The Real Trouble With Free Speech

In his excellent book, "Worse Than War" (2009, Public Affairs, New York), Daniel Jonah Goldhagen explores the issues of "genocide, elimination, and the on-going assault on humanity". At the end of Chapter 9 he makes the comment "actual minds create actual worlds". His point is that what we think about other people and what we believe should be "our" world eventually becomes the "actual world" for us. When an opportunity then arises where we can bring that world into being, we tend to grab it with both hands. If our thinking is around the exclusiveness of our family, our group, our race, etc then, when given the opportunity we will try to ensure everyone else acknowledges this and yields to our wishes. "We are in control". The result is often "worse than war".

I've been thinking about this a lot lately as the issue of free speech has been debated in the Australian media. In an earlier blog, talking about the incidence which started this latest discussion on free speech, I said:

"Before I proceed, let me make some things clear. First in relation to free speech. In my new book "Third Generation Leadership and the Locus of Control: knowledge, change and neuroscience" (2012, Gower Publications, UK), I make the following statement:

I have spent my life believing in the power of a democratic society where the rule of law ensures that people will not be imprisoned without trial; that habeas corpus is a vital component of a free society; that secret police and interrogation without legal representation is wrong and an abuse of power; that freedom of faith, speech and association are inalienable rights – even if I disagree totally with what you say, believe or with whom you associate, you have an absolute right to say what you want, follow the faith or non-faith of your choice, and associate with whoever you wish."

There are many people in every society who don't think critically about what they hear on the radio, see on TV or in the movies, or read in the newspaper. People who specialise in propaganda (from Goebbels down) have known and do know this. The result is that they are fully aware that if you say something often enough and authoritatively enough, eventually many people will believe it even if it is palpably untrue. For this reason every person and/or party pushing a particular agenda seeks to ensure that their message is propounded strongly and often. The role of "shock jocks" in the media is often critical in this.

Some would argue that this then becomes an abuse of "freedom of speech". I disagree. The real trouble with freedom of speech is that, all too often, the right to speak out is too seldom used by those of us who do apply our critical faculties to what we hear, what we see, and what we read. This failure by us to speak out ultimately runs the risk of letting "the inmates run the asylum". If that happens then, as Goldhagen makes very clear, the following words by Pastor Martin Niemoller (which originally applied to Nazi Germany) could have increasing relevance in today’s society no matter where that society may be:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

What sort of "actual world" do you want? If we are concerned about the messages promulgated by radio, TV, films and/or newspapers our response should not be to advocate some form of censorship. Rather our response should be to ensure that our voices are heard along with the others. But let's make sure we do this in an acceptable and respectful manner. A mark of true leadership is that we ensure all voices are heard - not just those who promote bigotry and discrimination.

What do you think?

More about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

What Alan Jones’ comments really tell us

Over this past weekend it has become clear that one of Australia’s most influential broadcasters – someone who is sometimes labelled a “shock jock” grossly overstepped the mark in a virulent and totally offensive set of remarks about the Prime Minister and the very recent death of her father.

   

Before I proceed, let me make some things clear. First in relation to free speech. In my new book "Third Generation Leadership and the Locus of Control: knowledge, change and neuroscience" (2012, Gower Publications, UK), I make the following statement:

I have spent my life believing in the power of a democratic society where the rule of law ensures that people will not be imprisoned without trial; that habeas corpus is a vital component of a free society; that secret police and interrogation without legal representation is wrong and an abuse of power; that freedom of faith, speech and association are inalienable rights – even if I disagree totally with what you say, believe or with whom you associate, you have an absolute right to say what you want, follow the faith or non-faith of your choice, and associate with whoever you wish.

Second, in relation to politics. I am a past member of the Liberal Party in Australia and was once asked to nominate for Federal Parliament. I am no longer a member of any political party and, again as I say in "Third Generation Leadership and the Locus of Control: knowledge, change and neuroscience", I think a strong case can be made for arguing that the rise of political parties is a sign of the decline of democracy. For that reason I support independent candidates at elections.

In other words, I write this with no political agenda and from a perspective which believes Alan Jones (and anyone else) has an absolute right to free speech.

I believe that attacks such as this one by Jones tells us a lot about Jones and, from the fact that, with one exception, no-one at the function where he made the remarks appears to have been offended by them, we learn something about the people who were present that evening. It tells me that these people have no real concept of the unconditional respect for a person that ought to be the hallmark of leaders and aspiring leaders. It indicates to me that these people are ones who are lacking in true self-confidence and who compensate for this lack by a retreat into some form of fundamentalism and attack. In "Third Generation Leadership and the Locus of Control: knowledge, change and neuroscience", I say:

Self-confident people are those who understand that there is no need for any form of ‘talking down to’ or ‘putting down of’ other people. Self-confident people are those who always treat others with respect and who, as a result, ultimately expect to earn trust and respect for themselves ... A self-confident person is one who is always cognisant of the fact that everyone has his or her own issues with which they have to deal. .... Self-confidence is not weakness or any behaviour that indicates a lack of personal resolve. But neither is it the bold, brassy over-confidence that is encountered in the worst examples of some who seek to place unacceptable levels of pressure on people in order to achieve results.

Alan Jones (and his supporters) exhibits all the signs of a G1 Leader and of what I term "First Generation Leadership” – an approach that became challenged during the 1950’s and which has long since reached its “use-by” date. This is a male-dominated, “born-to-rule” approach in which the leader considers himself (it is usually a male) beyond reproach and with no need to show any respect to others unless they comply with his thinking and demands. Invariably First Generation Leadership and bullying are inextricably intertwined.

If a person wants to be a grub and/or a bully, that is their prerogative. But the existence of grubs and bullies should alert us to the need to change both what we look for in leaders and how we behave as leaders. What do you think?

More about Douglas Long at http://www.dglong.com

"nato" Leaders

Some years ago I was speaking at a conference in Finland. In the discussion period that followed one member of the audience said "You have described problems with leadership very accurately. These problems are most often seen in nato (No Action Talk Only) leaders. These are the people who are quick to criticise, happy to utter platitudes, very full of themselves, but utterly useless when it comes to getting something done." Looking around it seems to me that this pseudo nato group is very much alive and well.

I thought of that when I was speaking with a political leader recently. Despite his party being elected with a very strong majority, virtually everything has been referred to a committee and the response to questioners is along the lines of "we're looking into it". Not only does this person appear to be a nato leader but it looks like its a "nato" leader meets Through the Looking Glass" scenario.

Now I have no opinion as to the leadership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (the "real" NATO) because, in part, living in the antipodes means that we are outside its influence. But I do have an opinion of the No Action Talk Only group (the pseudo nato) who purport to be leaders. My opinion is not positive and it extends to virtually all political leaders (no matter what their flavour); to those who conduct and/or focus on weekly (or other far-too-frequent) political opinion polls; to radio "shock jocks"; and to many of the analysts who prognosticate on what profits should be expected from public companies and who. by so doing, encourage a focus on short term results rather than long term issues.

Frankly I'm tired of low-profile, emphasise-the-negative politics designed to get some person or party into positions of power - and this politicking occurs just as much in large organisations as it does in the overtly political arena. Its not real leadership and its not real management - it is evidence that the scourge of PPM (Piss Poor Management) permeates to even the highest positions around.

Why do we have so much bullying, violence, and significant degrees of anti social behaviour? I suggest because all-too-often it is modeled by our political "leaders", by radio "shock jocks", by one-eyed opinion pieces in newspapers, and the like. The people responsible seem to think that only their opinion or cause is "right" or "just" and they seem to feel free to demean and attack those with different views or opinions. This isn't leadership - its bullying and should be labelled as such. We cannot seek to confront bullying in the school ground, in the work place, on the web, or anywhere else until we have confronted it in our "leaders".

We need leaders of substance. These leaders are those who have robust discussions and debates without total negativity, ego trips, or demeaning others. These leaders will acknowledge both their own weaknesses and the strengths of others. These leaders will seek the best for all followers even when this comes from others. These leaders will seek to act in a way that is best for all rather than just for themselves or their ideology. These leaders will inspire us with a vision and they will set out this vision in a way that makes us all want to work together in order to make it a reality. Where these leaders see something they believe is wrong, they will develop and offer positive alternatives and they will show how these alternatives can be implemented. When given the opportunity, they will act to bring about the better future about which they have been talking. These leaders are truly authentic and are people worth following.

Let's get rid of "nato" leaders. Lets get rid of bullying.

More about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

More signs of PPM

Bullying is only one sign of PPM (Piss Poor Management)! There are many others.

Here are some examples provided to me in the past two weeks:

• A manager who employs people on the basis of the lowest remuneration possible rather than on ability to do the job required
• A manager who refuses to confront poor performance and low quality work because he feels it is important to be "liked" by his staff
• A company where senior executives seldom visit any of the 9 sites away from Head Office and ignore immoral and possibly illegal activity by the managers in those sites - the result is apprentices not paid for overtime work and the emergence of unsafe work practices
• A company where there is a high turnover of qualified staff because they are unhappy about the high volume, low quality work practices encouraged by managers

My point is that PPM can have many faces.

Good managers ensure that everyone clearly understands performance criteria in both qualitative and quantitative terms. They also ensure that those performance standards are high enough to stretch people yet low enough to be attainable. These performance standards are then broken down into easy-to-understand results areas and performance indicators that are properly monitored. Where criteria are being met, recognition is given and where criteria are not being met, clear action is taken to get things back on track - performance standards are not allowed to slide. Good executives ensure there is appropriate oversight and governance in all areas for which they are responsible.

Its not "rocket science" - supervisory and management programs have been teaching this for at least 50 years and good managers have practiced it since time immemorial.

We need to address and eliminate PPM!

What are your experiences with PPM? I'd love to know. Please write your comments below.

More about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

Bullying - a clear indicator of PPM

The Macquarie Dictionary defines a bully as "someone who hurts, frightens, or orders about smaller or weaker people". It goes on to suggests synonyms that include "bulldoze, coerce, intimidate, threaten, tyrannise".

Leaders and good managers understand that bullying is oxymoronic. A leader and/or a good manager cannot be a bully and a bully cannot be a leader and/or a good manager. We need to remember this because every time we see a so-called leader indulging in coercion, intimidation. making threats etc that person has immediately forfeited his or her right to be called a leader. They may be in command or in charge, they may be #1 in their hierarchy or organisation or on the airwaves (all of which are perfectly legitimate roles) - but they are not a leader and they are not a "good manager".

Over recent blogs I have explored the issue of PPM (Piss Poor Management) and common to every example I have provided - and common to every example provided to me by other people - is the fact of one person using their position, title, money, power, physique, or some other part of their persona to coerce, intimidate, or threaten others. The result is that the other person felt a degree of insecurity, apprehension or fear in relation to their physical, emotional, psychological, or employment security. In other words, the person with the power has created an environment in which increased productivity, creativity, commitment, and motivation are highly unlikely to continue. People have been set up for failure rather than for success.

In my last blog I suggested the media should consider a "bullying index" that they put alongside all reports relating to politicians, captains of industry, talkback radio hosts, union officials, etc - in other words against every person seeking to exercise power and authority in every area of the community. The media often advocates naming and shaming for various other matters - why not for bullying?

If we're serious about eradicating bullying among young people then we've got to stop it in their role models!

Whoever you are; whatever your position in society; no matter what your wealth, status or anything else, you are a role model to someone. What sort of role model do you provide?

You don't have to be a bully! You can choose to be a leader.

What do you think? I'd love to know - please make your comments below.

More about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

The Bullying Curse

At least in Australia (and probably elsewhere), today has been designated as one devoted to awareness of bullying. On the news this morning, there was a lot of attention paid to the issue of both physical and cyber bullying in schools and among youth in general. This is a good thing.

But I wonder if it doesn't miss the point.

Children absorb lessons from role models - that is the message clearly and consistently given by educators, psychologists, and everyone else concerned about society. If this is so (and I believe it is) then surely the place to start in combating bullying is with the role models.

When I read a newspaper, listen to the radio, or watch TV I am constantly aware of bullying by those with power and authority. Some examples:

• Politicians bullying others through sarcasm, denigration, and outright abuse that is supported by constantly seeking to portray their opponents in a negative light
• Mining magnates bullying the country by lobbying and threatened legal action against any attempts to more equally distribute the mining wealth
• Australia's richest person threatening her children with bankruptcy and enlisting the support of prominent politicians in order to maintain control of huge trust funds then using the legal process to try and ensure the Australian public is kept ignorant of what is going on
• Business leaders using the threat of moving jobs off-shore unless employees agree to reductions in working conditions and lower remuneration increases while their own salaries and their organisation's profits soar
• Union leaders threatening industrial action quite early in negotiations unless they get what they demand for their members
• Radio hosts and journalists who push their own agendas then ridicule or denigrate those who seek to challenge what is presented
  

I suggest that its no wonder we find bullying in schools when the rich and powerful in society are so blatant in their own bullying while decrying that which occurs amongst children and young people.

Bullying is bullying is bullying - no matter who does it, where they do it, or the guise under which they do it.

When I was a child my parents taught me that bullying always indicated insecurity and feelings of inadequacy in a person. "Be sorry for the bully," I was told, "they're the person with problems. They are so obsessed with themselves that, no matter what their pretence, they have no real interest in others - or in the truth."

Its not easy to ignore the bullies. Like most other empty vessels, they make the most noise. But we need to be very careful about encouraging them.

Perhaps all forms of media should have a bullying scale that they present alongside all reports that show words and/or actions of those who purport to be role models. A type of "name and shame" to combat bullying everywhere.

What do you think? Please post your comments below.

More about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com