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

How you respond tells a lot

 Recently I made a serious mistake. A week or so back I read a magazine and thought the material in it was interesting and informative. It contained an article on leadership and I wondered whether the publishers were interested in extending this to a dialogue. So I submitted a brief (1100 words) article and asked whether they accepted unsolicited material. I have done this before and, in a number of instances, my material has been edited and printed – invariably with the result that more articles appeared from other people and some good dialogue took place.

Yesterday I heard back from the publishers who told me that their contributors all paid for the privilege of having their articles published. I was offered a deal of 3 articles providing I paid $900 (plus GST) for each one. Over the years I have submitted many articles to newspapers and magazines (and have been paid by the magazines every time a submission has been accepted) but this is the first time that any publication anywhere in the world has asked me to pay to have a submission published. I politely refused the offer, explaining: “It appears as though I totally misunderstood your magazine – I didn’t realise that its articles were actually advertising promotions rather than informative material to foster general understanding and debate”. I also pointed out that nowhere in their magazine could I find anything to indicate its articles were actually paid advertising.

Did I get a response? Sure did and it amazed me. Within minutes the publisher replied:

Dear Doug,

Thank you for your prompt response. I believe that some part of the society under the influence of the current government and their green comrades has stopped realising that we still live in a capitalistic society and all products in the market place must be paid for.

Thank you for your help and please let all your associates and business friends know that they shouldn’t expect something for nothing from others trying to increase their business profile and/or sell their valuable knowledge and products. I received 4 requests including your kind offer just today to provide my business services for free.

We also have a very informative and self-explanatory website where you and your associates can easily find all the information on how to advertise and contribute an article in ZZZ Magazine.

I wish you all the best in helping others and yourself release your and their potential in yourself, themselves and others.

Yours truly,

ZZZ

PS I suggest you to request help from comrades in ABC for some free media space.

I have talked a lot over the years about the areas of our brain that control how we think and act. Regular readers will be fully aware of the “red zone” – “blue zone” dichotomy that impacts and determines whether we are predisposed to a First Generation Leadership, a Second Generation Leadership, or a Third Generation Leadership approach. My new book, Third Generation Leadership and the Locus of Control: knowledge, change and neuroscience (2012, Gower Publications, UK) sets this out in some detail.

Clearly the publisher of the magazine with which I was in contact operates from the “red zone”. The result is that an innocent attempt to develop a dialogue draws a response that tells us more about the responder than perhaps he realises.

One of the major problems I see in society today is that the “red zone” is the default for most of those in roles of leadership, authority, and influence. This is seen across the board whether we are talking politics, business, religion, or anything else. The result is a closing down of real dialogue and an attempt to “put down” or denigrate those who may have an opinion or stance that is different from one’s own. All too often it leads to extreme “right wing” and/or “left wing” positions that do little, if anything, to bring about a creative, innovative society.

Unconditional respect for all people regardless of any discriminating factor is the underlying concept of Third Generation Leadership and of the “blue zone” area of our brain’s locus of control. A key aspect of unconditional respect is that it never insults or denigrates the thinking of another. This publisher’s response adds reinforcement to the call for us to embrace a new way of interacting.

Do you ever ponder on what the responses you make or receive really tell the recipient? I do!

I’d love to know what you think.

More information 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

#Claymore, NSW: a failure in leadership

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has a weekly program called “4Corners”. Last night the program was about poverty in Australia and it posed the question of why, in one of the richest nations on earth, Australia has some 2.2 million people existing at or below the poverty line and some 600,000 children live in a home where no-one has a job. (The program can be viewed at http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/1009153)

   

To illustrate this situation 4Corners chose to visit Claymore – a town of about 3,200 people located about 50 km from the centre of Sydney. This town has the highest proportion of young children in Australia with around 1500 children living in a 1.5 km distance. The program pointed out that, a few years ago, the NSW Government realised that there was a serious problem with the way Claymore had been set up and they decided to tear down much of the town and rebuild it to encourage a wider population mix. The Federal Government agreed to help; joint funding was provided and work started. However, when the new NSW Government came into power they decided that this was an area in which they could save money so the program is now in limbo. The realistic cynic in me suggests that it was an easy target for the money savers because they knew there would be little if any outcry from such an impoverished community.

Some years ago an article in, I think, Harvard Business Review argued that a primary role of leadership was to set people up to succeed rather than letting success be a random end variable. This was a theme I had been propounding in my program “Leadership In Senior Management” (then being conducted at Macquarie Graduate School of Management) and which I continued in both Leaders: diamonds or cubic zirconia and, most recently, in Third Generation Leadership: knowledge, change and neuroscience (2012, Gower Publications, UK). Claymore (and all other such areas no matter where in the world they may be) is clearly a failure in leadership.

I watched this program last night with an ever increasing feeling of anger and frustration. How and why has this situation come about? The people in Claymore (and in every other similar area) are no different from the rest of us. They are born with exactly the same potential as every other baby. They have every right to exactly the same hopes, ambitions, and opportunities as every other child. Yet, looking at the faces of these children and listening to them it was obvious that they live in a socio-economic environment that sets them up for failure and which, ultimately, destroys many of them.

I had heard of Claymore before the 4Corners program. I had paid lip service to being concerned. But I had done nothing. By my inaction I had become part of the problem – I was no better than the politicians who cut the funding required to renew the area. My anger and frustration was directed at myself as much as to anyone else. I lay awake last night and thought about what I needed to do.

I have decided to become part of the solution and I invite you to join me.

Claymore (like all of its similar areas) was established or allowed to establish itself at a time when our dominant leadership paradigm was First Generation Leadership or Second Generation Leadership. In these models the leaders know what is best and seek to impose their solution - albeit often under a guise of community consultation and discussion. As so often happens, in these models, yesterday’s solutions have become today’s problem. The root cause of the problem was never really addressed and, like a boil which is treated only by applying some form of medical dressing, it later erupts in a more painful and virulent form. First Generation Leadership and Second Generation Leadership have proved to be tragic failures in Claymore and similar areas. We need a new approach.

In Third Generation Leadership: knowledge, change and neuroscience I discuss how individuals can grow and develop when this is facilitated by the right type of leadership – a leadership that believes the answer to a person’s issues is to be found within that person and where the leader listens in the belief that, with supportive facilitation, the person can actually find their own answer.

I don’t have the answer on how to change the socio-economic situation in Claymore and I don’t believe anyone who says they have “the” solution. Every situation is different and what has worked somewhere else has only a random chance of working here. I believe that the answer to Claymore’s (and every area similar to Claymore) problems is to be found in its own community. I believe that there are many people in Claymore who know how the situation can be changed and who want the situation to change. I believe, too, that they feel powerless to do anything because they know that they’re not being listened to and that they will not be listened to unless they say what those with power and authority want them to say. I believe these people are experiencing learned helplessness from the way in which they have been and are being treated by Governments and society at large. This presents an enormous challenge.

There are two key things to remember if you want to join me:

• First, people don’t “have” to change. Ultimately the decision as to whether or not a person wants to develop a new world view and to grow is a choice that only each individual can make for him or herself.
• Second, remember that willingness to change is very difficult when a person feels totally helpless and disrespected

From experience, I know that the path forward is to create an environment in which people feel:

• emotionally safe
• unconditionally respected
• believed in as individuals
• listened to

I’m unsure as to how to do this for an entire community. But I’m sure it can be done – and I know it must be done.

If you want to be part of the solution to the issues at Claymore (or any area like Claymore no matter where in the world it may be) I invite you to make contact with me and help me move this forward. I know it will take time and money and lots of effort. But I believe the potential end result is worth it. I’m prepared to put in my time, money, and effort. But I need help – tons of it. If you really believe in people and you have a “can do” approach, please join me.

If we don’t put a fence at the top of the cliff we may not have enough ambulances to care for those who fall.

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

Pondering on Paranoia

There's an old joke that goes something along the lines of; "I'm not paranoid. I just think everyone's out to get me!"

I thought of this when I saw recently that the Australian Security Services and Police want to have legislation forcing all Australian telephone and internet usage to be retained for two years so that these records are available if and when the authorities want to have access to them. The argument is that technology today makes it relatively easy for those with criminal intent to communicate in ways that make it increasingly difficult for the authorities to keep track of what is going on. In turn this makes the task of safekeeping Australia and Australians more difficult.

Ever since the events of 9/11 we have seen knee-jerk reactions to the issues of security and policing. The fear of possible terrorist attacks has been used to introduce legislation that subverts long-held and immensely valuable principles such as individual rights to privacy and to free association, the presumption of innocence, the right to legal representation, habeas corpus, and a transparent legal process. Today in most of the western world - certainly in the USA, Great Britain, and Australia - we have legislation similar to that which traditionally has been used only by totalitarian or potentially totalitarian regimes. This has lead to activities by our Police and Security Services today which, in an earlier time such as the Cold War period, we in the west rightly condemned.

Those supporting this shift argue that, for those with nothing to hide, there is nothing to fear. Of course, in theory, they are right. However taking such a stance is really to consider the issue from a simplistic perspective. It is based on the premises that those in authority will always act in ways that are totally ethical and that they will always observe strict probity - and such premises are palpably false as is shown regularly by the all-too-frequent investigations into corruption and unethical behaviour of those in positions of trust.

Some years ago I was appointed a Justice of the Peace in Victoria and, subsequent to that, I sat on the Bench at two local Magistrate's Courts in Melbourne. Prior to sitting on the Bench all of us being commissioned were sworn by the Chief justice of Victoria. During this swearing-in ceremony as an Honorary Justice at the Supreme Court in Melbourne the Chief Justice of Victoria reminded those of us being sworn that, as persons now empowered to fix bail for accused persons, to sentence guilty people to periods of imprisonment and/or to impose monetary penalties, to authorise search warrants, to issue arrest warrants, and perform other activities involved in the legal process we had to ensure that we did not abuse our powers nor allow others to abuse the legal system – the rights of all people were to be respected in the administration of justice.

Criminal activity - including terrorism - is always wrong. But there are serious dangers in allowing untrammelled access to private conversations and legal activities and even more serious dangers in allowing basic legal rights to be removed. And activities which hide behind the screen of "in the national interest" so as to avoid any form of judicial or public investigation are the most dangerous of all. These, as the past has tragically taught us, always contain within them the potential for totalitarianism to emerge.

There is a balance required. However moving further along the path envisaged by George Orwell's "1984" is far from the way we ought to be moving.

Many years ago, Pastor Martin Niemöller in Germany wrote a well known piece lamenting indifference to abuses and atrocities conducted in Nazi Germany. He spoke of general indifference and inaction regarding Nazi treatment of the Jews, Communists, and Trade Unionists before concluding:

Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

Unless we see some real leadership that challenges current political and security agendas, then I am very worried that Niemöller’s words from yesterday may well be our epitaph tomorrow.

Your trumpet calls

Yesterday I was doing some shopping and, while waiting for service, I casually read the signs alongside the counter. One in particular caught my eye. Written in red on a white background was an A4 card with the words "HFM only stock Australian product".

Over recent months there has been much in the press about retailers sourcing product from outside Australia. Go to your local butcher, fishmonger, fruit and vegetable vendor, and, especially, your major supermarket chains and the probability is that much of the product is sourced from outside Australia. Many in the Australian community are concerned about this and people such as the entrepreneur Dick Smith constantly exhort us to think about the source of product when we are buying anything.

I'd never seen this sign before - I buy from specialist shops rather than from supermarkets wherever possible because I believe the supermarkets need competition and small local retailers are the best source of this. But the sign still made a difference in my attitude to HFM - it made me feel even more positive towards them.

I looked again at the prices shown in the shop where I was waiting. They were very comparable with those in the supermarket next door - clearly no premium for buying the Australian product. When, a few seconds later, I was served, I commented that the sign ought to be larger and that HFM should make more of this. The person at the counter didn't really seem to understand what I was saying. He smiled and agreed but, today, nothing had changed.

The statement that "HFM only stock Australian product" is a strong marketing claim that sets it aside from its larger competition. It is a critical point of differentiation. Yet it seems to have been made almost as an aside by someone who obviously knows its important yet doesn't seem to know how to make the message stand out.

It set me thinking.

How often do all of us have clear and important points of differentiation yet we either fail to recognise them or we fail to make them clearly and prominently enough. I, for one, am sure that this is an area in which I screw up quite often.

It reminded me of a statement I heard long ago: "If the trumpet doesn't make a clear call, who will get ready for battle?" And also of another statement once heard at a seminar: "if you don't blow your own trumpet, someone else may use it as a spittoon!"

In today's highly competitive environment, whatever goods and/or services we are offering can easily be confused with commodities - the similarities are such that prospective customers/clients bag everything together and, in lieu of clear differentiation, make buying decisions on price or familiarity. This can make things especially difficult for the small operator or for the new entrant to any field.

Points of differentiation should be trumpet calls.

How clear is your trumpet call of what makes you different and why people should buy from you? It needs to be very clear. It needs to be loud. And it needs to be frequent.

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

Stop the PPM NOW!

So the Australian Federal Parliament has gone into the winter recess without resolving the issue of desperate people trying to get a better life - refugees - by risking their lives on inadequate boats. I have no doubt that, despite the shows of emotion during the debates, we will now be regaled by blame apportioning - each side will blame the other for its intransigence and, no matter what the rhetoric, all will try to make political capital out of the fiasco and tragedy.

Our politicians are showing themselves exemplars of PPM - Piss Poor Management. They say that political points should not be made out of this. They claim to be interested in and concerned about the refugees. Then go and continue their puerile facade of blaming each other for a failure to stop the boats coming. Their behaviour belies their words. Their behaviour makes it clear that they don't give a damn about the refugees - they are interested only in their own political stance and the possibility of retaining or obtaining power. This applies to all the political parties in our Federal Parliament.

Like many others, I've had enough of the negativism from the Coalition opposition. I've had enough of the resolute refusal to consider any view but their own from the Greens. And I've had enough of the "do it my way" from the Labor government. And I've more than had enough of the rambling rhetoric of the radio and news media shock jocks who foster extremist views through their commentary on the refugees themselves and on any attempt to take a truly humanitarian stance in dealing with them. And I am totally fed up with the demonising of refugees coming by boat when, in reality, they comprise only a small proportion of the illegal migrants in Australia who have arrived legally, mainly by air, and then overstayed their visas.

It is not an offence to be a refugee. It is not an offence to flee from perceived persecution. It is not an offence to be so desperate that you get on an unseaworthy vessel, travel huge distances, and endure untold hardship in order to find a better life for yourself and your family.

After World War II we took in huge numbers of refugees from Europe. Some of what, today, are our most successful business operations were founded from amongst these numbers. After the Vietnam War we took in thousands of refugees. Today many of these are making their mark as valuable contributors to our society. What's different with these new people?

Part of the reason they are refugees is that we have helped destroy their homelands. We invaded Iraq on a lie; we invaded Afghanistan on a pretext; we are complicit in terrorising people in Pakistan's border areas through the use of drones that kill the innocent along with the possibly guilty. We rightly mourn the deaths of our own solidiers in these conflicts; we are rightly concerned at the physical and emotional injuries suffered by our soldiers in these conflicts - but what about the innocent victims - the "collateral damage" -in these countries. This is the source of the refugees. We share a significant proportion of the blame for their condition because we have contributed to their plight.

I understand that true leadership is a foreign concept to our politicians, but, just for once, it would be great to see them look at the really big picture then do the right thing - place genuine concern for these refugees that we have helped create ahead of their petty political posturing. Until they do that then the task given to former defence chief, Angus Houston, is the ultimate act of cynicism (and that's no reflection on Angus Houston - its just that he's not being set up for success.)

People are dying while politicians play games. That's Piss Poor Management at its worst.

Our politicians need to stop this PPM now.