America has lost the “Art of Leadership.” We no longer develop men and women with integrity or selflessness. Instead of Statesmen, we have political hacks only concerned with getting reelected. Politicians with no backbones or the courage to stand up against injustice. We have a Congress of sycophants willing to do whatever they are told to do regardless of how unethical or immoral it may be. We have thousands of lawyers who do not uphold justice but find arguments to support an amorality that meets the letter of the law but ignores the significance of decency, goodness, honesty, conscience and fairness.
In this blog and the ones to follow, I will write about insights regarding leadership from one of the greatest American leaders and Presidents of all time. I found a compilation of these in an old collectors edition of “Civil War Times” published in Winter, 2013. There are 41 in total, and I have already covered the first in a previous blog. I would like for you to hear the words of Abraham Lincoln and what he had to say about leadership. I will include some of my own experiences from my years of working with senior management in over 32 organizations. Some of the men and women I worked with were incredible leaders. Most of them wanted to be better leaders and that is where I brought the teachings and thoughts of W. E. Deming to my consulting practice. Dr. Deming achieved extraordinary results in business by tapping the knowledge, skills and abilities of ordinary people. Senator Hubert Humprey famously said that “Democracy is a system that achieves extraordinary results with ordinary people.”
Insight # 2 – Try Honey Before Vinegar:
Lincoln said, “If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend.” Springfield, Illinois, 2/22/1842
This seems to be a principle or idea that is not very well understood by many people today. I constantly hear people tell me that if you want to change people’s ideas about things, you must “empathize with them.” “You must really listen to them.” To these admonitions, I say “Bullshit.” You can listen to some fanatics all you want to, and they will still totally ignore anything you say that does not fit in with their preconceptions or ideology.
A good woman friend of mine and I were arguing about Trump and his supporters. Repeatedly in every argument, she would say “John, you just have to really listen to them.” I finally got tired of hearing this refrain and one day I challenged her. I said, “Tell me one, only one, Trump supporter you have listened to who has changed their mind.” She was dumbfounded. She was stumped. She was bewildered. She could not think of one. Months went by. I would occasionally rub salt into the wound, “Did you change the minds of any Trump supporters today?”
You can listen to others all you want. You can listen to hell freezes over. You will not change a fanatic or zealot’s ideas by listening. But Lincoln was smarter than all the psychologists we have today put together. He knew that it would take more than listening to get others to think differently or to appreciate your ideas after you have heard theirs. It takes believing and feeling that you are a “Sincere” friend. Not just a Facebook friend or some online friend, but a “Sincere” friend. Plato talked about the various types of friends, but he said nothing about a “Sincere” friend. So, what is a “Sincere” friend and what does it take to make someone believe that you really and truly are a “Sincere” friend? Let’s first define the meaning of “Sincere.”
An online dictionary defines “Sincere” as:
“Free from pretense or deceit; proceeding from genuine feelings.”
Wikipedia defines the virtue of Sincerity as follows:
“Sincerity is the virtue of one who communicates and acts in accordance with the entirety of their feelings, beliefs, thoughts, and desires in a manner that is honest and genuine. Sincerity in one’s actions (as opposed to one’s communications) may be called ‘earnestness”’.
I think the word “Sincere” has a lot to do with integrity, honesty, trustworthiness and truthfulness. The Jewish have a word for a person who is sincere and honest called a Mensch. In Yiddish, a Mensch roughly means “a good person”. The word has migrated as a word into American English with a Mensch being a particularly good person, similar to a “stand-up guy”. A Mensch is a person with the qualities that one would hope for in a friend or trusted colleague.
I think we can now answer the question, “What does it take to impact someone’s ideas and ideology?” The answer is very simple. If you want to have someone listen to your ideas, you must be a Mensch or at least a very “Sincere” friend. When I think about the people we elect to political leadership, I am struck by the lack of Menschs in either Congress or the Legislature.
In fact, I would argue that we have the exact opposite. We have people you would not trust with a nickel. People who we know will change their mind at the drop of a lobbyist’s donations. Congresspeople, who continually lie to cover their malfeasance and incompetence. Ask anyone of them what they do all day long and they will deny that they spend about 80 percent of their time fundraising for their next election campaign.
Try to suggest some new ideas to them as I have done countless times, and you will get the following answer, “I am very busy but send me something and I will look at it.” Don’t hold your breath my friend. You will die of asphyxiation before any of them, Democrat or Republican will ever get back to you. However, mention that you are thinking of a large campaign contribution and doors will open in a New York minute.
Let us think of a scenario wherein a Trump supporter meets a Trump opponent. We will call Mary the Trump supporter and Joe the Trump opponent. Neither of them have ever met before and do not know each other. The talk between them soon turns to politics.
Mary: I think Trump is doing a great job. He is really shaking the government up. Just what we need.
Joe: You think tariffs, job cuts and threatening our allies are what we need? Are you crazy?
Mary: He is already getting results. Mexico and Canada have agreed to send more troops to the border.
Joe: These are our allies. What if I threatened you, how would you feel about me? I am sure that long-term you would be looking for some way to get even.
Mary: Well, I have to go.
Joe: Yeah, so do I. Bye
If the above scenario had gone down between two long-term “Sincere” friends, how do you think it would have turned out? I am betting both sides would have heard some value in the other sides position. Furthermore, they might have finished the discussion and gone out together to have a bite to eat or at least agreed on another time to get together.
Old Abe Lincoln knew a lot about leadership and the role that friendship played in it.
“On the contrary, assume to dictate to his judgment, or to command his action, or to mark him as one to be shunned and despised, and he will retreat within himself, close all the avenues to his head and his heart; and though your cause be naked truth itself, transformed to the heaviest lance, harder than steel, and sharper than steel can be made, and though you throw it with more than Herculean force and precision, you shall no more be able to pierce him, than to penetrate the hard shell of a tortoise with a rye straw.” — Lincoln, Address to Washington Temperance Society (February 22, 1842)
I have heard many conversations between Trump supporters and Trump opponents. We attack each other. We condemn each other for stupidity. We assail each other for taking the Kool-Aide. Then we retreat to the other sides of the room full of hate and disgust. We ask ourselves, “How could anyone think like they do?” “What is wrong with them?” “They must be either, stupid, uneducated, brainwashed, racist or something else.”
If we are going to break down the walls and barriers that now separate us in the USA , we are going to have to do more than just listen to our opposition. We are going to have to find ways of befriending each other. Not just casual friendships but real “Sincere” friendships. Friends who can accept and support mutual honesty and truthfulness with each other.
Too much of what I have seen in the media supports a narrative that my side is intelligent and smart, and the other side is dumb and uneducated. I confess to having shared some of this narrative in my own writings. It is now time to move past these simplistic and detrimental stereotypes and develop empathy and understanding that surpasses mere listening. The way to do this is through “Sincere” friendship and not by demonizing the other side.
How do we fight an “Uncivil War”? Insight # 3 from Old Abe has more valuable thoughts to help us in this struggle. I will share these in my next blog.
Once upon a time, I thought debates were the answer to the question of “how do we discover the truth?” I thought that if you put two intelligent people together and each took opposing positions on an issue, that through the interplay of ideas the truth would emerge. If you think about this a bit, it is the basis for our judicial system in America. One side argues for the defendant, the other side argues for the prosecution or against the defendant. It is also the basis for an academic exercise called Dialectical Research or Dialectical Inquiry.
A dialectical investigation is a form of qualitative research which utilizes the method of dialectic, aiming to discover truth through examining and interrogating competing ideas, perspectives or arguments. This latter method is often applied through the use of case studies in which students or investigators discuss real world examples of complex situations. The purpose of a case study is to provide a more thorough analysis of a situation or “case” which will reveal interesting information to the reader. As I use them in my classrooms, my goal for my students is to help them understand how to better form strategies for success in business.
Unfortunately, in the real world the strategy of debate does not work. Debates are a waste of time when honest discussion takes second place to winning or looking good. Dialectical Inquiry is also often useless since the complexity of the subject can be beyond the ability of many students to grasp. Real world situations are froth with uncertainty, volatility, complexity and ambiguity or as some have called it VUCA. VUCA is an acronym used by the military to describe or reflect on the volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity of general conditions and situations. Many complex situations are seldom able to be accurately modeled leading in most instances to weak images or portrayals of the actual situation. This is why debaters opt for simple explanations rather than complex explanations. Another example of this watering down of reality is a Hollywood movie depiction of a supposed “true” story. Recent movies that come to mind include the following:
I have watched several of the debates now and I see no evidence that truth is being discovered. The debates have become hyperbolic spectacles of insults, half-truths, reality distortions, innuendos and petty personal attacks. I doubt if anyone has found much truth in these debates never mind elucidations of complex policy positions for any of the candidates. Trump 
will build a giant wall. Cruz will fix Syria. Rubio will fix health care. Sanders will fix inequality in America. Hillary will fix Obamacare. Do you know how any of the candidates will accomplish these lofty goals? Of course not, since they know that the “debates” are no place for such a complex discussion. Trump perhaps realizes this fact better than anyone and has kept his discussion and clarification of his policy positions to less than fifteen second descriptions. The general consensus seems to be that if a candidate cannot explain their position on any subject in less than fifteen seconds, they are doomed, i.e., they lose.
On a more personal level, I have a problem with debates. I have a few friends who love to debate. I have noted as a result of recent discussions with them concerning the Presidential elections that do not want to understand or clarify any issues, they just want to argue or perhaps debate. I say that they want to argue, because their main agenda seems to be looking good or advancing their points and not understanding my points. They often enter into these contests (Since that is what a debate means to them. It seems to be a contest between winning their points and looking good or losing their points and looking bad.) with a pretense of trying to understand why I think or feel a certain way. Sometimes, they start the “debate” with a flat out rejection of my position or with a declaration such as “you are dead wrong” or “you don’t know what you are talking about.” I confess that such latter utterances often preclude my disposition to have a rational discussion with them. I see no point in it.
Aging Capriciously 