of people worldwide still cling to the uninformed explanations of our ancient forebears despite the evidence we have discovered.
A Song of Humanity: A Science-Based Alternative to the World's Scriptures consolidates what mankind has learned about the origin of the universe, the origin of mankind, the nature of our world, how to live in it, and what lies ahead. Written in an easy to understand style that a parent could read to a child, ASOH avoids a dogmatic approach by asking the reader and listener to form their own thoughts and conclusions at the end of each book/chapter based on the evidence presented.
The table of contents includes books/chapters of Genesis, Exodus, Gods, Prophets, Conquerors, Rights and Laws, Genes, VABEs, Self, Children, Mating, Families, Cultures, Water, Air, Matter, Money, Proverbs, Apocalypse, and Revelations and more. Written in chapter and verse so that book groups, families, congregations, and individuals can easily find and reference the concepts, ASOH anticipates the discovery of more scientific insight. Furthermore, the stories (all true) come from all six inhabited continents and provide a broader, more global view of modern life amidst our scientific insights.
ASOH is based on 20 pages of references and over 900 endnotes and includes a detailed Index.
ASOH is available in eBook (ePub and mobi), soft cover, and hard cover formats. Available at Amazon and Barnes & Noble soon, ASOH is available now at discounted prices at Lulu.com. You can find more information, excerpts and how to order if you wish at http://a-song-of-humanity.com.
A Song of Humanity: A Science-Based Alternative to the World's Scriptures consolidates what mankind has learned about the origin of the universe, the origin of mankind, the nature of our world, how to live in it, and what lies ahead. Written in an easy to understand style that a parent could read to a child, ASOH avoids a dogmatic approach by asking the reader and listener to form their own thoughts and conclusions at the end of each book/chapter based on the evidence presented.
The table of contents includes books/chapters of Genesis, Exodus, Gods, Prophets, Conquerors, Rights and Laws, Genes, VABEs, Self, Children, Mating, Families, Cultures, Water, Air, Matter, Money, Proverbs, Apocalypse, and Revelations and more. Written in chapter and verse so that book groups, families, congregations, and individuals can easily find and reference the concepts, ASOH anticipates the discovery of more scientific insight. Furthermore, the stories (all true) come from all six inhabited continents and provide a broader, more global view of modern life amidst our scientific insights.
ASOH is based on 20 pages of references and over 900 endnotes and includes a detailed Index.
ASOH is available in eBook (ePub and mobi), soft cover, and hard cover formats. Available at Amazon and Barnes & Noble soon, ASOH is available now at discounted prices at Lulu.com. You can find more information, excerpts and how to order if you wish at http://a-song-of-humanity.com.
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
Executive Negligence
I have come to believe that chief executives should have a complete charter in order to guide their own thinking and the activities of those they want to lead. In my worldwide consulting experience, I have been shocked at how many executives don't have a charter. They seem to lead just by addressing problems as they arise. But letting your agenda be driven by problems is living and leading outside-in. It is a reactive way to live and attempt to lead. Effective executives in my view live and lead inside-out. They have a sharp view of what they want to create. And the clarity of that view is what inspires others to follow.
A charter (see Chapter 8 of Level Three Leadership 5th edition) has six elements: a mission statement, a vision statement, a values statement (perhaps including a feel statement), a strategy statement, related short-term operating goals, and finally--someone (leadership) who is going to make those decisions.
I think all chief executives--leaders of countries, of industries, of companies, of divisions and departments, of teams, and even of one's self--should have a complete charter and that if they don't, they and their organizations are likely to drift.
Consider a nation. The first element of a national charter would be a one-sentence statement of purpose. Ridiculous, you say? Hmm. What is the purpose of your nation? What is the mission of your country? In the absence of that clarity, politicians and governors will focus on other agendas.
With regard to my country, the United States, I think its purpose is "to provide and protect freedom and tranquility." I mentioned this to a good friend and he said, "well, you have to add some things like
Many would argue with this mission statement. They might assert that America's treatment of Native Americans, for example, is evidence of some other mission such as "conquer the continent." Whether the westward expansion was "manifest destiny," economic greed or some other motivation, others have opined voluminously. In my view, all of the things the American government has done historically have not been in concert with this distilled mission, "to provide and protect freedom and tranquility." That is true it seems to me of all governments. Sometimes they inspire, sometimes they disappoint. But what do they stand for? What are they trying to accomplish in the world? What is the purpose of the United Kingdom? Of Germany? Of France? Of India? Of China? Of Russia? Of Israel? Of Egypt? And on and on. Does your country have a core mission in the world?
When members of our political parties declare that they will oppose anything and everything the other party suggests, they are disavowing a national mission and putting forth a narrower, self-centered mission that is inconsistent with an inspiring national mission statement. Such statements apall me. These executives are espousing a smaller, divisive mission that does not encompass nor include the whole country.
The same may be said of presidents of industry associations or CEOs of corporations who spend their careers extracting as much revenue as they can from the world around them. Who wants to work hard to make other people rich?
What motivates people deeply is something noble that they can devote their lives to. Consider the following corporate mission statements:
A charter (see Chapter 8 of Level Three Leadership 5th edition) has six elements: a mission statement, a vision statement, a values statement (perhaps including a feel statement), a strategy statement, related short-term operating goals, and finally--someone (leadership) who is going to make those decisions.
I think all chief executives--leaders of countries, of industries, of companies, of divisions and departments, of teams, and even of one's self--should have a complete charter and that if they don't, they and their organizations are likely to drift.
Consider a nation. The first element of a national charter would be a one-sentence statement of purpose. Ridiculous, you say? Hmm. What is the purpose of your nation? What is the mission of your country? In the absence of that clarity, politicians and governors will focus on other agendas.
With regard to my country, the United States, I think its purpose is "to provide and protect freedom and tranquility." I mentioned this to a good friend and he said, "well, you have to add some things like
- to manage and foster a healthy USA economy by tax policies to help create jobs in the country vs in other countries,
- and a lawful immigration policy that is enforced,
- and law and order in the country
- and use of intelligence and global partnerships to eliminate the threat of ISIS"
Many would argue with this mission statement. They might assert that America's treatment of Native Americans, for example, is evidence of some other mission such as "conquer the continent." Whether the westward expansion was "manifest destiny," economic greed or some other motivation, others have opined voluminously. In my view, all of the things the American government has done historically have not been in concert with this distilled mission, "to provide and protect freedom and tranquility." That is true it seems to me of all governments. Sometimes they inspire, sometimes they disappoint. But what do they stand for? What are they trying to accomplish in the world? What is the purpose of the United Kingdom? Of Germany? Of France? Of India? Of China? Of Russia? Of Israel? Of Egypt? And on and on. Does your country have a core mission in the world?
When members of our political parties declare that they will oppose anything and everything the other party suggests, they are disavowing a national mission and putting forth a narrower, self-centered mission that is inconsistent with an inspiring national mission statement. Such statements apall me. These executives are espousing a smaller, divisive mission that does not encompass nor include the whole country.
The same may be said of presidents of industry associations or CEOs of corporations who spend their careers extracting as much revenue as they can from the world around them. Who wants to work hard to make other people rich?
What motivates people deeply is something noble that they can devote their lives to. Consider the following corporate mission statements:
- We protect those who protect us. (BAES)
- We make education affordable for everyone. (Sallie Mae)
- Refresh the World (Coca-Cola)
And the three-word purpose of the Virginia Department of Transportation:
- Keep Virginia Moving.
Each of these statements carries clarity, power, and force. People in any part of those organizations can link and relate their daily activities to that core kernel--and if they cannot, perhaps they are in the wrong organization.
Idealistic malarkey you may say. What about a company who makes concrete sewer pipe? Aha. Well, if the president of such a company cannot declare an inspiring mission for his people, they will become mercenaries, working for pay and pay alone. Does anyone in the company see how valuable concrete sewer pipe is? Have you been to Rio and seen the favelas? I have. They need concrete sewer pipe in a big way. The purpose of such a company could be "to build durable, disease-free communities." Then, one could talk about cholera, dysentery, and any of a dozen other water born diseases against which a good sewer system provides protection. Then, it matters that the pipes are strong, durable, don't leak, and the joints are done properly. If the workers are there just for their wages and nothing else, whose fault is that? I say, it's management's fault for not clarifying and asserting a powerful purpose.
Now, if you assign the writing of a mission statement to a committee, they will come up with, after months of deliberation, "we deliver world-class goods and/or services that delight our customers beyond their expectations and give our investors an above industry average return on their investments." True or not true ("world-class" slips off the tongue much more easily than it is achieved), this statement is vanilla, non-differentiating, and uninspiring.
I have come to believe that any executive who cannot state and believe in a one-sentence mission is negligent; he/she is not doing his/her job. Lou Gerstner once noted that "the most common cause of corporate mediocrity is lack of focus." It is the executive's job to provide clarity to his/her associates.
This extends to the national level on the macro end and to the individual level on the micro end of the scale.
What do you think the purpose of your country is? How would you state it? Does that purpose reflect the values of your countrymen? Does it respect the rights and views of others? Is it to conquer the world? To impose your views on others? To provide
What do you think the purpose of your company or organization is? Can you state it in one sentence? If not, what are you working toward?
What is your department's purpose? Can you state it in one sentence? Is it inspiring? Is it clear?
What is your purpose in life? Have you figured that out yet?
Here are my answers, for better or worse.
I believe the mission/purpose of the United States of America is to provide and protect freedom and tranquility. This includes the freedoms of speech, religion, economic endeavor, education and more. It also means that people are not free to harm others. This element embraces police departments, fire departments, and laws of social and environmental responsibility. This statement implies a respect for the desires of citizens, of other countries and other peoples. It also implies a primary desire to seek peaceful means of cooperation and using violence as a last resort to achieve and protect domestic and global tranquility. This statement also decries corruption and taking advantage of people unfairly.
The purpose of my school (I'm retired now) was "to better society by preparing principled leaders in the world of practical affairs." That was a mission statement that I could relate to, that inspired me, that guided my daily and annual activities. I was and am proud of that statement. (although it has been gradually modified and changed)
The purpose of my Leadership and Organizational Behavior Area was to be "a hub of leadership stimulation." I might have phrased it differently, perhaps, "to prepare people to lead effectively." If that requires primary research to discover how to do that, great. If that requires publishing to help more people learn to lead effectively, great.
The purpose of my life is "to help people find themselves." This grows out of my having had three last names and wrestling with what that meant to me, out of my wife having been abused as a child and helping her to grow out of her tiny self, out of my desire to help my children grow and become self-reliant productive citizens, out of my teaching, writing, publishing and academic activities among MBA students, Executive Education participants, consulting clients and anyone who reads what I have written. Everything I have done--and do--revolves around that core purpose. That's my mission in life.
What do you think?
What do you think the purpose of your country is?
What is the purpose of your company or organization?
What is the purpose of your department?
What is the purpose of your life?
What do you think the purpose of your country is?
What is the purpose of your company or organization?
What is the purpose of your department?
What is the purpose of your life?
Have you figured that out yet? If not, I say, it is a sign of negligence.
Of course, settling on a purpose or mission is only the first step. Many people live their whole lives or spend their whole careers and never clarify this one thing. Once you have settled on a mission, you must then decide what kind of future you want to create. That's a vision statement and it will likely be ten to fifteen pages--not a one-sentence, vacuous platitude like "be the best we can be."
I encourage executives at every level to clarify the purpose of their nation, industry, organization or company, division or department and even themselves. I assert that continuing to attempt to lead without a clear purpose is both ineffective and negligent. And that's only the first step in creating a complete charter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)