Let's Ban "MISTAKES WERE MADE!"

   Mistakes were made...Every time I hear that phrase I cringe...How about you?

   Mistakes were made--so vague, so passive, so un-leaderlike.

   Yet, people keep using it. It screams out from the headlines and assaults our ears from the TV.

   Mistakes were made. At first it looks like the leader is taking responsibility for the mistakes. But study your English grammar a little more closely and another picture emerges.

   Mistakes were made. What does it really mean? 'Mistakes' is the subject of the sentence in this passive voice. But the object of the sentence--by whom--is implied. By whom? We don't know.

     Mistakes were made. What the leader is really saying is, "OK, folks, we tried to hide the mistakes but now you've got the evidence so we have to say something that sounds like we're on top of it and sounds like we're taking responsibility. It also buys us time to decide whom to sacrifice...whom to throw over the back of the troika to the wolves--the press, the public, or the employees? Maybe, while they're gnawing on those bones, we can think of something else to divert their attention."

     Mistakes were made, indeed! The first mistake is that we made a bad decision. But then we compound it by ignoring it, covering it up, blaming someone else or taking actions that are incorrect.  There is only one correct answer.

     "I made a mistake. I take responsibility. Here's what I'm doing to fix it." And on a personal note, "Here is what I've learned and how I will apply that in the future." And, by the way, "I will take the consequences."

     I interviewed a wide variety of leaders for my book on strategic leadership, Conventional Wisdom: How Today's Leaders Plan, Perform, and Progress Like the Founding Fathers. I chose them because they had a track record for translating their visions into reality and transforming their organizations. I asked each, "What was your worst business decision and what did you do about it?" They all had similar reports. These are typical:

     "There was a story in the newspapers about a major mistake that we made. You can make excuses for it or you can be transparent about what happened. I sat with the media and I walked them through it and they accurately described it to the public. I hope other companies who read the story will learn from it. But the key is to take an adverse incident like that and turn it into something that we can learn from so it doesn't happen again."

     "Mistakes? I've made some doozies! The ones I've always regretted were the ones where I reacted and said something I didn't mean or that was based on wrong information. One was very visible and I was confronted by a reporter with an email that I had sent. I learned a lot from by boss that day about what a great executive does. He told me to go immediately to everyone on the list and apologize and be humble. It was hard but I did it. The press kept going but all but one individual was satisfied. I learned a lot from that."

     How do you create that environment of responsibility for the entire company?  Listen to another CEO:

     "I want everyone to see our corporate values walking down the hall every day. Let's combine the mind and the heart. It's all about having a mission, and a culture. They've heard so much about making money, budget, and business plans. When we switched back to emphasizing the mission, the values and the culture, the metrics followed and we went from single digit returns to double digit returns."

     Nary a one of the CEOs I interviewed said 'mistakes were made' or any of its variants. Their message was clear. Real leadership, strategic leadership, is about taking responsibility every day for the decisions you make and living your values in your actions.

     I heard a story on the news some years ago that brought it all home in a different context. A high school student's parents were suing a teacher and the school system. The student, who had a good record, made a decision to turn in a class project late after a school trip. The teacher had made it plain that late projects would not be accepted so the student earned a failing mark. The student made the decision not to turn the project in before the trip. Now the parents are suing for the trauma to their daughter. Mistakes were made! What lesson is this young person learning? What lessons are we teaching our employees and colleagues?

     I have some advice: Let's ban that despicable phrase, 'Mistakes were made,' from the language. Let's take full responsibility for our bad decisions, learn from them AND take the consequences. Let's demonstrate our values 'walking down the hall.'

     What's the "mistakes" culture like in your organization? Are people rewarded for accepting full responsibility or are the thrown under the bus? Does every leader take responsibility for his or her mistakes? Or is blame the name of the game and "mistakes were made."

Learn more about your work environment and receive feedback about how it compares to other places. Take our survey, labeled the Whacky Workplace. http://tinyurl.com/jl9cn8p You will also receive a copy of our comprehensive study when it is published next year.

© Rebecca Staton-Reinstein and Advantage Leadership

Read more about what successful strategic leaders do about handling their mistakes in Conventional Wisdom: How Today's Leaders Plan, Perform, and Progress Like the Founding Fathers.

Join me on LinkedIn.

Rebecca Staton-Reinstein, President, Advantage Leadership, Inc.

320 S. Flamingo Road, Suite 291, Pembroke Pines, FL 33027

Rebecca@AdvantageLeadership.com  www.AdvantageLeadership.com

Dirtiest Election Ever: Beyond Obscenity to Articulate a Vision

In the recent “presidential” debate, just when we thought it couldn’t get any lower, sure enough one of the candidates made a vulgar allusion. (Yes, you had to have a dirty mind to catch it.) Of course the media are all atwitter. (Can Twitter be atwitter?) They run the clip over and over, pretending to be offended, but they run it ad nauseam.

So what? Move off the networks and onto the cable channels and the Anglo-Saxonisms flow regularly across the airwaves. But looking back to the really nasty election of 1800 and its parallels with 2016, what is the story when it comes to salty language and attack words? At the time Thomas Jefferson and John Adams faced off in what historians cite as the dirtiest election ever, what was the state of public discourse? In some ways it was as coarse as today.

Today, as in 1800, there were words people thought too rude for public discourse. But behind the scenes? There folks weren't as gentlemanly as we like to think, especially when talking among themselves. Adams’ surrogates claimed Jefferson was an atheist who wanted to turn churches into brothels. Adams’ irascible personality and weight were always fair game for “His Rotundness.” 

George Washington had a towering temper he usually kept in check. 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. One of their favorite games was inventing wilder and wilder sexual puns about Gouverneur Morris' wooden leg and his way with the ladies. James Madison was infamous among his contemporaries for his dirty jokes.

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 an 1806 letter to Benjamin Rush hurled this diatribe against Hamilton for his remarks denigrating George Washington.

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 and even treason. Generally they lambasted one another with innuendo as well as direct attacks. It can be a delicious pastime to dissect their elaborate language and watch as they slip the verbal knife between the ribs and give a fatal twist.

Today it's so easy go for the obvious obscenity rather than the creative cut. In the 2012 presidential race, George Will wondered why Candidate Mitt Romney was embracing Donald Trump, whom he called a “bloviating ignoramus,” certainly an arcane insult the founders could have appreciated in their own rough and tumble elections.

Is this what we want to hear from our leaders? Has reality become reality TV? Are there any Leadership Lessons in all this? Perhaps a few:

·  Leaders control themselves: George Washington was prickly, 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. He knew "losing it" on a regular basis causes people to disengage.

·  Leaders cultivate creativity: "Bloviating" is such a yummy word, I'm sure folks 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, communicate better for collaboration, without reducing everything to the lowest common denominator.

·  Leaders do not condone crudity: Leaders know language can offend like the bawdy stories and sexist remarks disappearing from most workplaces. Leaders insist on better communication not to be "politically correct" but to be inclusive; they need everyone engaged. Leaders foster serious, passionate debate and discussion to unearth the best solutions.

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 learn from them precisely because they made mistakes and then triumphed over their human nature.

This doesn’t mean we want this dubious name-calling, sexual-innuendo tradition to continue. When I watch fired-up candidates yelling insults rather than debating issues and policies, I flash on our sons as teenagers sitting on the sofa hurling barbs and punching each other. Normal teenage malarkey...but not the vision of leadership, functioning on the global stage or wrestling with intractable conflicts and seeking resolutions and peace. I hope we deserve better.

Jefferson, Adams, and the other founders showed us real leadership in tough times. They rose above their character defects. Can we do the same as we select a world leader?

* * * * * * * *

What's your idea: Can we joust without bloviating?

* * * * * * *
(c) Rebecca Staton-Reinstein and 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 started a companion video series during the 2012 elections that holds true today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbcLmL3HuHo 

Let’s Monkey Around: Will the Year of the Monkey Improve or Thwart Productivity at your Workplace?

The Year of the Monkey has arrived in the lunar calendar bringing in wittiness, cleverness, intellectual curiosity, and, of course, fun and mischievousness.

The Buddha used Monkey as a vivid metaphor: “Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one...In the same way, what’s called ‘mind,’ ‘intellect,’ or ‘consciousness’ by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.” (Samyutta Nikaya 12.61) BJ Gallagher pushes the destructive side of the metaphor further, describing our minds as “drunken monkeys, jumping around, screeching, chattering, carrying on endlessly.” (Buddha: How to Tame Your Monkey Mind in the Huffington Post.)

Monkey, therefore, is a great symbol for our distracted, do-more-with-less, fractured Whacky Workplaces. But Monkey has other alleged characteristics we can use to create a more productive environment; hard work, adaptable, fast learner, clever, intelligent, many interests, disciplined, creative, and fun.

Think about your current work environment. Which part of Monkey’s persona describes it best? Which Monkey comes out to play? Positive environments invite us to be creative and use our full spectrum of talents and brain power while negative ones simply drive us to distraction, suppressing our initiative and creativity.

Nine is a lucky numbers for Monkey. Here are 9 tips to keep those Naughty Monkeys at bay, free up our Ingenious Monkeys to counter the Whacky Workplace and create an environment where we can tap into all our positive traits.

Monkey works very hard: In a Whacky Workplace hard work is not rewarded. In fact, the boss often assigns more work because of poor delegation and management. We know we are supposed to work smarter. Hard-working Monkey knows the secret; work very hard on the most important tasks aimed at accomplishing objectives and getting necessary results.

Monkey adapts: In a Whacky Workplace the situation is always fluid and chaotic, lurching from crisis to crisis. Adaptable Monkey doesn’t waste time bemoaning the situation, gossiping, or supporting dysfunction. Adaptable Monkey focuses on objectives and results, figuring out HOW to get the job done.

Monkey is a fast learner: The Whacky Workplace lacks formal training and education and teaches the wrong lessons. Learning Monkey wants to learn and use every resource available to increase knowledge and skills. Learning Monkey is always proactive and never sits back waiting for the company to provide training.

Monkey is clever: The Whacky Workplace ignores ways to improve. Clever Monkey cannot resist seeking a better way to get the job done. Clever Monkey wants to improve efficiency AND effectiveness, asking, “How can I make this better for our customers and colleagues?”

Monkey is intelligent: The Whacky Workplace is DUMB, wasting time, money, people’s abilities, and everything else. Intelligent Monkey is too smart for that sort of nonsense. Intelligent Monkey harnesses brainpower to analyze the situation, finds the root cause, tries out solutions to solve the problem, and thinks ahead to prevent problems in the future.

Monkey has many interests: In a Whacky Workplace, only the Distracted Monkey is encouraged with endless incentives to multitask. But Interested Monkey knows neuroscience; the human brain cannot multitask but moves from task to task and back again, eliminating focus and flow. Interested Monkey focuses on the most important tasks, getting results and meeting goals before grabbing the next interest branch.

Monkey has discipline: In a Whacky Workplace, self-discipline goes out the window. In these environments being disciplined and focused is seen as a negative when everyone else acts like drunken monkeys. Disciplined Monkey creates an oasis in the chaos so important work can go on. Disciplined Monkeys and their teams keep on turning out results.   

Monkey is creative: In a Whacky Workplace, creativity is consumed in survival. Creative Monkey keeps creative intelligence focused on creating new goals, inventing new products, and anticipating customer needs. “Thrival” is Creative Monkey’s watchword.

Monkey has fun: In a Whacky Workplace, fun is off the menu. In fact, communication, relationship-building, and cohesion are frowned upon, while fear, cliques, and internal competition are promoted. Fun Monkey knows play releases our creative and intellectual powers. Fun Monkey focuses on building strong teams who enjoy working and playing hard together. Fun Monkey makes sure we celebrate milestones, holidays, birthdays, and exult in the pure joy of life.

Let all these great Monkeys loose in your workplace, your team, and your life. Monkey around a little and enjoy the results in greater productivity, better results, and happier team members.

Monkey Business is Good Business.

*   *   *   *   *

Find out how your organizations compares to the Whacky Workplace. Take this short survey bit.ly/1ir731H and discover where you score on the Whack-O-Meter (designed by Mischievous Monkey.)

Looking forward to your comments on the Year of the Monkey. 

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) 

If it’s Kind to be Tough, it’s Tougher to be Kind

I’ve always been an advocate of Tough Love. Lots of leadership books advocate this approach. We admire folks who can carry it off with grace and get the job done, especially when making almost impossibly difficult decisions and forcing people to develop. In retrospect the kindest things leaders did for me was to be tough and insistent upon my change and growth.

I could recount several stories from my own life, both personal and professional and I’m sure you could also. Sometimes it took me years to see the correctness of the other person’s action and appreciate that tough love.

So I’m NOT going to rant against this kind of toughness.

What I want you to consider is an addition; Kindness.

I’m not talking about being wishy-washy, overlooking issues, or avoiding tough conversations. I’m not saying everyone gets a trophy, gold star or free pass.

I’m talking about genuine kindness. You remember what that is...think back to when you were a kid...helping a friend with her math homework when she was struggling...putting a hot water bottle in the new puppy’s bed to comfort his first night away from his mother...writing Princess Elizabeth a sympathy note when her father died...

 

Kindness often gets lost in our hard-charging world. I was reminded of this recently when I heard a remarkable leader talk about her "leadership secret sauce." One of her 10 rules was Be Kind. The audience of business executives was a little surprised when Marylouise Fitzgibbon announced this one. She has built a reputation in the hospitality industry as a rising star with a track record of drastically improving properties. Now as General Manager of the W Hotel on Fort Lauderdale Beach, her hotel is steadily becoming a leading representative of the brand. 

Kindness is very different from tough love. Fitzgibbon is talking about getting out of our own way. Think about a time when you’ve had an employee, peer or friend do something truly awful. We humans tend to react with anger in these situations and whether we take the flight or fight route we are almost never kind when dealing with the person. If we decided to confront the person, most of us find it extremely difficult to control body language, words, and tone when the metaphorical smoke is leaking out our ears. If we decide not to confront, the overwhelming urge to gossip and put down the other person usually takes over with just a dollop of sarcasm to keep it spicy.

The alternative kindness path is much harder than either of these reactions. Being kind in these situations is NOT reacting. Being kind means putting ourselves into a very different space; a place of genuine caring for the person who has acted so badly. It’s more than deep breathing or counting to 10. Kindness requires us to get in touch with that part of us that is capable of genuine caring about the other person. Only in this state can we talk with the other person and, more importantly, listen to what he or she has to say with openness, compassion, and engagement.

This is a tough order. It goes against some of our firmly held beliefs and the notion of what a strong leader is and does. When you are open and kind in this way, you can now deliver the tough love message so it can be heard by the other person. You are not holding back on the consequences or necessarily taking any different action than you would have in the situation. Instead you are treating the other person as a person and being rigorously honest with yourself.

 

You are acting. You are returning the love to tough love.

At the end of the conversation and action you won’t feel the elation of self justification or winning. You will feel a sense of peace because you acted with integrity and allowed the person to keep his or her dignity intact, often accepting the consequences, which is where the real growth we want from tough love comes from.

To learn from Marylouise Fitzgibbon’s full 10 leadership tips watch this: 

http://youtu.be/fibpbLlEXyM 

What’s an example of when you were kind when you could have been hardhearted in a tough work conversation? Share it as part of our quest for leaders who cast a long shadow.

*   *   *    *    *

I'm beginning work on my new book Washington's Shadow: How Leaders Cast a Long Shadow and Create a Positive Culture. Please share your stories or nominees for leaders you know who have transformed the organizational culture positively. This will be a "how-to" book to help others do the same.

Dirtiest Election Ever: God or Not God, That is THE Question

Religion seems to always raise its specter during the silly season - the election cycle. This is one of the smarmier sides of politics - folks attacking Romney and his religion, Mormonism, as a cult and non-Christian; other folks accusing Obama of being either a secret Muslim or white-hating black Christian...

After a while it seems like outrages get more extreme...but is it anything new? Unfortunately not. The "dirtiest election ever" was held in 1800 when Thomas Jefferson faced off against John Adams...and guess what? Religion and accusations about religion were front and center. Remember, in 1800 ALL newspapers were affiliated with one or the other party. There was nothing that resembled unbiased journalism...and there were virtually no rules. NOTHING was sacred.

Jefferson, the Vice President, was the standard bearer for the Republicans. (No not the same party as the one today. Jefferson's Republicans morphed into the Democratic Republicans and later the Democratic Party.) Adams, the sitting President, represented the Federalists (who died off in the early 1800s.)

Both were "founding fathers" and recognized as great patriots.

Adams had been one of the first to push for a break with England and was a leading member of the Continental Congress and helped write the Constitution for the new State of Massachusetts. He had been part of the committee charged with writing the Declaration of Independence. He served as Washington's Vice President and kept the new country out of wars with England and France.

Jefferson was also part of the committee charged with drafting the Declaration. Adams  proposed Jefferson should create the draft to bring back for approval by Congress. Jefferson had served as war time governor of Virginia and was almost captured by the British. He had served as Adams' Vice President, Washington's Secretary of State, and,  earlier, been our representative to France.

Both men had sterling credentials...

This was the era of the Enlightenment that  swept Europe and the colonies. Adams, Jefferson, and the rest of the Revolutionary generation were weaned on John Locke's treatises. So it should come as no surprise that Jefferson was a Deist. In all probability so were Adams, Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton. The difference was these gentlemen never made public pronouncements or recorded their views in writing and Jefferson did.

If you're wondering what a Deist is...Essentially they believe god may have created the universe but does not intervene after the creation. Nature's laws can be studied and understood. There is no need for organized religion. Scriptures are interesting but not divine revelation. People must use and develop their rational capacities to solve the problems of the world. Logical belief for the children of the Enlightenment was heresy for the dominant Protestant culture of country in 1800. To add a little spice to the religious mixture, the late 18th century was the period known as the "Great Awakening" in America as a highly spiritual, evangelical spirit and "dissenting" religions spread across many states.

Jefferson had committed one huge sin in the eyes of many devout Christians (and political opponents.) He had written the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Its goal was to disestablish the Episcopal Church as the official religion in the state, allow freedom of conscience for everyone, and no longer allow state taxes to go to support religious schools and churches. (His buddy, James Madison, a masterful politician, got it through the Virginia Assembly, used it as a basis for writing the First Amendment to the Constitution later, and incurred the wrath and retaliation of Patrick Henry.)


Jefferson created his own version of the bible

So let the games begin.

Adams was vilified as a monarchist, still a dirty word in 1800. He was accused of plotting to set up a hereditary monarchy beginning with his son John Quincy.

The common epithet thrown at Jefferson was atheist, an accusation attached to him throughout his long political career. During the 1800 elections cycle Jefferson's support of the French Revolution earned him yet another attack - Jacobin. Like his French counterparts, it was said he wanted to destroy religion and abolish churches and private property.

Jefferson was the subject of viral attacks in the press. Yes, that's nothing new - it just took a little longer as other papers and pamphlets copied the following from the Gazette of the United States, a Federalist paper, and spread it:

The Grand Question Stated: only question to be asked of every American...Shall I continue in allegiance to God and a religious president or impiously declare for Jefferson and no God? 

Substitute today's candidates and the effect is the same.

What are the lessons for leaders today?

• Ignore labels: Successful strategic leaders know great ideas can come from anyone. They also know a religious or political label does not reveal how a person will behave and act. Bigotry, prejudice, and bias have no role for leaders. Savvy leaders search themselves for these traps and consciously refute them.
•  
• Advocate: Successful leaders will take their cue from James Madison. Madison was a religious man and member of the Episcopal Church. Yet it was he who brought his legislative skills to bear to oppose Patrick Henry and the Virginia elite and pass the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom and penned the First Amendment to the US Constitution and shepherded it through the first Congress. It was Madison who championed the separation of church and state and opposed appointing a chaplain for Congress and opening sessions with prayer. Leaders advocate for the rights of those who have no advocate.
•  
• Practice What You Preach: Leaders put their faith or beliefs into action. We fault the founding fathers for their refusal to end slavery. Perhaps one of the most stunning exceptions was Robert Carter III, member of the Virginia elite. In 1791 he walked into the local courthouse and initiated the process to free all his enslaved people. He grew into his beliefs as part of the Great Awakening. He was a member of integrated churches, some of which had black clergy, and all of which preached complete equality. He freed over 450 people, more than anyone freed prior to emancipation 60 years later. Carter took what he believed to be the right action. His position was, "My plans and advice have never been pleasing to the world." Despite being ostracized by his fellow planters and ignoring the financial impact, he continued to support his former bondsmen, provided them land, and lived with them as neighbors.
•  
• Refute the Ridiculous: Leaders have the courage to refute the mud slung at their opponents. Throughout the down-and-dirty election of 1800, John Adams never refuted the attacks on Jefferson, nor did Jefferson refute those hurled at Adams. They were long-time friends and knew one another well. They knew the truth about one another. They missed an opportunity to demonstrate their greatness. Leaders defend the truth with enthusiasm as John McCain did in 2008 confronting the birthers.

What's your idea: Can we leave religion and matters of conscience out of politics and the workplace? Please post your comments.
* * * * * * *
Next: Discourse before the F-Bomb

* * * * * *
©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

Leadership Avoided? Rometty vs. Augusta

If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice, or representation.

Abigail Adams

Abigail always spoke her mind and got right to the point. She's been on my mind the last few days because of the serendipitous convergence of two separate events.

On the national scene, this is week of the Masters golf championship played at the Augusta National Golf Club...or should we say the epitome of the "old boys" club. Locally, here in South Florida, Women Executive Leadership held its regular book club meeting. WEL works to put more women on corporate boards and in executive positions.

So what's going on?

 

The Augusta facts are fairly simple. The golf course opened in 1933. Women are not allowed to be members although they can play the course by invitation. The club excluded Blacks until 1990. IBM has been one of the major corporate sponsors for the Masters tournament at Augusta and the four previous CEOs were invited to join. Current CEO, Virginia M. Rometty, has not been invited.

The WEL book club discussed Knowing Your Value: Women, Money, and Getting What You're Worth, by Mika Brzezinski, co-host of MSNBC's Morning Joe. Her book discusses the struggles of women, even those in top positions, to get paid what they are worth or at least comparable to men who hold the same positions.

When the women's movement re-emerged in the early 1960s many of us believed the days of sexism were numbered just like de jure segregation. But as Mika and Virginia and many of us have discovered, we still have a way to go (despite what the cigarette commercial told us.) Not asking for what we want has been a major stumbling block for women. In our book club discussions several women pointed out how they had overcome this barrier -- all very inspiring and great role models and path breakers.

But wait a minute...It's 2012. 2012. Not 1933 when no one saw any problem keeping women out of a club. Not 1957 when we first met June Cleaver being the perfect housewife/mom. No, it's 2012 and not only is it time to end the nonsense of unequal pay which hurts companies who say they embrace diversity and empowerment and engagement and...

But where are IBM and Virginia Rometty in all this? Can you imagine the same situation if Augusta still didn't admit Blacks and IBM showed up to sponsor the Masters with a Black CEO?

Let's go back to Abigail again for some more of her conventional wisdom:

Arbitrary power is like most other things which are very hard, very liable to be broken.

Here's where a little leadership could come in. What if the CEO and her board simply said, very politely and ladylike of course, "Sorry, guys. We won't sponsor an event at your discriminating club."

But if such a conversation took place, it hasn't come to light yet. IBM's 14-member Board which boasts 3 women including Rometty, has a wonderful opportunity to take some leadership here. It's not about whether Rometty would like to be a member or not personally. Reportedly she's not an avid golfer. This is about standing up and saying, "This is not the way we do things at IBM. We don't need to have our name associated with your troglodyte policy. We'll look for other events to sponsor that reflect our corporate culture."

In fact, IBM has two pointed statements on its website, taking this exact stance:

Employee well-being and diversity

Employee well-being is incorporated in every aspect of IBM’s global business, from our strategic and business planning to our operations. IBM also has a longstanding commitment to diversity and considers it a competitive advantage in serving clients.

This strong foundation brings us to where we are today...This is the point where we can take best advantage of our differences — for innovation. Our diversity is a competitive advantage and consciously building diverse teams helps us drive the best results for our clients.

So now's the time for some leadership...from both men and women; the IBM Board and CEO, the Augusta membership, every woman who has yet to demand what she is worth, and every man or woman who has been complicit in keeping the biases alive.

Or we may just have ot invoke Abigail's rallying cry and...

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

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

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

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