SPECIAL POST: “We also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well …”

Before the Baltimore riots reached their full crescendo on Monday afternoon, mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake made a critical leadership error––one that likely incited or at least exacerbated the mayhem.

In the relative calm following the “purging” riots, she compounded that mistake.

One of the most important strategies for effective leadership is clear and effective communication. From THE SENSEI LEADER:

The most effective leaders are effective communicators.

Who you are as a leader becomes reality in the minds and hearts of others through what you say, how you say it, and most importantly, how people hear you.

I keep singing this song, but a leader is someone with the ability to attract willing followers. Trust plays a big part in that ability and the key to trust is effective, clear communication consistent with your values and actions.

Mayor Rawlings-Blake’s first mistake was her now widely quoted statement made prior to Monday’s escalation and out of control rioting, looting and arson. As quoted by NBC News:

“It’s a very delicate balancing act because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well, and we work very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.”

Don’t just read her words. Watch the following video …

Late Tuesday, in the wake of the destruction, she was asked directly if her words had incited the riots or worsened conditions. Her response was that “… the blatant mischaracterization of my words was not helpful.”

A leader must communicate clearly, especially in a time of crises and especially under pressure.

I admit that when I first heard the pre-riot press conference, my first reaction was that she certainly couldn’t have meant what she said. I gave her the benefit of the doubt and assumed that she meant what she is now claiming, that leaving space for “those who wished to destroy” was simply an inevitable by-product of giving legitimate protestors room to express themselves without an onerous police presence––which may have instigated more trouble.

I listened to that press conference at least a dozen times. If the mayor had not intended to give the impression that she was granting a license for destruction, she did a piss poor job of it. Her statement, if not her meaning, was perfectly clear––she would leave space, and “those who wished to destroy” took full advantage.

Now she’s walking back her statement and casting the blame on those who “mischaracterized” her remarks. Her first mistake would be forgivable under the circumstances, had she owned up to it. Her second mistake is reprehensible.

If you make a mistake––own it!

It’s not the responsibility of your followers or constituents to decipher the nuance of your meaning. It’s your responsibility to communicate clearly. Blaming your audience because they didn’t assume you didn’t mean what you said is simply petulant and not the mark of a great leader.

Mayor Rawlings-Blake could have simply said that she had chosen her words poorly. She could now clarify what she meant, but the appropriate response would be to apologize for her failure to clearly articulate her intended meaning.

Her attempt to shift blame does nothing but diminish her credibility. As I write this article, I’m following another communication problem centering on the mayor …

She claims she did not order police to stand-down as the riots escalated. According to police officials, someone gave that order. FOX News reports:

“Asked directly if the mayor was the one who gave that order, the source said: ‘You are God damn right it was.’”

People forgive mistakes. People can understand poor communication under pressure. They are not as tolerant when you blame them when you say the sun is shining and expect them to know you meant to tell them to bring umbrellas.

As I said in THE SENSEI LEADER:

“Be honest. Enough said.”

Respect: Are we losing it?

In the past week I found these stories:

• ESPN anchor barrages towing company clerk with insults
• Bystanders record video while woman gang raped at spring break
• Mob of kids attack man walking elderly woman to car
• Senator Chuck Schumer calls a flight attendant a “bitch”

Nearly every time I speak I tell a story of a young man who taught me the true meaning of the word “respect.” I also share this story in my new book, THE SENSEI LEADER:

Years ago I was asked to speak at an elementary school. The teachers there were impressed with the respectful behavior of my students in school and asked me to talk to the rest of their students about respect and responsibility.

I still do this today whether I’m talking to a group of kids or to C-level executives––I started the talk by asking for a definition of the word “respect.”

Go ahead and do the same exercise right now. Take just a couple of minutes and try to clearly define the word “respect.” Most people have some gut level understanding of the word. They know it when they see it, they know when it’s not there, but at the same time most people struggle to explain exactly what respect is.

One young man stood up and knocked me completely off my script. This young guy stood up, bowed, and said:

“Sensei—respect means taking care of one another.”

You might as well have punched me in the stomach. I literally had to sit down and catch my breath.

Have you ever heard a better definition of the word respect?

Believe me, this was not one of the responses I had pre- pared for. After gathering my thoughts,

I stood up, bowed to this young philosopher, and said:

“Thank you! You are exactly right. Respect is–– taking care of one another.”

There is a vast difference between calling someone a bitch under your breath and watching with amused detachment while an unconscious woman is violated. However, there is a frightening connection through all of these incidents …

… Have we completely lost our capacity to care for one another?

Stories like these are not new, but they’re becoming alarmingly more common. I want to focus on the two I just mentioned.

What’s the big deal about the Chuck Schumer comment? After all––it was something said under his breath to a companion––not intended for prime time and certainly not within the hearing range of the offended party. Isn’t this something we all do from time to time?

I have to admit that I’m guilty myself––that doesn’t make it right––it makes me just as wrong.

Worse, Senator Schumer is a recognized leader. As an elected leader, he holds the public trust. It’s one thing when a paid entertainer like the ESPN anchor is overheard in an unguarded moment; it’s quite another when a United States Senator does it.

All that flight attendant did was ask the Senator to observe the same rules that apply to all of us when we fly––no doubt rules he supported as a legislator. He could have showed a little caring––and simply turned off his phone.

The Panama City spring break rape is a horrifying example of the worst loss of respect.

While a young woman is passed out, several men took turns violating her. She did not report the incident; she did not even remember it.

The story was only found out when bystanders posted video online. Watch the video and what you’ll see is sickening. You’ll see several––and I mean several people watched the rape dispassionately. They were much more concerned with recording video than helping prevent a brutal and perverse assault.

So what do these two incidents have in common? Aren’t they at opposite ends of the spectrum?

In outcome, yes. Schumer’s remark ultimately had no consequence to the offended flight attendant. In fact, she and others who routinely work that flight said his attitude was typical for him.

The Panama City rape represents our basest and most horrifying human behavior.

Both, however, are remarkable examples of how callous we’ve become. How little we’re willing to show caring sometimes. How little respect we have for one another.

Believe it or not, I’m optimistic and I see and meet many more caring and respectful people than I do callous and uncaring people. However, until and unless we’re willing to address this growing epidemic, these incidents will only grow in frequency and intensity.

Evil thrives where good people do nothing!

Senator Schumer should not have said what he said. He obviously didn’t intend his remarks for anyone else’s ears, but somebody heard him. He is a leader and his actions and words mean something.

The bystanders in Panama City are as culpable as any of the actual rapists. They not only stood by instead of stopping the attack, but instead of calling the police they used their phones to record video.

The only way to reverse this trend is by holding people accountable––by holding ourselves accountable.

We’ve once again got to learn how to … take care of one another.

Photo of angry businessman courtesy of ImageryMajestic and FreeDigitalPhoto.net

SPECIAL POST: The scandal of the century! The New England Patriots and Deflategate

Well…

…not so much the scandal of the century. There are actually several other breaking news stories that will have much more impact on our lives and on our society.

Having said that; I’ve been called out…

Several people challenged me to comment on my beloved Patriots. They’re saying that as such a vocal champion of ethics and moral courage, how can I possibly give the Patriots a pass on this one?

Well, this scandal does serve as an opportunity to talk about moral courage and just as much, moral outrage. In the spirit of full-disclosure, although I wasn’t going to publish anything about this mess, I also know that using the trending keywords: Brady, Belichick, Patriots, NFL, football,  deflate, Deflategate and- balls, will certainly post post readership today.

Moral courage is doing the right thing even when it’s not convenient, comfortable, expedient or even profitable.

If anyone in the Patriots organization tampered with their balls after the official check by the referees, then by all means should be held accountable and punished accordingly. If they are eventually convicted (in football court) of breaking the rules- I will be finished with them…and those who know me understand what that means. There is no greater fan of the New England Patriots than I.

Just as interesting is the swift condemnation of the Patriots by the sports media and the public as soon as there was even the slightest inference that the game balls may have been deflated.

Pitchforks and torches, anyone?

Haven’t we learned from so many recent events where the initial reaction trumpeted by the press and omni-cast over social media proves to be 180 degrees from the facts?

Those who know football…not the Sunday only expert who has never cracked pads, will tell you, as most rational analysts have, that the amount of deflation alleged in the Patriots case had absolutely no effect on the outcome of any of the games in question. Point of fact, Tom Brady’s stats were far better in the second half with fully inflated balls.

Brady himself said he couldn’t tell the difference between the balls inflated to 13.5 psi, and those found to be at around 10.5. Former MVP quarterback Joe Theisman, among others, confirmed that in that range, there is little if any difference.

WHOA! So I’m making excuses for my beloved Pats! (Well, that’s what some have been saying.)

Well, no. If they cheated, as I keep saying, I’m done with them- no matter that the infraction is considered relatively minor even by NFL standards.

My point here is that calls for suspending Brady, Belichick and even the entire Patriots team- banning some or all of them from the Super Bowl, are simply ridiculous. If they cheated, there are already specified punishments in the NFL rules, the commissioner has the discretion to levy additional sanctions and the damage to their brand may be irreparable.

Which takes us to the next level of hysteria…

Following yesterday’s press conferences, where both Belichick and Brady denied any knowledge of illegal tampering with their balls, the lynch mob came out in full throat…

“Liars!”

Well- it’s possible. Once again, if they actually cheated, that’s bad enough. If they lied on top of that, their careers may well be over and the legacy of their organization would be destroyed.

Would both these men risk all that?

As I said, that is possible. People do strange things in the pursuit of even the smallest advantages. That is why moral courage requires constant attention, nurturing and cultivation.

But- as the situation plays out, it seems unlikely. Experts are nearly unanimous in the opinion that the advantage gained by deflating their balls is at best negligible and had no effect on the outcome of any of the games in question. Even if they were arrogant or superstitious enough to think they would gain an advantage by cheating this way, they would be far better served to come clean and pay off the relatively minor penalty imposed by the NFL specified for such an offense.

In fact, they could have turned that revelation into a PR juggernaught and a huge psych-out to the Seahawks!

“Screw you! Ya- we cheated, and we might do it again! You better worry about more about our balls than where Gronk is on 3rd and 7!”

Instead, both Brady and Belichick took their lumps in what were probably the most uncomfortable press conferences in their careers- and both were unwavering in their denial.

Of course, we’ve seen other high-profile people do the same only to find out later that they were lying. Only time will tell.

Are we just addicted to scandal?

Have we completely abandoned the principles of innocence until guilt is proven and that evidence is required to convict?

Do sports just bring out our most primitive instincts and our innate tendency to join the lynch mob?

Sometimes the simplest answer is the right one…

Physicists don’t seem puzzled by the mystery deflation at all. Several noted academics have already explained that the pressure in a closed container, like a Wilson Duke, would lose about 1 psi for every 10 degree drop in temperature.

Boston.com quoted Martin Schmaltz, Professor of Physics at Boston University:

“’If they had inflated the balls inside the building and put it to the minimum amount, and then brought it outside to temperatures that were about 30 degrees lower, that would drop the PSI by between 1 and 2,’ Schmaltz explained.”

The Boston Herald cited Michael J. Naughton, Chair of the physics department at Boston College:

“If 11 of 12 footballs were deflated by two pounds, that is totally within the realm of the numbers that you would get in the equation. Weather will certainly deflate the footballs by a pound or two.”

What if, after all this hullaballoo, we find out that because Brady likes his balls on the softest end of the allowable range, (that does sound weird, doesn’t it?), that the only reason his balls were soft was that it was colder outside than in the locker room?

Any gentleman who has attended a cold, rainy game in Foxboro can attest to a similar effect!

(Sorry- just had to.)

Compared to the greater issues of the day, does it matter whether or not the Patriots cheated?

Arguably not.

It matters to those of us for whom the Patriots provided moments of joy during tough personal times, and for those of us who appreciated the Pats as the ultimate underdog story…and for those of us who always admired Bill Belichick and Tom Brady as examples of what can be done through hard work, discipline and focus.

If they are found guilty, it matters as another example of the decline of moral fortitude in our culture.

But still, for most people, it’s not going to matter at all.

As for me, I’m hoping that Brady and Belichick are telling the truth. I believe they are.

And if they’re not…

Doing the wrong thing is sometimes rational – does that make it right?

I was recently challenged on a social media thread in response to a post I published titled Do you have the courage to do the right thing?

The comment went something like this:

“If you’re desperate and broke, robbing a bank can seem like the right thing to do. So can quickly pocketing that $50 you find on the street before anyone can see you take it.”

No-

Those actions may be rational, maybe even understandable depending on the severity of the circumstances. For example, you might consider stealing if that were absolutely necessary to feed a newborn infant and you had no other options in the moment.

Understandable? Rational?

Probably both- but not “right.”

These decisions would be expedient rather than right.

Moral and ethical standards are determined by the law, social mores, religious beliefs and generally accepted cultural principles. You usually know when you’re crossing the line- or at least have a feeling that you’re testing it. You usually have to stop and think because you know you’re violating one of those standards.

Grandma was right- if you have to think about it, you’re probably doing wrong!

That wrong action may be expedient- it may serve an immediate need.

It may be rational- it may be better to steal than starve.

It may even be understandable- people generally forgive the pilfering of food from a store during a severe crises like a widespread natural disaster…

…but that does not make it morally or ethically “right,” and when you do wrong, there are consequences. Those consequences may be minor or it might be easy to make amends.

If you pilfered from the local grocer during a hurricane, you could easily offer to pay once the emergency is over. If you pocketed the $50 on the street and remorse set in, you could try to find the person who lost it.

However- consequences may be severe and the price you pay later might far outweigh any short term benefit.

Doing the right thing is not always as easy as it might seem, especially when risk of consequence is low or the offense is minor.

Can you think of some other examples?

However difficult it might be, you’re always better off choosing right over expedient. You’re almost always better off in the long run when you…

…do the right thing.

Photo of man in chains courtesy of Patrisyu and FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Moral Courage – Do you have the courage to do the right thing?

Moral courage is your willingness to do what is right- even when it’s not comfortable, convenient, expedient or profitable…

I’m sure you’d like to think you’d do the right thing under any circumstances, but doing the right thing can cost you money, your reputation, your business or even your safety or your life. What are you really willing to do when there are real hard choices to be made?

Moral courage can be heroic, but in most cases, a moral dilemma does not involve a risk to life or limb. Very often, the most difficult moral challenges deal with your response to authority.

Are you willing to carry out orders you know are just plain wrong?

One of the classic experiments in this area was the “Milgram Experiment.”

From SimplyPsychology.com…

“Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, conducted an experiment focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience.

He examined justifications for acts of genocide offered by those accused at the World War II, Nuremberg War Criminal trials. Their defense often was based on “obedience” – that they were just following orders from their superiors.”

The subjects of Milgram’s experiment were ordinary people recruited through a newspaper ad:

“The procedure was that the participant was paired with another person and they drew lots to find out who would be the ‘learner’ and who would be the ‘teacher’.  The draw was fixed so that the participant was always the teacher, and the learner was one of Milgram’s confederates (pretending to be a real participant).

“The learner (a confederate called Mr. Wallace) was taken into a room and had electrodes attached to his arms, and the teacher and researcher went into a room next door that contained an electric shock generator and a row of switches marked from 15 volts (Slight Shock) to 375 volts (Danger: Severe Shock) to 450 volts (XXX).”

You’d probably like to think that you would never administer a shock to another person- certainly not a shock that would cause pain or discomfort- or even worse. If so, you’d be the exception, not the rule.

Watch this now infamous footage…

Before you condemn the poor sap in the video, fully 65% of the participants in this experiment were willing to hit another human being with full voltage- even though at that time they knew they were possibly doing great harm, maybe even causing death.

Later attempts to replicate Milgram’s results called into question some aspects of his methodology. Still, this famous experiment serves as a stunning example of what can happen if lack the moral courage to resist authority, even when we know we’re acting in the wrong.

The most interesting aspect of this experiment involves something Milgram called the “agentic state.”

Briefly, this means you’re more likely to turn up the juice on your fellow man when you think you’re acting under what you consider to be a legitimate authority, and especially when you think someone else is taking responsibility for your actions under orders.

Sadly, there is nothing you can do that absolutely assures you’ll act courageously when you face a serious moral dilemma…

You can, however, greatly increase the probability that you’ll act courageously by training your mind and by examining possible moral issues you may face in your life and in your work.

Ask yourself…

• Would you refuse orders, even if doing so risked your job or career? Where would you draw the line?

• Would you speak out if you saw someone else being abused or mistreated at work? What if the instigator is your boss?

• Would you ever lie to protect yourself, your job or your reputation? If so, under what conditions?

• Would you ever cheat or lie if a large amount of money were on the line? How much would it take to get you to cross the line?

The trick is not to wait until you’re faced with conditions that challenge your moral courage…

Imagine possible situations and conditions you might face now. Decide what you would do- then practice and reinforce that thinking to give you the best possible chance of expressing true moral courage when you most need to.

Most of all, you can teach moral courage to others, especially children, by example and by open discussion of difficult moral and ethical issues. Teaching is a powerful way to both examine and formulate your likely response to moral challenges.

I can’t guarantee I’ll always choose the right course. I do know that spending so much time studying and teaching the importance of moral courage makes me much more confident in my ability, when the time comes, to…

…do the right thing!