STEM & STEAM Not Hysteria: Why we need to think critically

There is nothing which can better deserve your patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness...To encourage literature and the arts is a duty which every good citizen owes to his country. – George Washington

A nation that expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization…expects what never was and never will be. – Thomas Jefferson

The current public discussion of Ebola quarantines has me throwing bipartisan shoes at the TV. I don’t want to discuss the political posturing, which is bad enough but expected.

I want to hone in on the sad state of our general education and the absence of critical thinking. Founders Washington and Jefferson warned us and gave us sage advice, which we seem to be ignoring at our peril.

OK, what right do I have to be spouting off about Ebola, science, education, and critical thinking? Here are a few bio tidbits:

Rebecca the Science Teacher

• Trained as biochemical geneticist
• Medical researcher
• Taught biological and physical sciences for ten years in high school and college
• Consult to a county STEM board (supports programs in Science Technology, Engineering and Math)
• Board member, GeekiGirls (supports girls' interest in STEM and the Arts, STEAM)
• Foreign Member, St. Petersburg Engineering Academy.

So I'm an educated layman, trained in critical thinking, OK?

Let's take a quick look at Ebola and the missing critical thinking here in the U.S. Ebola is a devastating disease we mostly ignored here until it entered big cities and spread quickly in three West African countries. Volunteers from around the world have gone to these countries to contribute their skills to fragile and collapsing health systems there. They are working in very primitive conditions in places where electricity and potable and running water are not the norm and local practices exacerbate the spread of the disease.

   
     Fact 1: People only spread the virus by direct contact with bodily fluids, most commonly diarrhea, blood, and vomit.

     Fact 2: When people have no symptoms they cannot spread the virus.

     Fact 3: The incubation period is 21 days in humans.

     Fact 4: The Centers for Disease Control have issued new guidelines based on the degrees of exposure to people with the virus and supported by international health groups.

The hysterical moves by the governors of New York and New Jersey, other states, and the U.S. military to quarantine everyone returning from work in the region ignores the facts, ignores the science, ignores the advice of medical experts, and ignores critical thinking.

Listening to TV reporters, news readers, and "hosts" stir the pot of fear and misinformation is more than inane, it is dangerous. The rampant speculation, ignorant questions and comments, and refusal to listen to science are scary. The fact that people fall for it points to what many studies show; the dire state of science and critical thinking education in this country is a threat to democracy. Even the college-educated reporters and commentators demonstrate a lack of scientific understanding and thinking a 7^th grader should have mastered.

This is nothing new. When the Russians launched Sputnik and caught the U.S. flatfooted, there were no other girls in my physics and advanced math classes and many college-bound boys avoided these hard classes. Government created the National Defense Education Act and the National Science Foundation created four new science curricula. I went through graduate school with an NDEA loan, which I repaid by teaching, including the new science curricula.

I have a couple of suggestions:

1. Create modern programs, similar to the post-Sputnik ones, to assure every student, in every school, gets grounding in real science and critical thinking. Emphasize teaching elementary and middle school teachers to teach the understanding, application, and love of science. Science must be learned hands on with experiments and investigation. We must teach everyone to think critically.
2. Governors and other officials, it's time to admit you reacted and did not base your moves on science nor think critically about the situation. George Washington said it best,"To err is nature, to rectify error is glory."
3. Reinstate literature, the arts, science, and social science as the centerpieces of K-12 education. A recent study confirmed music study increases other intellectual capacities. In an era when schools routinely cut all the arts education in favor of drilling for standardized tests, real education is sacrificed.

Everyone needs STEM and STEAM. We all need a well-rounded education to function as citizens and leaders in our complex world. We must be critical thinkers, learning that discipline from the sciences and the arts. The alternative is a nation that can be whipped into hysteria by the ignorant and the evil.

Food for thought...yes, thought.   

Learn the basic skills of critical thinking. Join me for a technique-packed webinar and white paper access. http://tinyurl.com/lw8oxgl

*   *   *   *   *   *

(c) Rebecca Staton-Reinstein and Advantage Leadership, Inc. 

A Sad Day for the Friends of James Madison

James Madison has no monuments or fancy remembrances as do many of the other founding fathers (and mothers.) Yet without him, we might not have our republic, our constitution, and be an independent country today.

When Madison was a student, at what is now Princeton, he stayed another year to work on a study of the world's constitutions while soaking up the ideas of the Scottish Enlightenment from the university's president. This began his life-long passion for republican ideals and constitutions. After flailing about for a while after college, he was elected to the Virginia (Colonial) House of Burgesses and began his life as a politician. He followed this calling to public service until the end of his presidency. Those who call for term limits and hold their noses at the idea of a "politician" could learn a lot from his decades of devotion.

After the Revolution, he watched with mounting horror as self interest brought out the worst in the Virginia legislature and the Congress under the Articles of Confederation was worse than "do nothing." By 1878, the country was in turmoil, Congress was impotent, groups of States talked of leaving the fragile union spurred on by European powers, the economy was a shambles, and Shays' Rebellion in Massachusetts frightened every property owner. The prognosis for continued existence of the country was dire.

So Madison joined Alexander Hamilton and Ben Franklin to conspire to overthrow the government; they committed treason for the second time. Working with others, Madison persuaded General George Washington to join in the call for a Constitutional Convention to provide the political cover they needed. Madison got the resolution through the Confederation Congress and became a delegate along with Washington and others to the gathering. His long-time rival, Patrick Henry, refused to have anything to do with it; "I smell a rat!" He was right, of course. Madison's intent was not to amend the Articles but to abolish them.

Jemmy and Me

He arrived in Philadelphia early, having made a thorough study of republics and constitutions "ancient and modern." He persuaded the governor to present his draft as the "Virginia Plan." Although little of it remained in the final draft signed by the delegates, it did serve as the agenda and shaped the nature and substance of the debates. Madison and the most committed delegates toiled for four months in the Philadelphia summer heat with early morning committee meetings, all-day debates, and informal politicking in the evening. Madison took voluminous notes we still marvel at today and early Supreme Court justices used to unravel "original intent."

But when the delegates scattered back to their states, the work wasn't over. They had to get the special ratifying bodies to agree to the document. In Madison's Virginia, Patrick Henry led the anti-federalist forces. Despite Henry's legendary oratorical skills and political clout, Madison bested him and eked out a tiny margin of victory.

Then he was off to the new Congress as a Representative in the House and to serve as Washington's whip in that body to achieve his legislative agenda. He served as Jefferson's Secretary of State and then as President, presiding over the War of 1812. In fact, he was the only Commander in Chief to actually go into battle, despite having no military credentials.

He was the last of the "fathers" to depart this world and did so on this day, June 28, 1836. His parting words were, "Nothing more than a change of mind, my dear." James Monroe, who succeeded him as President, referred to Madison in his dying words, "I regret that I should leave this world without again beholding him."

In my Google Alert for Madison, about 95% of the mentions are from people, right or left, trying to claim his "authority" for their views. Like anyone quoted out of context, Madison's words are distorted. More importantly, because Madison was a patriot, a passionate politician, and as partisan as anyone, you can always find some snippet to support you. These folks do a disservice to the man, his memory, and his message.

Madison, like all of us, evolved and changed with age. At the end of the Convention, he thought the Constitution was a failure because it created a Senate representing the states and not the population. Yet he went to the ratifying convention and worked with Hamilton to write the Federalist Papers defending the new Constitution with every ounce of his considerable persuasive talent. By Washington's second term, he had joined Jefferson to destroy Hamilton and the Federalists and create the Republican Party (precursor of today's Democrats.) As president, he opposed legislation for building roads and canals or providing "charity." As an elder statesman, he made it clear he had evolved to support these government efforts.

What made Madison so great was he was NOT an ideologue. He constantly thought about things, changed his mind, and made it clear where he stood at any moment. He was prepared to compromise for the good of the nation. He seldom held real animosity for his opponents. (Today he'd be derided as a flip-flopper, drummed out of whatever party he was in, and excoriated by the chattering class and talk radio.)

What I've always found so appealing about Madison was his humanness. My favorite quote from him is (out of context, of course,) "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Madison is great because he is no saint on a pedestal. He was dead wrong on many things. He made no claims to perfection. We can admire him, not because we agree with him or can find some phrase to prove our political point, but because he thought continuously and was willing to change and grow and leave old notions behind.

If today's leaders, whether in politics or business, would spend a little time with "Jemmy, the great little Madison," they might be less inclined to require unthinking adherence to a static idea. Madison's interpretation of the republic's mission statement, the Preamble to the Constitution, matured and morphed over time. If we could take a page from his book, we might all succeed in evolving, being more strategic, making better decisions...and leaving old ideas behind.

*   *   *   *   *
(c) Rebecca Staton-Reinstein and Advantage Leadership, Inc. 
Want to know more about Madison and his role in the Constitution and early republic? Want to know how modern leaders exploit the Madison Factor? Check out Conventional Wisdom: How Today's Leaders Plan, Perform, and Progress Like the Founding Fathers. 

Your research into the planning sessions of the Constitutional Convention and the struggles that our framers of the Constitution faced has been cleverly weaved into the strategies of modern business. I am pleased to have your book.  

-- Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (RET) 

When did elections become American Idol?

Full disclosure: I love to watch debates - academic or political. I love the give and take. I watched every presidential primary debate this season. (The British call it the silly season with good reason.) I've watched both debates now between the candidates and will be glued to the last two. (Update: the second presidential debate does not change what I've already posted.)

I'm NOT looking for winners and losers. I'm looking for information. I'm not one of those over-hyped "undecided voters." I've made a choice and I don't think a debate will change my mind so I'll take advantage of my state's early voting. However, and this is a big "however," I still want to understand each candidate and party's ideas, desires, plans, history, and more. I never get tired of it. Sometimes I agree with my chosen candidate and sometimes I don't. Sometimes I like what he or she says and sometimes I don't. Sometimes I support their compromises and sometimes I don't. I'm not a single-issue voter, and since I cast my first presidential vote in the 60s, I've tried to look at the full package.

So what? I was watching some "news" coverage after the vice presidential debate and they were discussing what was trending on social media during the debate...DURING the debate.

• We are NOT WIRED TO MULTITASK. When we're listening/watching the debate and start texting, tweeting or facebooking, our brain is simply switching back and forth very, very rapidly (below our ability to perceive.) So we're not actually attentive to either.
• Much of the "trending" was about ridiculous topics including one candidate's workout photos and the other's use of words like "malarkey." ????? This is what's important in choosing a person who is "a heartbeat away from the president?" This is the how we choose a potential world leader?

When did the most important political decisions that will affect our lives become American Idol? Are we electing the Debater-in-Chief? Do we expect him or her to go mano a mano with other world leaders on TV to decide the fate of nations? Do we really think the endless dissection of jokes, wise cracks, facial expressions, body language, and zingers is the best way to make this important decision?

What about the Founding Fathers? How would they hold up?

Most wouldn't fare too well based on our pop-idol values.

George Washington hated to speak in public and many of his addresses were simply published and not spoken. He was self-conscious about his lack of formal education among the political elite of the late 18th century. He was intelligent, well-read, and a shrewd politician and judge of people and events but he would have appeared wooden and ill-at-ease in a public debate.

John Adams was scrappy and considered a good trial lawyer and effective legislator in the Continental Conventions. He defended British soldiers successfully after the Boston massacre (which would have been political death in today's world of negative ads.) He was also irritable and irritating and seldom curbed his tongue in his attacks on those who disagreed with him. He didn't play well with others when he disagreed.

Thomas Jefferson wrote soaring prose that still inspires us but he was a horrible speaker. This voice was weak and barely audible when he addressed any gathering and he avoided it whenever possible. He would have delighted in today's campaigns of negativity. Through his support of newspapers and others who he agreed with, he published or caused to be published, scathing attacks on his political enemies. His attacks, through his pal Jemmy Madison, went for the jugular in attempt to destroy Alexander Hamilton, and even George Washington while he served as his Secretary of State.

James (Jemmy) Madison was a masterful debater, although he too did not have a strong voice, and people often complained he was hard to hear in a large room. However, in his long state and federal legislative career and in the Constitutional Convention, he held his own with other more powerful debaters. Most famously, in the Virginia Ratifying Convention to ratify the new U.S. Constitution, he faced off against Patrick Henry. Although Henry brought his A game bombast and withering rhetoric, he turned out to be no match for Madison, an author of the document with intimate knowledge of every nook and cranny and how it had been debated and decided.

Today, we would not select the wooden Washington, the irascible Adams, the weak-voiced Jefferson or the egg-head Madison. We would have preferred the smooth-talking Aaron Burr, who kill Hamilton while still vice president; the pyrotechnic Henry who was an avowed anti-federalist who would have gotten rid of anything but independent, autonomous state governments; the avuncular, always charming and folksy and wily Ben Franklin, who would have only a one-house legislature, removing a critical check on popular passion; and who knows what other folly.

Presidential leadership is not about "optics." Would we elect Lincoln today? Would we elect the very short, "great little Madison?" Would "his rotundness," Adams receive our nod? Would we pick Jefferson who was famous for his slouching posture as well as his weak voice? Sadly, probably not.

I'll continue to enjoy the debates. I'll go to the polls and cast my ballot. But it would be more assuring to me if citizens watched the debates using the active listening techniques I teach managers and executives.

• Quiet your mind and ignore stray thoughts or preparing a response.
• Focus your entire attention on the other person.
• Listen to what he or she is saying and observe the body language and tone.
• Ask questions to make sure you understand the other person and that he or she knows you understand.

Finally, I can't help but quote from that poor debater, Thomas Jefferson:

"A nation that expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization … expects what never was and never will be."

Or maybe from that fierce debater, James Madison:

Liberty & Learning lean on each other for their mutual and surest support.

Please vote...and please, make a rational, informed decision. It ain't American Idol!

*     *     *     *     *     *

(c) Rebecca Staton-Reinstein, president, Advantage Leadership, Inc.

Check out more about the politics of the early republic and today's leaders in Conventional Wisdom: How Today's Leaders Plan, Perform, and Progress Like the Founding Fathers. http://advantageleadership.com/section/Conventional_Wisdom/17/

Dirtiest Election Ever: Beyond the F-Bomb

Every time a politician drops the F-bomb, the media are all atwitter. (Can Twitter be atwitter?) They run the clip over and over BLEEPING politely at the crucial moment so as not to offend us. The current two candidates for president are not the sort of folks who will be caught using this anglosaxonism although their associates may be. Jefferson and Adams in the election of 1800 usually preferred the perfect barbed comment also.

So what? Move off the "networks" and onto the cable channels and the F-Bomb is just another word among many floating across the airwaves. But looking back to the really nasty election of 1800 and its parallels with 2012, what is the story when it comes to salty language and attack words?

Today as in 1800 there were words that people thought too rude for public discourse. But what was happening behind the scenes? There folks weren't as gentlemanly as we like to think, especially when talking among themselves.

George Washington had a towering temper he kept in check for the most part. When he let it rip he could toss the verbal bombs with the best of them. When delegates to the Constitutional Convention sat with their pipes and port after dinner, they often swapped bawdy stories, just as people do today. One of their favorite games was inventing wilder and wilder puns about Gouverneur Morris' wooden leg and his way with the ladies. James Madison was infamous among his contemporaries for his off-color stories.

It's true they didn't throw the F-Bomb but they certainly came close. John Adams was no fan of Alexander Hamilton and in a letter to Benjamin Rush in 1806 let fly with this diatribe against Hamilton for remarks he had made denigrating George Washington.



John Adams

Although I read with tranquility and suffered to pass without animadversion in silent contempt the base insinuations of vanity and a hundred lies besides published in a pamphlet against me by an insolent coxcomb who rarely dined in good company, where there was good wine, without getting silly and vaporing about his administration like a young girl about her brilliants and trinkets, yet I lose all patience when I think of a bastard brat of a Scotch pedlar daring to threaten to undeceive the world in their judgment of Washington by writing an history of his battles and campaigns. This creature was in a delirium of ambition; he had been blown up with vanity by the tories, had fixed his eyes on the highest station in America, and he hated every man, young or old, who stood in his way or could in any manner eclipse his laurels or rival his pretensions. . . 

Pretty strong stuff...but not as strong as these "gentlemen" wrote under pen names in the popular press skewering one another and accusing one another of the worst intentions, treason, and more. Generally they lambasted one another with innuendo as well as direct attacks. In fact, what can be a delicious pastime is dissecting their elaborate language and watch as they slip the verbal knife between the ribs and give a fatal twist.

We seldom hear such creativity today where it's so easy to just go for the flat obscenity rather than the creative crudity. I was impressed when George Will called Donald Trump a bloviating ignoramus. The founding fathers would have liked that.

But are there any Leadership Lessons in all this?  Perhaps a few:

• Leaders control themselves: George Washington was prickly and thin skinned and took offence easily. Yet his advice to himself and others was to show restraint of "tongues and pens." He kept his temper in check most of the time. "Losing it" on a regular basis causes people to disengage. 
• Leaders cultivate creativity: "Bloviating" is such a yummy word and I'm sure many people scurried to google its meaning. (Synonym for blow hard) In our general anti-intellectual climate, leaders encourage their people to think and grow and become more articulate.
• Leaders do not condone crudity: Leaders know that some language offends some people just like the bawdy stories and sexist remarks that have disappeared for most workplaces. They do not insist on better communication because of "political correctness." They want to be inclusive; they want everyone to be engaged.

Just because the founding fathers weren't saints doesn't mean we do not honor and respect them. We admire them because, like us, they were all too human, capable of pettiness and backbiting, and sometimes behaving badly. We can learn from them precisely because they are human. We can learn from their mistakes and when they triumphed over their human nature. And we can learn from their fierce honesty because they would call a bloviating ignoramus a bloviating ignoramus!
*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

What's your idea: Can we joust with more inventive language without bloviating? Please post your comments.
* * * * * * *
Next: How foreign are foreign affairs?

* * * * * *
©Rebecca Staton-Reinstein, president, Advantage Leadership, Inc.
Want to know more about the tumultuous fights at the Constitutional Convention and the election of 1800? Check out Conventional Wisdom: How Today's Leaders Plan, Perform, and Progress Like the Founding Fathers

I NEED YOUR HELP: I'm beginning research for my new book on the influence of leaders on their organizations (Washington's Shadow) and I'm interested in your experiences or ideas for case studies. Do you know a leader who has had a profound influence shaping the organization's culture and changing it for the better? (I'm not interested in negative stories which are much more common.) Drop me a note:

Rebecca@AdvantageLeadership.com

We've started a companion YouTube series and the introduction is up. Check it out.

Dirtiest Election Ever? Check out the media

The pundits and the media (ironically) decry the dirtiness or our politics - attack ads flourish and seem to have a real impact - SuperPACs now proliferate in the "new" no-holds-barred election cycle. Big money, dirty tricks, pants-on-fire lies and fabrications, and every low-down trick we know seem to be on display. It's all new, right? We used to have more well-behaved elections, right? The founding fathers didn't intend us to be so undignified, so down-in-the-gutter, so...

Sorry to disappoint all those folks who have never gone beyond Washington chopping down the cherry tree in their study of our history. Modern-day politicians are pikers by the founders' standards! They may even be laughing at the few "rules" we have set up.

(In full disclosure, I want to make my position very clear: I hate negative campaigning, dirty tricks, big money in the mix, and all the rest. But as a student of history and psychology, I know it ain't gonna change.)

The dirtiest election in our history? 1800, Jefferson vs. Adams. Yes, the first few elections had gone smoothly and pretty much as expected. Washington, who could have been elected every time, stepped down after two terms, establishing a precedent that would stand until Roosevelt's four terms and the predictable backlash establishing two terms as the rule. John Adams, not always the most popular of the "fathers," had served as Vice President for Washington's terms and was elected president.

But by the time of Adams election in 1796, the die was already cast. By then we had two parties who were at war with one another; The Federalists, headed by Alexander Hamilton and including Adams and the Republicans,* headed by Thomas Jefferson. Just to make things interesting, Jefferson the Republican would serve as Federalist Adams VP.**

Over the election cycle I will be looking at the big controversies in our present day and demonstrating how they mirror that critical election of 1800.

To kick it off, let's look back at where it all started for our republic.

No sooner did Americans stop fighting the British than they started fighting one another. After newspapers ceased to report on military exploits and denunciations of the Crown they began to fill their columns with the cannonades of politics. Having briefly put aside their old ways of lying and dissembling, exaggerating and trivializing, distorting and abusing and insulting, journalists turned to them again with a new and even more pointed vehemence as they began to consider the most important question of the time, possibly the most important question Americans have ever had to ask themselves: Now that we have won the right to govern ourselves, how, precisely, do we go about it?1

How indeed...The media of the late 18th and early 19th century had no rules. Every newspaper and pamphlet (the blogs of the day) was proudly partisan, secretly funded by candidates, and out to destroy the opposition.

What are the lessons for today's leaders?

• Demand better.  Whether as corporate sponsors or consumers, leaders need to demand better reporting, better information, and better coverage. Trying to find out what's happening in the world is a frustrating undertaking. The BBC is still one of the best sources for in-depth, relatively unbiased reporting. Watching CNN outside the US also means getting some thoughtful straight-up reporting. But back at home? We're back in the 18th century with "infotainment" ruling the day - lots of chatty folks, teasers for absurd stories, and the occasional headline buried in the dross. Leaders demand better results from their staffs constantly, so apply that to the media.
• Dig deeper. Thought leaders must push themselves to dig deeper into the situation. What's under the surface? What else is going on? Behind the screaming headline or breathless "news" reader, what are all the facts? If you want to blog or report or tweet or speak about what's going on, do your homework. Today we drown in lots of stuff floating around the Internet with no fact checking, verifying sources, or taking on any of the other disciplines of "serious" journalism. Leaders demand as much information and as many facts as possible before making decisions. Do the same before arguing your case. Separate opinion from a fact-based explanation.

• Decide ethically. Leaders are clear about their values and filter their decisions through those. At the same time, leaders don't need to trash the opposition to make a case. Whether supporting your favorite candidate or touting your product and services, tell the truth. There is really no need to run down the other guy or the other product to demonstrate the value in your point of view or product. Discuss the benefits. Leave the trash talk for the entertainers.

What's your idea: Can we overcome our human nature and our history? Post your responses on the blog. http://conventionalwisdominstitute.blogspot.com/2012/05/dirtiest-election-ever-check-out-media.html

*     *     *     *     *     *     *
Next: God or No God, that is the question.

*Jefferson's Republicans morphed into the Democratic Republicans and then the Democratic Party. Hamilton's Federalists never held the presidency after Adams and faded from the scene in the early 19th century. Today's Republican Party formed in the 1850s and their first president was Lincoln.

**The Constitution initially required the top vote getter to become President and the second highest to become Vice President. Because of the disasters occurring in the 1800 election, it was changed to the present form of a "ticket" with the two people running together and no splitting of votes at this level.

1 Eric Burns, Infamous Scribblers: The Founding Fathers and the Rowdy Beginnings of American Journalism, Public Affairs, New York, 2006
*     *     *     *     *     *
©Rebecca Staton-Reinstein, president, Advantage Leadership, Inc.
Want to know more about the tumultuous fights at the Constitutional Convention and the election of 1800? Check out Conventional Wisdom: How Today’s Leaders Plan, Perform, and Progress Like the Founding Fathers

I NEED YOUR HELP: I'm beginning research for my new book on the influence of leaders on their organizations (Washington's Shadow) and I'm interested in your experiences or ideas for case studies. Do you know a leader who has had a profound influence shaping the organization's culture and changing it for the better? (I'm not interested in negative stories which are much more common.) Drop me a note: Rebecca@AdvantageLeadership.com

Where is Stand Your Ground Leadership?

30 thousand people show up in Sanford, Florida. The BBC covers the rally. Morning Joe has serious, thoughtful, long discussions. One million people sign an on-line petition. After weeks of denial, avoidance, obfuscation, refusing to take any responsibility, and stonewalling, now a few anemic actions are taken in the State of Florida. (Full disclosure: my home since 1991.)

For those unfamiliar with the case here are the bare facts: (Timeline http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/trayvon-martin-case-timeline-of-events/ )

On the night of February 26, 2012, teenager Trayvon Martin was returning from the store with candy and ice tea in a cloistered neighborhood in Sanford, Florida. George Zimmerman, a local self-appointed neighborhood watchman was cruising in his truck, armed with a 9 mm semi-automatic pistol. Moments later the kid was dead on the street and the police did not arrest Zimmerman who invoked Florida’s infamous Stand Your Ground law, which condones self-defense use of lethal force if you believe your life is in danger. The kid’s crimes? He was black. He brought Skittles to a gun fight.

What happened to the killer?

Nothing. Nothing!

Zimmerman went home, still packing. The cops, police chief, city manager, city council, and every other official went home, still wrapped in the odd notion of justifiable homicide of a kid who just wanted some snacks while watching the super bowl. No public statements of outrage or even a little handwringing over the tragic events.

The family demanded justice and got indifference. If this were the 1950s, maybe that would have been the end of it. But this is the age of the internet and the 24/7 news cycle. And this is not the South of the 1950s where I grew up and such travesties went unexamined. You can’t keep your dirty little secrets any more.

So yesterday 30,000 people showed up to say ENOUGH! By now a few small tokens of action have been taken.

But where were the leaders?

Where were the designated leaders who should have been standing their ground for justice and the American values we hear so much about in this political season?

• Governor Scott finally made a public statement and started an investigation.
• Authors of the original legislation said it didn’t apply in this case and defended the odious law.
• The city council passed a nonbinding (?) 3-2 resolution suggesting the police chief step down.
• The city manager, sounding like a corporate spokesman after an environmental disaster, stonewalled and said “we’re looking at it.”
• The police chief finally went on leave.

Zimmerman is still wandering around out there, still armed. He appointed himself to: decide what a crime is and interpret the law; to bring the individual down; be judge, jury, and executioner.

Where are those defenders of the Constitution searching for original intent? Did James Madison intend to unleash vigilantes to stand their ground? Oops, Zimmerman wasn’t standing – he was running after the kid who was fleeing for his life.

This blog is usually reflecting on strategic leadership and our connection to the U.S. founding fathers. What has this to do with them? Everything…

True leaders stand their ground.

Certainly George Washington stood his ground when he faced enormous criticism from both political factions over remaining neutral in the endless wars between England and France.

John Adams stood his ground and lost his second presidential bid when he refused to go to war with France and pushed for a new treaty.

James Madison, no military man, stood his ground when he took his horse rode out to face the British invasion and defied his popular critics in the unpopular War of 1813.

In fact the Constitution exists because Madison, Franklin, Washington, and Hamilton and a few others stood their ground, conspired against the weak government under the Articles of Confederation, called the Convention, fought the new plan through state ratifying assemblies, and then made the experiment in republican government work.

So far, the elected and appointed leaders in this disgusting situation have not stood their ground. They have all been missing in action. The grieving family and their emerging multitude of supporters will overcome. Justice will eventually be done…that’s the power of a democratic society…if the leaders don’t lead, the people, standing their ground, will.

Of all the quotes on leadership that would fit this occasion, I’ll let founding mother, Abigail Adams, who always stood her ground, have the last word.

"We have too many high sounding words, and too few actions that correspond with them." 

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

(c) Rebecca Staton-Reinstein, president, Advantage Leadership, Inc.

Author: Conventional Wisdom: How Today's Leaders Plan, Perform, and Progress Like the Founding Fathers

Washington casts a long shadow... Do you?

The US celebrated President's Day this week with the usual patriotic events – giant sales at the malls. If you were out in the crush of traffic or just enjoying a day off from work it was easy to forget the holiday put together former February birthday celebrations for Presidents Abe Lincoln and George Washington. Today the holiday has become a generic occasion to honor all the US presidents…including the ubiquitous Abe and George ads hawking flat screen TVs and the latest fashions.

About once a decade, C-SPAN conducts a survey amonghistorians and presidential experts and ranks all the presidents. The 2009 survey findings are relevant and interesting for anyone anywhere who is a leader. Scholars use these leadership traits to rank the presidents:

• Public Persuasion
• Crisis Leadership
• Economic Management
• Moral Authority
• International Relations
• Administrative Skills
• Relations with Congress
• Vision/Setting An Agenda
• Pursued Equal Justice For All
• Performance Within Context of Times

Moving from the political to the organizational realm, you might want to exchange Relations with Congress for something like Relations with Stakeholders and you might want to add some other topics. For the most part, these are a good list of critical leadership traits.

How would you stack up? 

Would you be able to come close to the sort of scores George Washington racks up survey after survey? Washington's stature has grown and shrunk over the years. In his own time he was worshiped and vilified. Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin commented recently that she would find it difficult to really get to know him and he has certainly eluded most biographers.

Yet Washington was a personification of the American dream of the self-made man. As a teenager he began jotting down advice about how to conduct himself. He did not have the formal education of many of the other founders and often felt he lacked their polish with language. He engaged Alexander Hamilton and James Madison as ghost writers to turn his thoughts into the acceptable style of the day.

Yet, when army officers threatened rebellion in the 1783 Newburgh Conspiracy, he was eloquent enough on his own. Richard Norton Smith describes it this way…

None of this had much effect until the general retrieved from his pocket a congressional message promising early redress of legitimate complaints. He fumbled with the paper for a few seconds, then reached again into his coat to fetch a pair of eyeglasses. Begging the indulgence of his men, he explained to a stunned audience, "I have already grown gray in the service of my country. I am now going blind." Instantly, rebellion melted into tears.

Examine the areas where Washington rated number 1 with the scholars:

Economic Management

Moral Authority

International Relations

Administrative Skills

Are any of these areas where you excel? The international relations category may not be germane if your organization is not working globally. However, the other three are critical for any successful leader whom we would want to follow.

Economic management: Whether for-profit or not, in today’s economic climate, you must manage the finances of the organization prudently. You must invest in areas that will help you continue to grow and develop while eliminating inefficiency and eliminating unnecessary expenses.

Moral Authority: This is the essence of the Leader’s shadow. Who are you as a person? Do you perform with integrity? Are you trustworthy? Reliable? Do you care about people? Do you inspire people to be their best selves?

Administrative Skills: Can you manage people, processes, and priorities? Do you delegate, motivate, and coach people? Do you turn vision and mission into reality? Do you create a working environment where employees are fully engaged?

I suggest you spend a little time looking through the lists and see where your favorites (and not so favorites) score on each of the issues. Try to remove your ideological and political blinders and consider each president in his leadership role. No matter what country you call home, these attributes make a good checklist for leadership. What can you learn from them? How would your employees or peers rate you?

What shadow are you casting?

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

© Rebecca Staton-Reinstein and Advantage Leadership, Inc.

Link to survey: http://tinyurl.com/7arjufg

(note: quote from Patriarch: George Washington and the New American Nation. Richard Norton Smith. Houghton Mifflin Company, 1993.)

I NEED YOUR HELP: I'm beginning research for my new book on the influence of leaders on their organizations (Washington's Shadow) and I'm interested in your experiences or ideas for case studies. Drop me a note: Rebecca@AdvantageLeadership.com  

Learn more about Conventional Wisdom: How Today's Leaders Plan, Perform, and Progress Like the Founding Fathers (http://www.ConventionalWisdomCenter.com  and visit our Author Page on Amazon. (http://tinyurl.com/RSRpage )

Sign up for our Conventional Wisdom blog and read this and other leadership stories and tips. http://tinyurl.com/yk7bgtn  

Rebecca Staton-Reinstein, Ph.D., President

Advantage Leadership, Inc.

1835 NE Miami Gardens Drive, Suite 152

North Miami Beach, FL 33179

http://www.AdvantageLeadership.com  

Rebecca@AdvantageLeadership.com

Are you casting a shadow like Washington or…?

Headlines bombard us about executive pay, the tax code, and growing disparity between rich and poor. Pundits pontificate "They should or shouldn't do this." We react based on our own point of view.

But what about a leader stepping forward and taking action?

I was chatting with such a leader the other day. (I can’t reveal his name or other identifying particulars because they are not public yet.) He’s the top official of a small city suffering like so many others in this economy. Revenues are down, demands from residents and businesses are still high, and layoffs and service suspension have become the norm.

Of course he’s fighting back looking at ways to keep the city viable, growing, and innovative. He is trying to keep morale high for city workers who must meet demands, enforce codes, and keep the city running.

But this guy is going the extra mile at a time when it’s out of fashion. He floated the idea among the department heads and managers about taking voluntary furloughs…days off without pay. No big fanfare, no announcements in the local papers, no breathless reports on the local news. Just an idea. "Let's make a small sacrifice to help our city through a tough time."

He was the first to sign up to ease the city’s budget woes. He knows the pain people are suffering because in another recession he was laid off from his city job. So far a couple of department heads have also stepped forward and more are expected to do so as word spreads.

Now the cynics among us are saying, “of course it’s no big deal. He can afford it and will probably take a nice vacation. It’s just symbolic.”

I disagree…not just because I know the guy and he’s sincere. He’s taking a concrete action and setting an example for the rest of the city leaders. He’s walking the talk…something people say is important.

The official is employing "Shadow of the Leader."

Shadow of the Leader is an observation that people in authority through their likes, dislikes, treatment of others, language, personal preferences, beliefs, and values shape the culture of the organization. Employees watch the leader for clues about what’s important.

Although the idea is not new, the first systematic study was done by Larry Senn in his 1970 doctoral dissertation. (In full disclosure, Shadow of the Leader was the subject of my own dissertation in 1979.)

Creating a culture is one of the most important functions of a leader. Whatever example he or she sets will determine whether the organization achieves its stated vision, mission, values, and goals or not. We take our lead from what the leader does, NOT what he or she says…human nature.

In his first inaugural address George Washington stated he would serve without a salary. Congress in its wisdom convinced him to take the salary based on the republican principle that an official who was not getting compensation would be prone to corruption.

It was Washington’s desire to stay above the fray, always display character and rectitude, and set an example for others to follow. He knew his every move would be watched and used to set a precedent for future presidents.

If we are serious about our visions, missions, values, and goals and about leading our organizations, whether a tiny team or a vast country, understanding the power of our shadow and stepping up to take the next right action is absolutely necessary.

So hats off to the city official and those who extend his shadow to help their city in a time of need.

What shadow are you casting?

***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***

(c) Rebecca Staton-Reinstein,  Ph.D., President, Advantage Leadership, Inc.

Learn more about Conventional Wisdom: How Today's Leaders Plan, Perform and Progress Like the Founding Fathers and visit our Author Page on Amazon.

 

The Heat are ON FIRE! 5 Actions to Burn Up the Courts

The headline in the Times today says it all:

Stars Lead Late Rally as Heat Advances

Of course I was rootin' for the home team..."In the finale, [LeBron] James and Dwyane Wade alternated big shots and suffocating stops as they crushed the Bulls’ spirit and ruthlessly erased a 12-point deficit in the final 3 minutes 2 seconds," the New York Times reported breathlessly. The Miami Heat beat the Chicago Bulls 83 - 80.

So what does this have to do with strategic leadership, the theme of this blog? Actually, a lot.

http://tinyurl.com/3wyvwmt

See the Heat were down 12 points -- it looked like a Bulls victory, game over...but LeBron, Dwyane, and Chris Bosh and the rest of the team didn't get the memo. And that's part of what sets strategic leaders apart. They're playing a different game.

When I write about the founding fathers and framers of the U.S. Constitution, I don't have to go far to find examples of that different game...think of George Washington and the Continental Army encamped at Valley Forge, crossing the Delaware or leading the far bigger and more professional British army on a wild goose chase up and down the eastern seaboard. Washington didn't know he was defeated by the major military power of the 1770s. Never-the-less, it was General Cornwallis who surrendered at Yorktown, not vice versa.

When George Hanbury began his tenure as city manager of Portsmouth, Virginia, he missed the notice that the city should be razed to the ground and rebuilt. He simply rolled up his sleeves and turned the city around. When Herb Kelleher had to sell a plane to make payroll, he missed the message from the competition that he should abandon his project to start a new airline. Instead, he and CEO Howard Putnam built a profitable, unique business that is still flying high. (The original competitors are long gone.)

In Conventional Wisdom, I recount these and other stories of strategic leaders who don't give up just because someone else thinks they should. What does it take? Here are 5 actions we can all take to "burn up the courts" and be successful in tough times.

1. Know where you're headed: The Heat were headed to the Championship -- not just the playoffs. Washington was headed for an independent nation. Hanbury was headed for the return of a historic seaport where people wanted to live, work, and visit. They all had a driving, living VISION.
2. Have a strategy: None of the top basketball players are just winging it any more than the successful executives. They all have a strategy and a plan. Of course, the plan has to be adjusted to deal with reality on the ground. LeBron, Dwyane, and Chris had a game plan, they had practiced and practiced, and at the end of the game knew they had to step up the pressure and simply stop the Bulls in their tracks. When Hanbury was asked to work his magic on Ft. Lauderdale, he ran into stiff opposition. He adjusted his strategy but kept the pressure on the opposition by continuing to move forward. When the French fleet arrived off Yorktown, Washington knew he had Cornwallis trapped and the troops charged the redoubts.
3. Focus between your ears: Every new story on the brain and how it functions and the neuroscience of leadership and success shows the same thing that Henry Ford pointed out in the last millennium: "Whether you think you can or think you can't, you're right." Top athletes must have a mental game to win and hire success coaches to keep them sharp or to get back on track. Washington is well known for beginning to construct his winning character as a young man and learning from early, disastrous mistakes. Military historians may argue over how good a general he was, but there is no arguing with the results he got because of his tough mental discipline.
4. Adopt Morita Psychology: Dr. Shoma Morita developed a powerful approach to dealing with the challenges of life. It comes down to this formula: Know Your Purpose. Feel Your Feelings. Do What You Must Do. Of course this prescription is difficult and almost impossible for some folks but not for strategic leaders. When public safety unions hired a sky writing plane to fly over the local stadium spelling out the message, "Fire Hanbury," he certainly wasn't a happy camper and he couldn't ignore his emotions. But he knew his purpose was to put the city back on a firm financial footing while transforming Ft. Lauderdale from a spring break wasteland into a vibrant, modern city. He kept to his message of fiscal responsibility with a promise of better times to come. At his retirement from the city, he was praised by the unions because he fulfilled his promises, and ignored their emotional meltdowns.
5. Be relentless: When LeBron was interviewed at the end of that exciting winning game last night he said simply, and to the point, “There’s no sense of relief right now. We still got work to do.” As the founding fathers found out rather soon after the peace treaty with Britain (and as emerging governments are finding out today,) when the bullets stop flying there is still lots of work to do. Washington chaired the Constitutional Convention that put together a governing structure to save the barely united state from anarchy, dissolution, civil war, and absorption into Britain, France, and Spain. It's the last 3 minutes of the game...time to push! Sink 12 points and stop the offence and outsmart the defense.

It's time to Turn Up the Heat!
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
(c) Rebecca Staton-Reinstein, President, Advantage Leadership, Inc.
Read our latest strategy e-book on your Kindle. 30 Days to Building a Strategic Plan that Gets Results.
Find Conventional Wisdom, Success Planning, and 30 Days on our Amazon page.

Read more about the game in the New York Times: http://tinyurl.com/3wyvwmt

Don't know much about historeeee...

You may not remember the old pop song with that refrain but it could be the theme song of way too many people. My sister called the other night and told me about a meeting she went to in her town. The discussion got pretty hot and heavy and one woman pulled out her pocket-sized copy of the Constitution and waved it around as she made her points, disagreeing with whatever was being said.

Now my sister is not the shy retiring type that I am -  ;-)  - and so she asked her, "Did you actually read the Constitution?" "Well, no...but I know what it says..." and went on with her harangue, misquoting and mangling the document -- rhetorically not physically.

To my sister and me, it was a reminder us of being dragged off to tent revivals by our grammaw where various lay preachers would thump the good book, tell us what it said, and threaten us if we doubted them.

The problem with the thumpers is that in the words of the founding fathers, the constitution, or the bible or other holy books, you can cherry pick phrases that agree with your beliefs and ignore those that don't. If your audience doesn't know any better and hasn't studied the details themselves, you can say just about anything. Psychologist know that if the idea is repeated often enough, you will come to believe if, even when faced with hard facts to the contrary.

Here's an example from a letter to USA Today (7/1/10) from a writer commenting on the passing of Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia.

Our Founding Fathers did not intend congressional positions to be life-long ones. They felt that it was the duty of our leaders to give of their time and manage their states temporarily, and that this was in the best interests of their constituents...

We have senators...[who] have become professional politicians.

He goes on to support term limits AND age limits.

There are many good arguments for and against term limits...but how the founding fathers "felt" is not among them. There were among the founders those who saw it as their duty (or privilege) to serve in government for a while and then return to private life. George Washington is a good example.

But not all the "fathers" followed that path nor believed it was the best path. Three examples from three different political philosophies come to mind. Patrick Henry was one of the most powerful professional politicians in Virginia and served in a variety of positions in the state including the governorship. He was a strong "states rights" defender and foe of the new federal Constitution because it removed the absolute power of the states.

John Adams started out as a lawyer but was soon drawn into the Continental Congress and became a professional politician, serving as a representative in the Continental Congress, and as a diplomat in France and England. With the establishment of the new federal government he became Vice President and then President. He was a Federalist and only left office when defeated by Jefferson in the election of 1800.

James Madison beginning in his mid-twenties was only out of public office for a couple of years. He served in county and state legislatures, the Continental Congress, worked with Alexander Hamilton and Ben Franklin to engineer the Constitutional Convention, served in the new Congress, was Secretary of State under Jefferson, and finally served as a two-term president. Although starting out with a strong nationalist/federalist bent, he moved away from this by Washington's second term and worked along side Jefferson to found the Republican Party (which later morphed into the Democratic Party.)

My point is that the letter writer didn't know some basic history, which he could have discovered in a  history book, on the web, or (in the olden days) in school. But that seems too hard. I recently set my Google Alerts to look for references to the Founding Fathers -- everybody adopts them to prove their points. I'm on a quest to confront ignorance with facts.

The founding fathers were as complex, complicated, and conniving as any modern politician or leader. They were humans. They had their points of greatness and their follies. We should admire them, not because we can find some words they uttered that fit our political views but because of what they did, sometimes in spite of themselves, to create a system of government that works and is self-correcting through the will of the people.

Before you adopt their words to prove yourself right, read the entire body of their work. Learn what books they were reading and what philosophers influenced their thinking. Know what was going on in the wider world and in their world.

Learn a little more about historeeeee....

*    *    *    *    *    *    *    *

(c) Rebecca Staton-Reinstein, President , Advantage Leadership, Inc.

Want to know a little more about historeee and contemporary leaders? Check out Conventional Wisdom: How Today's Leaders Plan, Perform, and Progress Like the Founding Fathers. Available on Amazon.

Want to read a couple of chapters first? Send an email to Rebecca@AdvantageLeadership.com with "Chapters" in the subject line.