The View From Fargo

GOODBYE FOR NOW FARGO/MOORHEAD

2009-08-07T12:48:00.000-05:00

Seven years in Fargo and Moorhead changed me and my life for the better.

In 2000 my mother died, I was divorced after 35 years of marriage, and my best friend got sick suddenly and died a month later. I packed up my jeep and moved to the mountains of Ridgeway, Colorado.

I spent 2001 living in a loft on the side of a mountain where I photographed the seasons, traversed the 4-wheel drive mountain roads, sat in the natural hots springs in nearby Ouray, and consulted with local clients and several back in Minnesota.

In March of 2002 I headed to Fargo.

It didn't take me long to fall in love with my new home: the clean air, the Red Hawks, good customer service, and being able to get anywhere in 10 minutes. A native of Minnesota, the winters here don't bother me. I liked the people: caring, hard working, and self-effacing who raised solid children. I had to get used to their reticence and thinking that is more black and white than my world of grays.

A leadership consultant, I paid attention to local leaders and found some of the best I've seen anywhere: Dave Pinder at Cardinal IG, Wayne Voorhees, formerly with Northern Pipe Products, and Dennis Walaker, mayor of Fargo. More recently, I've been impressed with Michael Redlinger, the young city manager in Moorhead, and Bob Zimmerman, Moorhead City Engineer—the world's most patient man. I was disappointed in the provincial political assassinations of Robert Potts, Chancellor of the N.D. University System and Sandy Blunt, CEO of WSI (Workforce Safety and Insurance)--outsiders who tried to change the status-quo.

I enjoyed writing commentaries that were published in The Forum and bemused by the attacks on my political pieces by those Frank Rich, columnist for the New York Times, called a “Rump backwater minority”—the wing nuts who are destroying the Republican Party. For them the world is flat, gravity unreal, and up is down. F/M has its proportion of crazies.

Eighteen months after I arrived, I was married to Melanie and moved to her home along the Red River in south Moorhead. And I was introduced to the astonishing extended Fuchs family led by mother Pat--the loved and respected family matriarch. A talented and hardworking family they are; they take care of themselves and help one another.

I fought my first flood in 2006. That was nothing compared to 2009 when our family, friends, and coworkers built a 20,000 sandbag dike in three days. With each flood I was profoundly impacted by how hard the people in this region work, how much they care about their homes and communities, and how they help their families and neighbors.

Now we move to Minneapolis where Melanie begins an exciting new job that will utilize her many leadership and managerial talents. I return to my home of about 30 years, two of my three children, and five grandchildren. Two of Melanie’s children will be nearby. We will live within 15 minutes of Melanie's job, and I will walk our dogs around Lake Harriet in south Minneapolis.

I feel a sense of loss also: the Fuchs family, bantering with Gordy and the gang at the VIP where I lunch weekly with my good friend the Reverend Doctor Steve Streed, walking our dogs in River Oaks Point, our neighbors who fought valiantly to save their homes in the flood, and the solid character of the people of the Red River Valley.

With our large extended family, we will be back often for visits. Retirement down the road will bring us back permanently.

Farewell for now Fargo and Moorhead.

A LETTER TO RAHM EMANUEL, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF

2009-07-26T13:01:00.001-05:00

July 27, 2009

Dear Mr. Emanuel:

You are a busy man. I will be brief and to the point. What in the hell are you people doing?

President Obama was elected to transform this country. He was provided a clear majority in the House and the Senate.

Instead of using that power to effect change, you are trying to win over recalcitrant Republicans who slowly erode your power and credibility. They are your enemies vowing to bring down President Obama. Trying to appease them is a huge mistake. You are wasting this rare opportunity to use the power given to you by the American people to bring about real change.

Do not dilute the President’s vision. Please, please, please stop trying to make nice with the backwoods Republicans and craft legislation around energy, economics, education, and health care that satisfies those who elected the President for that purpose; they are the enlightened in our society. At times I think the White House is more interested in meeting the needs of their enemies than of their friends. This cannot succeed.

And take charge now. The President needs to come out of the August recess with a new plan for effecting change—use your power to do good things for America or you will lose it. Results are what matter. Hold onto your vision and use your power to make it real.

Seeking consensus makes cowards of all of us. We need strong leadership. You don’t always have to get buy-in on the front end as nice as it is to have. Sometimes leaders have to go first into the unknown to show the way. You can gain acceptance after the vision is enacted if what you enact works.

Changing the culture in Washington will happen slowly, if ever. Thinking you can win over those whose values are fundamentally different than yours is naïve leadership of change (talk to Jack Welch about leading change). They will feign cooperation on occasion but will always return to the core of who they are. And who Republicans are today is not good for America.

You need some ruthlessness as well as idealism to be a transformative leader.

NO LOVE FOR INSURANCE COMPANIES

2009-07-19T10:39:00.002-05:00

This commentary appeared in the Fargo Forum on July 26, 2009.

We live along the Red River in south Moorhead.

We built a 20,000 sandbag dike in March. An Army Corps of Engineers supervisor said it was one of the best he’s seen--thanks to my wife’s extended family, friends, and co-workers past and present. Our dike held: no water came over, through, around, or under it. Ordered to evacuate, we left our home by boat on March 26, 2009. In our absence, we got water and sewer back-up in our basement because of human error and mechanical breakdown.

The easy work was over.

Now we had to deal with the insurance companies.

We paid $3,400 in flood insurance last year.

The flood insurance adjusters came into town from out of state, took their measurements, and disappeared. We couldn’t understand much of what they said and the “experts” we talked to had conflicting opinions—everyone had an opinion—few had accurate answers. I went back to the Recovery Center three times and finally said to the good folks there: “I don’t care if the answer helps us or hurts us, just get us the right answer to our questions.”

We learned that flood insurance—paid by homeowners--is for the protection of bankers--not homeowners--unless your home floats down the river. We couldn’t understand their “proof of loss” document or even how much our settlement would be. Insurance companies must save billions in claims by confusing people who give up in frustration. We weren’t satisfied with the amount flood insurance paid but it was all we were going to get. We accepted the settlement.

I complained to every politician and FEMA person I talked with about the cost of flood insurance. Finally a FEMA liaison with flood insurance told us that we should have been given a grandfathered rate when we were required to buy flood insurance in 2000. We examined our agent's file; it seemed clear that a mistake had been made. Our insurance company said the file wasn't true. We are taking the next step needed to get our rate changed and to get a refund. On this issue, we won’t settle.

My advice to residents of Fargo/Moorhead who are considering flood insurance: educate yourselves so you know what is covered and what is not. Be sure you understand what flood zone you are in and be sure you get the correct rate. You have to become your own expert.

Our homeowner’s insurance adjuster visited and did his inspection and then began giving our name out to local vendors who called to solicit our cleanup business. I complained to the insurance company about this violation of privacy. They apologized and an attorney from the company called to say how sorry he was. They then declined to cover the sewer backup and sump pump failure because it occurred during a flood, which isn't covered. The sewer back-up had nothing to do with the flood; it was the result of human error.

Not happy with our homeowner’s insurance company, we shopped around. Five of the largest companies turned us down because we had a flood this year (even though they don’t insure against floods) and hail damage two years ago. Forty years of paying premiums with few claims doesn’t matter. Insurability depends on the weather.

Dealing with an insurance company is an exercise in cognitive dissonance.

We learned that the unwritten contract between insurance companies and those they insure has changed: it is now, “Pay your premiums on time and in full. Then self-fund your losses so as not to get canceled by the insurance companies.” Insurance companies re-victimize the victims, and they get rich. This is why we disdain insurance companies.

Like the financial and automotive industries, the insurance industry is in dire need of new regulation, visionary leadership, and transformational change.

We Fought the Flood--Now We Need Leaders

2009-05-30T16:12:00.000-05:00

The Small Business Administration adjuster said, “Many places people just abandon their homes when it floods. Then the city comes in and dumps a bunch of dirt in the road.” The FEMA adjuster said, “We’ve brought in bus loads of volunteers to help save homes in other places and those whose homes we are trying to save, sit and watch us do the work. You people up here care and fight.”

While the details of our individual stories vary, the underlying care, courage, and commitment our neighbors and those throughout the area displayed during the recent record flood distinguished our region in ways that transcend geographical boundaries.

My family’s story reflects so many.

We began to build our 20,000 sandbag dike on March 20, 2009. While we suffered 20% flood damage this flood, no water came over, under, around, or through the sandbag ring around our home. When the Army Corps of Engineers took the behemoth down, an Army supervisor said it was one of the best dikes he’d seen. Without a dike of that size and quality, our main floor would have flooded.

As many as 150 people worked 16 hours or more a day for two days and a dozen worked for four days after that to construct this dike, which had to get larger daily due to constantly changing National Weather Service forecasts.

By March 25, 2009, our home was surrounded by water. Yet the crest forecasts continued to raise the crest level. We had no sand. We traveled by boat in and out of our neighborhood. The city built a dike on our access road communicating “we cannot protect you.”

Our home is not safe in a major flood. If a fire, the fire department could not reach us. In a medical emergency, help would have had difficulty getting to us at all, let alone quickly. If a boat motor quit, the strong currents would take us into the main channel and would put us in peril. We are lucky that we did not fall climbing over the slippery dike (due to plastic and snow) to get into the boat in water several feet deep.

To meet the challenge of the daily crest forecast changes, our family members and flood crew climbed over our dike, traveled by boat to the diked access road, walked through snow-filled neighborhood yards to pickup trucks blocks away, traveled throughout Moorhead to find filled bags, loaded the trucks, parked blocks away from our home because of city dikes, pulled a sled filled with sandbags through the snow, pulled the sled over the dike on the access road, loaded the bags into the boat, and boated back to our home. This happened over and over again.

On March 25, 2009 family and friends worked all day, night, and until 2:00AM on March 26, 2009 and had to break the ice forming in the flood waters to get the boat through the water. The situation was dangerous and some advised us to let the house go to the flood. We could not do that and stayed and sandbagged until ordered to evacuate by the police.

Now we clean up, many suffer post traumatic stress but few talk about it, and we feel vulnerable to the Red River like never before. We cannot make these kinds of efforts year after year. Soon fall will be here and a new flood watch will begin. Leaders at all levels on both sides of the river call for cooperation and long-term flood protection. Most have never worked cooperatively for the larger good. The threat of the Red River calls for visionary and servant leadership: leaders who can imagine a safer future and care about the region, not just their city or state. Today’s leaders need to develop new skills or we need to elect new leaders.

ENOUGH ALREADY WITH THE FLOOD PROJECTIONS

2009-03-15T14:53:00.001-05:00

It is flood season in Fargo/Moorhead. The politicians showed up last weekend to lead a pep-fest, get their faces on television, promise money for permanent flood protection (again), and extolled the virtues of our citizens. Who really listens to them?

The National Weather Service, criticized in 1997 for their constantly changing forecasts of the Red’s crest, bombard us with predictions and probabilities: There’s a 50% chance the river will crest at 38 feet, 1 in 3 chances that it will crest higher than the 39.5 feet recorded in 1997, a 90% chance of major flooding in Wahpeton, there might be a snow/rain storm in 10 days (it is March after all), and on and on. A week ago all those predictions and probabilities were different. As they cover their behinds, citizens are confused and unduly upset.

Recently WDAY weatherman John Wheeler said “Tomorrow will be cloudy all day.” The next day was cloudless all day. Last summer Wheeler said at a 5:00PM weather report: “Those of you going to the Red Hawks game will have a dry night.” The downpour began early and didn’t stop all night—his colleagues on other networks are no better at prediction. These folks are good at telling us what happened not what will happen.

The experts have a credibility problem.

One thing I can predict with almost 100% certainty: The Red River will crest in April, and we don’t know today what the crest will be.

Weather is a dynamic system virtually unpredictable with certainty until it happens.

As we enter flood season, the river approaches the extremes of its normal chaos (order without predictability). The combinations of the weather, snow melt, and the river (along with many other variables) make conditions incomprehensibly complex.

We are familiar with the “butterfly effect” meaning a small change at the beginning of a process can have a large impact at the end of that process. In the weather this dynamic is called sensitive dependence on initial conditions.

Many butterfly effects are happening every day in the life of the spring floods. Some we are aware of; others we are blind to. All can impact the eventual outcome, some for good and others for bad. These dynamics are so complex and interconnected that it is beyond the human minds ability to process them. While computers are a tremendous help, they can only model the data people put in. Accurate prediction is impossible, and we can only speak in probabilities that become more accurate as the anticipated dynamics gets closer in time and place.

The weather folks should quit trying to create the illusion that they can get it perfectly right. They know they cannot. People need to understand this and learn to live with uncertainty until the weather happens. The National Weather Service should give their best guess of crest levels daily always pointing out that it is an educated guess. They might give a range of the crest levels that they are 75% certain that the eventual crest will fall within. After a few core measures, more become meaningless.

Fargo Mayor Dennis Walaker has universal credibility. I’d like to see him give a daily news conference at 4:00PM with his thoughts and best predictions. The community can then hear what he has to say at the 5:00PM and 6:00PM newscasts.

We live on the river in south Moorhead. My wife watched neighbors lose their homes in 1997. We are concerned. I trust the judgment of my wife and neighbors who are experienced with floods. Right now many are skeptical of what they are hearing from the experts. We will watch as Mother Nature runs her course and will adapt our plans as the days pass. We will listen to those who have demonstrated their credibility under fire. Our community will come together as it always has.

THE CULTURAL CREATIVES

2009-03-04T11:16:00.001-06:00

As we continue the world’s transformative change journey, we must understand that the leaders who led us to success in the now exhausted ways of doing things are rarely the people to lead renewal.

Auto industry executives will not lead a transformation to a new energy paradigm. Wall Street money men and entitled bankers will not reform the financial system. Influence-peddling Washington lobbyists will not clean up corruption in our Capitol. If they could provide that leadership, they would have long ago.

President Obama must understand the risk he takes when he chooses Washington veterans for his Cabinet and for leadership roles in his government. Can they see with new eyes?

Traditional Democrats are the “either” to the Republican “or” in the Washington D.C. political game. We don’t need a liberal version of the same old game to be replaced in eight years by the failed conservative model.

We need a new game. President Obama understands this. Can he change the rules for all?

In 2000 Paul H. Ray and Sherry Ruth Anderson wrote a book entitled “The Cultural Creatives”—a group of 50 million Americans who are creating a new culture in America.

Cultural Creatives care about the planet, relationships, and servant leadership. They have an organic, systemic, and holistic worldview. They value authenticity, believe in purpose, and live by strong values. They are idealistic, altruistic, and spiritual—not necessarily religious. They are creative and optimistic problem-solvers; they model new ways to live.

Cultural Creatives, disenchanted with greed, materialism, and status displays, oppose the abuse of rank; inequalities of race, class, and gender; and the narrowness and intolerance of social conservatives and the Religious Right.

They are the leaders for the times. They will provide mature and responsible leadership that will replace what Bob Herbert, columnist in the New York Times, called the “reckless, clownish, shortsighted, and self-absorbed” leadership we have grown weary of.

These new leaders will continue to unite under a shared purpose: to save the world by creating sustainable organizations, a sustainable global economy, and a planet that endures for future generations to enjoy.

The people in this movement created the conditions that allowed Barack Obama to emerge from seemingly nowhere to become our president. He is the externalization of their decades of difficult effort--their reward for the risky and thankless work they have done.

Now our President must free the Cultural Creative leaders within our organizations and institutions across our nation from the shackles of an exhausted worldview so they can lead our collective vision to renew the world.

Time is running out. Our ecological crisis and national decline require an acceleration of natural processes: a conscious and sustainable fast-forward of human social evolution without harming life in the process.

We must think big, move fast, and address all our interconnected problems at once. We must see reality accurately, develop a powerful vision for the future, learn to manage massive change organically, and develop trust in others so self-organization and other natural dynamics of life can burst free from repression and emerge in full creativity.

As we move through this massive reorganization of life no one has a “fail-safe” plan. We live as pioneers who step into the unknown potential of life. We must “plan, do, reflect, and adapt” daily until we find what works.

Creativity is messy and inefficient. Mistakes will be made as we move beyond our knowledge. Not all will be done well. Such is the nature of transformational change. Those who follow can spend the next 100 years making incremental improvements.

We created the world of today that no longer works for us. We can change it.

Tom Heuerman (Heuerman, Ph.D. is a former Secret Service agent, newspaper executive, and organizational consultant. He lives in Moorhead. Email: tomheu@cableone.net)

THE SAD DECLINE OF THE STAR TRIBUNE

2008-12-14T10:37:00.001-06:00

This commentary appeared in The Fargo Forum on Sunday December 14, 2008.

Like many around the region, I follow the painful decline of the Star Tribune newspaper with a sense of disbelief. How could a once dominant newspaper fall so far so fast? Was this collapse inevitable or was it caused by a lack of bold and visionary leadership at the Star Tribune over the past 20 years?

The Star Tribune’s story of decline is not unique. It is the story of many in the newspaper industry, of the auto industry and many other traditional industries, of the national and global economy, and of America’s decline and need for renewal.

This pattern of decline is similar at all levels of scale and is the story of how world views trap us and the story of how people struggle to adapt to discontinuous and chaotic changes in their environments. Ultimately the story is one of human courage, creativity, flexibility, and adaptability as systems large and small—families, communities, organizations, and nations—renew themselves boldly and routinely or stagnate and die.

In 1998 the Star Tribune was sold to the McClatchy Company for $1.2 billion. While the short term value of the company was maximized by Star Tribune executives, I wondered then if the changes needed for the long-term sustainability of the newspaper were neglected.

The Star Tribune remained threatened by demographic changes, technological advances, circulation decline, the potential of the internet, and other unknown variables and systemic dynamics. Rapid decline, long in the making, would soon begin.

Many efforts to reform the Star Tribune were made over the years. New editors redesigned the look and organization of the newspaper, new technology was incorporated, distribution models were changed, and departments reorganized. New executives came and left. The changes gave the illusion of progress but proved to be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. In the end, all the energy expended simply recreated a lesser version of the newspaper they were trying to change.

On December 26, 2006, the Star Tribune was again sold. The sale price was $530 million plus a future tax benefit of $160 million. The sale price was not a good omen for a newspaper industry with plunging advertising revenues.

Since then I’ve watched as the Star Tribune continues to suffer declines in circulation and advertising revenues. A revolving door of executives downsizes staff and outsources work as the company cannot pay its bills. Morale plunges, behavior regresses (the Star Tribune recently agreed to pay over $300,000 to settle a sexual harassment complaint), and people become bitter, cynical, and disillusioned. Leaders lose all credibility. The Star Tribune is not a good place to work.

The future looks bleak for the Star Tribune. Bankruptcy looms on the horizon.

Forum Communications was rumored to be interested in buying the Star Tribune. Owner William Marcil responded that he had no interest. Marcil is way too smart to get involved with the Star Tribune. He’s impressed me as a very smart man, a natural entrepreneur with an eye for talent and a nose for good properties.

Was this decline at the Star Tribune (and in industries across the nation) inevitable?

Leaders created these messes by the decisions they made and failed to make over many years. Are people helpless to change what they created?

Are leaders and workers not ready to change how they do things? Have they grown too lazy, myopic, cynical, fearful, arrogant, complacent, and too entitled to do the hard work of change?

Are the systems we organized our nation and lives around too big and complicated to transform? Are they unable to adapt to changes in their environments? Should we abandon these systems and begin anew?

How we answer these questions may determine the fate of countless organizations and enterprises and of our nation.

In the end it is all about leadership. And a leader’s first responsibility is to have foresight.

THE CRIMES OF SANDY BLUNT

2008-12-09T14:34:00.002-06:00

This commentary appeared in the Grand Forks Herald on December 12, 2008.

Sandy Blunt, former CEO of WSI (Workforce Safety and Insurance), goes on trial on December 15 in Bismarck.

What are the alleged crimes of this notorious outlaw from Ohio?

In April 2007, based mostly on findings of an enfeebling state auditor’s performance audit of WSI, Blunt was charged with a felony for rewarding employees with gift certificates, buying lunches for legislators, giving employees a party with costumes, flowers and other such normal and nominal corporate activities. I’m told that the charges against the audacious Blunt included the purchase of forks, plates, coffee and a cake to welcome him to WSI.

A second count alleged he had authorized bonuses for three employees—an illegal act in North Dakota. Blunt said he gave deserving employees a pay raise based on the recommendation of a nationally respected compensation consultant.

Do the citizens of North Dakota believe that these administrative actions are worthy of criminal charges, an appeal to the state Supreme Court after the charges were initially thrown out by a district judge with common sense, and a jury trial?

Do the people of the state really believe that destroying Blunt’s career and reputation and forcing him to put his life on hold in Bismarck for the past year are the right things to do to a man brought to a historically troubled WSI to bring about change for the betterment of the workers and taxpayers of North Dakota?

I think the people of North Dakota are better than this.

Blunt didn’t benefit from his acts. He didn’t intend to break the law; he was trying to run a better WSI.

Blunt’s “crimes” were administrative in nature. If anyone had an issue with them, they were more appropriately handled in the governance of WSI—between the CEO and the WSI Board and between the Board and the North Dakota legislature.

Blunt’s decisions were easily within the authority of a CEO in even the smallest for-profit company. Similar decisions are made daily by mid-level managers in thousands of organizations across the state and nation. Criminalizing such actions will make agency heads paranoid and fearful of making good management decisions.

Independent consultant Neal Conolly, hired at the urging of Governor Hoeven, concluded that WSI under Blunt was doing an excellent job. He was puzzled to come to Bismarck and, after hearing everything being said about Blunt and WSI, to then see an organization that he “would stack up with any organization that does this kind of work in the United States.” Blunt did a good job for North Dakota.

What of the judgment of the provincial Burleigh County State Attorney’s Office? Does Burleigh County have too many attorneys—too little work and no serious crimes to solve? Why prosecute these “gotcha administrative issues?” Do they really believe that Blunt’s “crimes” rise to the level of being worthy of prosecution?

On April 1, 1940, Attorney General Robert H. Jackson addressed United States Attorneys:

What every prosecutor is practically required to do is to select the cases for prosecution and to select those in which the offense is the most flagrant, the public harm the greatest, and the proof the most certain.

Do the charges against Blunt meet this standard?

Based on media accounts and the report of credible independent consultants, the nose of this former Secret Service agent smells a politically motivated witch hunt from the day an unsuspecting Blunt crossed the state line into sleepy North Dakota. The message is: don’t come to North Dakota and try to change the way we do things.

Justice in this case will be “not guilty” for Sandy Blunt followed by accountability for those responsible for the charges against him.

(Heuerman, Ph.D. is a former Secret Service agent, Star Tribune newspaper executive, and organizational consultant. His web site is http://www.amorenaturalway.com/. He lives in Moorhead and can be contacted at tomheu@cableone.net)

OBAMA OVER EXHAUSTED REPUBLICANISM

2008-10-27T12:14:00.000-05:00

Republicanism is exhausted—fatigue reflected by old, small or no ideas when it comes to solutions for our problems. John McCain—his experience mostly irrelevant in today’s world--embodies that weariness and represents decline—the continuation of vacuity. His lack of intellectual vigor, erratic leadership, poor judgment (Palin) and demagoguery exemplify a shadowy and narrow Republicanism with a distorted view of reality.

Gareth Morgan’s discussion of Plato’s Cave in his book Images of Organizations illuminates the challenge Republicans face if they want to renew their philosophy for the future. This allegory describes what happens as some see the world beyond superficiality and others do not.

The allegory pictures an underground cave with its mouth open toward the light of a blazing fire. Within the cave are people chained so that they cannot move. They can see only the cave wall directly in front of them. This is illuminated by the light of the fire, which throws shadows of people and objects onto the wall. The cave dwellers equate the shadows with reality, naming them, talking about them, and even linking sounds from outside the cave with the movements on the wall. Truth and reality for the prisoners rest in this shadowy world, because they have no knowledge of any other.

However, if one of the inhabitants were allowed to leave the cave, he would realize that the shadows are but dark reflections of a more complex reality, and that the knowledge and perceptions of his fellow cave dwellers are distorted and flawed. If he were then to return to the cave, he would never be able to live in the old way, since for him the world would be a very different place.

However, if he were to try and share his new knowledge with them, he would probably be ridiculed for his views. For the cave prisoners, the familiar images of the cave would be much more meaningful than any story about a world they had never seen. Moreover, since the person espousing this new knowledge would now no longer be able to function in the old way, since he would no longer be able to act with conviction in relation to the shadows, his fellow inmates would no doubt view his knowledge as being extremely dangerous. They would probably regard the world outside the cave as a potential source of danger, to be avoided rather than embraced as a source of wisdom and insight. The experience of the person who left the cave could thus actually lead the cave dwellers to tighten their grip on their familiar way of seeing.

The cave stands for the world of appearances and the journey outside stands for the ascent to knowledge. People in everyday life are trapped by illusions, hence the way they understand reality is limited and flawed. By appreciating this, and by making a determined effort to see beyond the superficial, people have an ability to free themselves from imperfect ways of seeing. However, as the allegory suggests, many of us often resist or ridicule efforts at enlightenment, preferring to remain in the dark rather than to risk exposure to a new world and its threat to the old ways.

McCain remains chained in the cave of failed ideas—unable to see a changed world.

Barack Obama—a seeker of knowledge and insight--sees the world through fresh eyes. He has the potential to renew and transform America in today’s new world. Obama, Colin Powell said, has the judgment, intellect, substance, and temperament to be a great president—“he is ready on day one,” said Powell.

Will we remain in the dark comfort of caves we know and decline as a nation or vote for a transformative Obama and the renewal of America?

THE REPUBLICAN MONOCULTURE

2008-09-30T11:05:00.001-05:00

I watched as the television cameras scanned the faces at the Democratic National Convention. I saw men and women, old and young, African American, Latino, and Asian. I checked out the convention demographics:

White: 56.7%; African American: 24.5%; Latino: 11.8%; Men: 50%; Women: 50%

I watched the Republican National Convention. I saw mostly middle-aged white men. Their demographics:

White: 93%; African American: 2%; Latino: 5%; Men: 68%; Women: 32%

The U.S. statistics are: White: 74%; African American: 13.4%; Latino: 14.8%

The Republican Party is a monoculture.

Steven Nachmanovitch in his book, Free Play: Improvisation in Life and Art:

The conformity that is taught by the big school that surrounds us resembles what biologists call monoculture. If you walk in a wild field you see dozens of different species of grasses, mosses and other turf in each square yard, as well as a rich supply of tiny animals. This is nature’s insurance that changes in climate and environment will be matched by requisite variety in the plant life. But if you walk in a domesticated field you will see only one or a few species. Domesticated animals and plants are genetically uniform because they are bred for a purpose. Diversity and flexibility are bred out in exchange for maximizing certain variables that suit our purpose. But if conditions change, the species is locked into a narrow range of variety. Monoculture leads invariably to a loss of options, which leads to instability.

A metaphorical monoculture in society or a political party is a group where everyone looks alike and sees, does, wears, reads, watches, and thinks the same thing. The Republican Party composed primarily of white men cannot sustain itself as a vibrant system in a society that will be 54% minority by 2050.

Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks provided an example of the Republican monoculture in action. Referencing the failure to pass the “recovery bill” on September 29, 2008, he wrote: “House Republicans led the way and will get most of the blame. It has been interesting to watch them on their single-minded mission to destroy the Republican Party. Not long ago, they led an anti-immigration crusade that drove away Hispanic support. Then, too, they listened to the loudest and angriest voices in their party, oblivious to the complicated anxieties that lurk in most American minds.”

John McCain tries to frame Barack Obama as an outsider, not really American in his values, not one of us: urban, subversive and even unpatriotic.

Obama’s story is the quintessential American dream in our rapidly approaching country of minorities: Born of an immigrant black father and a Kansas white woman, raised by a single mother and white working class grandparents, this bi-racial man rose to great heights on his merits and courage alone. His story is the best of America, and he reflects America’s near-term future: a nation that grows more racially and ethnically diverse daily.

Obama is like ‘the rest of us.” He just isn’t like the Republican Party. Obama represents the future of America--if not this election, then soon.

Republicans would be wise to understand this American future before they try to govern again. Instead of running fearfully to a romanticized past (Sarah Palin and white small-town America), they should move boldly to the future and embrace America’s diversity. Along the way, they must, as Brooks wrote, “…project a conservatism that emphasizes society as well as individuals, security as well as freedom, a social revival and not just an economic one and the community as opposed to the state.”

Republicans need to reinvent themselves for the future—not artificially as McCain is trying to do to win an election but for real.

LOW INFORMATION VOTERS

2008-09-24T10:23:00.002-05:00

This commentary appeared in The Fargo Forum on Sunday, September 28, 2008.

I heard the term “low information voter” recently. Some definitions:

Individuals who are not knowledgeable and vote anyway, and
Those who rely on talk radio and less-than-factual hearsay from friends and family members to shape their political decisions.

Low information voters were, I believe, deceived by the “compassionate conservative” in 2000 (fool me once, shame on you) and were scared by “the decider” in 2004 and re-elected the worst president in our history. Republicans counted on their ignorance—the country paid the price (fool me twice, shame on me).

They are the folks John McCain targets with dishonest television ads—strongly criticized by even conservative columnists. They are the people who pass along and then parrot the lies in emails that tell us Barack Obama is a Muslim, a friend to terrorists, and isn’t like the rest of us white folks. The McCain camp counts on their mindlessness. Democrats do this too but pale in comparison to Rovian Republicans.

Thoughtless voters got hysterical about the invented Sarah Palin—a symbol of a romanticized past--before they knew a single thing about her experience, her belief system, or her policies, and some hastily decided to vote for McCain—no feminist he. Such silliness is wishful thinking at its worst—the regression of maturity. The solution to our nation’s problems isn’t a fearful return to the past—the remedy is a bold step into the future.

Ignorance isn’t reserved for low information voters. Some people have much data but little insight. Delegates at the Republican National Convention thumped their chests and yelled “drill, drill, drill.” Thomas Friedman, columnist at the New York Times, said that was like screaming “carbon paper, carbon paper, carbon paper” as the computer replaced the typewriter. As Obama said, “They take pride in being ignorant.”

We are told that these folks want a president they can relate to—someone like them. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell said about Obama, “With people who have a lot of gifts, it’s hard for people to identify with them. Barack Obama is handsome. He’s incredibly bright. He’s incredibly well spoken, and he’s incredibly successful—not exactly the easiest guy in the world to identify with.” The most recent financial crisis should tell all but the most oblivious of us that “smart is in.”

I don’t want the neighbors next door to be my president and vice president nor them me. I want my president to be smarter than me. I’d like him to be more mature and even-tempered than me too. I don’t expect to relate to him or for him to relate to me. I want him to solve the problems we face: two wars, global warming, an economic meltdown, and universal health care for starters.

A role of citizenship is to pay attention to what is going on—to be mindful. Thomas Jefferson said that an enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a nation. Self-government is not possible unless citizens are educated enough to hold leaders accountable. New York Times conservative columnist David Brooks wrote, “Democracy is not average people selecting average leaders. It is average people with the wisdom to select the best prepared.”

The elections this year are important and become more important weekly as crisis follows crisis. Will a large segment of voters be fooled again? Will the least informed or the least discerning again be manipulated by fear and nonsense to vote against their and the nation’s self-interest? Or will they become widely informed and put country first?

Obama expresses great faith in Americans to get this election right—to vote based on the potentially catastrophic issues facing the nation. McCain has a more cynical view of the wisdom of the electorate.

Fool us three times, and we deserve our fate.

MCCAIN NO CHANGE AGENT

2008-09-14T09:06:00.002-05:00

This commentary appeared in The Fargo Forum on Sunday September 14, 2008.

John McCain’s message in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention:

"I was transformed when a prisoner of war. Now, 40 years later, my party has failed in its stewardship of America. We didn’t change Washington; we were changed by Washington. We became corrupt, out of touch, and incompetent. I am again transformed. After being part of the problem for the past 25 years, I am now a change agent and will rise above party and transform Washington. Trust me."

Really?

McCain acknowledged in his acceptance speech that America is in decline.

This decline takes place in a larger context of global warming and other daunting environmental challenges that call us to change how we live on this planet.

Barack Obama says repeatedly that we face “the fierce urgency of now.” We need massive change—today. How does renewal happen?

In decline, change grows increasingly difficult as the decline deepens and downward momentum accelerates. Leaders, heroes in more successful times, lose credibility in failure (George Bush), energy is low, apathy and lowered motivation prevail (congressional gridlock and public cynicism), and resources may be exhausted (a national debt of $8.9 trillion in 2007). It takes great leadership and effort to lift a nation from decline and most fail and civilizations die or fade to a mere shadow of their more glorious days.

Today America’s future is unclear—at home and abroad. Old paradigms and new ideas collide; we are in a place of confusion, uncertainty, fear and anxiety; a place of no rules; and a place of conflict between the status quo (McCain) and the new, emerging vision for the future (Obama). We feel frustrated, overwhelmed, and we seek quick-fix solutions--drill for more oil, Sarah Palin for vice president and gas tax holidays. We should be saying: invent, invent, invent. That would be real change.

Energy and commitment are needed to renew our nation. Experience in the old ways is not helpful—often it is detrimental. What is needed is a leader with the vision and courage to step into the unknown and learn as he proceeds—just like Lewis and Clark and explorers throughout time have done.

The leader needed to guide a nation through such renewal will be an optimistic and hopeful visionary with a clear strategy for transformation, a reflective leader who engages the nation, adapts to new information and circumstances, and who involves and inspires citizens. Barack Obama is that leader.

The key insight to understand: McCain is a rebel—rebels react against something—they solve problems generally with the flip-side of “either/or.” Soon the solutions are new problems—the flip-side of the one fixed.

Good and great leaders share one characteristic: the continually evolve a vision to make life better. Obama is a leader--a person who leads towards a vision of a new future—a new creation that makes the best of the “either” AND the “or.” Creativity is the answer to today’s issues, not problem-solving.

I don’t trust John McCain.

His effort to transform himself is disingenuous and too late. He is part of the problem and has lost credibility along with his president and party. His convention acceptance speech was an opportunity to convince Americans that he is capable of changing the system he is a part of. His challenge was to offer a compelling vision for America and show us that he can see beyond small fixes to the status-quo. He failed to do that.

Instead he focused on the past and offered a list of recycled Republican ideas. He offered reform which is the equivalent of putting a new façade on an old building—it looks good but underneath the wiring and plumbing remains outdated.

John McCain would lead America deeper into decline.

CRAZYMAKING & POLITICS

2008-09-13T16:18:00.000-05:00

Have you ever listened to someone talk persuasively and felt confused: suddenly up was down, right was wrong, and you felt the rug was pulled out from under your experience of life?

Cognitive Dissonance is the discomfort we feel whenever what we know, value, or believe differs from what we experience. Sometimes the dissonance is the result of intentional manipulation by another person with ulterior motives. I call this “crazymaking.”

A few of the crazymakers repeated mindlessly on opinion pages by the minions of the far-right:

1. Obama can give a great speech but lacks details and, therefore, substance.

Obama is a brilliant and thoughtful thinker—at a new level in American politics. He is deep, broad, and nuanced. He understands that most things that matter are not either/or, black/white, or good/bad but are gray, complex, and both/and.

The Concord Coalition, a bipartisan advocacy group dedicated to balancing the budget examined Obama’s and McCain’s policy proposals and found Obama’s much more detailed.

A Washington Post editorial (August 25, 2008) said, “The suggestion that Mr. Obama is all rhetorical fluff is mistaken. In the course of his meticulously planned campaign, he has laid out a set of detailed policy positions—more detailed, in some key areas, such as health care, than Mr. McCain’s. He has set broad presidential priorities: getting troops out of Ira; expanding health-care coverage; promoting alternative energy and dealing with climate change. He is smart and thoughtful.”

2. Obama is motivated to be president by personal ambition not patriotism

John McCain is fond of saying he puts country first with the implication that Obama doesn’t. McCain wrote in 2002 that he sought the presidency not as some grand act of patriotism or because he wanted to implement political reforms he believed in but because it had become his ambition to be president.

Can any serious person believe that picking Sarah Palin as McCain’s vice presidential candidate was putting country first?

3. Obama is an outsider, not really American in his values, not one of us, and is unpatriotic.

This is dark code for several things: Obama is black, he’s uppity and not part of the political “good old boys” club. In other words, he is not a middle-aged white guy from the Viet Nam era—neither a war hero (McCain, Kerry) nor a draft-dodger (Bush, Cheney, Clinton).

Obama’s story is the quintessential American dream: Born of an immigrant black father and a Kansas white woman, raised by a single mother and white working class grandparents, this bi-racial man rose to great heights on his merits and courage alone. His story is the best of America and he reflects America’s near-term future: a nation that grows more racially and ethnically diverse and a nation that will be 54% minority by 2050.

4. Other crazymakers: Obama is the most liberal senator (actually he’s a pragmatist), just another politician (just better at it than most), has no accomplishments (really? A black man as a presidential nominee—no small accomplishment), McCain is a maverick (who votes with Bush 90% of the time), and McCain is a straight-talker (who panders to whoever he is talking to at the moment). A couple more: McCain is a change agent and Palin is a reformer.

We are now fully in the theatre of the absurd where cognitive dissonance will be a constant companion and much of the information coming our way dishonest. The McCain campaign wages the most deceitful campaign in modern history. Immaturity flourishes in grown ups. The self-righteous extremists on the right will demonize Obama to retain power and divert attention from their lack of solutions to our problems.

Is this how we want to elect our next president?

Thoughtful people can have legitimate concerns about Obama as they can about McCain. Mature voters will pay close attention, ponder the assertions, weigh the evidence, separate crazymakers from legitimate issues, and seek the truth as to the right course for America.

JOHN MCCAIN AND COMPUTERS

2008-09-13T15:57:00.000-05:00

John McCain doesn’t use a computer; he doesn’t know how to log on to the internet.

Some other things he may not know:

Humanity increases the search for knowledge by 50% a year,
There are 6 billion google searches a month,
Over two trillion text messages will be sent in 2008,
If MySpace were a country, it would be the 11th largest,
More information is added to the internet in one week than was available from prehistoric times through the 19th century,
By 2013 supercomputers may exceed the computational capacity of the entire human race,
By 2048 the power of a $1,000 computer will probably exceed the computational power of the entire human species,
This capability will create a world of instant communications and instant access to all knowledge for virtually all of humanity,
The fight for the future will be for the best education, best technology, and best business value.

Today computing power rides a curve of exponential change unprecedented in human history, and the exponential change itself will continue to accelerate. Moore’s Law states that the power of information technology will double every 18 months. In 2002, the 27th doubling occurred. A doubling means that the next step is as tall as all the previous steps put together. The potential systemic impact of such power translated to new technologies (genetics, robotics, nanotechnology) and on all of life staggers the mind.

We are on the verge of an almost unimaginable future: what scientists call the Singularity. At the point of Singularity technology evolves so rapidly that our everyday world no longer makes sense. We cannot escape this “perfect storm” of chaos (order without predictability), nor can we go back to an earlier time; we must go through this global transformation.

Author Vernor Vinge wrote of the essence of the Singularity: A super humanity--artificially created. Soon machines smarter than the human brain will be created according to Vinge.

Vinge wrote that this change will be comparable to the rise of human life on earth. This will be a unique transition with profound systemic implications for humanity fraught with unpredictability and unintended consequences.

Will we create a new heaven on earth with all problems solved? Or will a new hell on earth emerge where the technology goes bad and the machines rule and humans become their slaves? Or will life continue as it has in the past—imperfect and creative--just with new complexities to cope with?

Are our children prepared for this world?

McCain’s lack of computer skills is less a practical issue than a reflection of a worldview from another time—a worldview that no longer solves problems for America. His is a cold-war worldview that no longer fits the world of today.

The world is in the midst of a great shift. The distribution of American power is shifting in most all dimensions—industrial, financial, educational, social, cultural. The black/white thinking of McCain makes no sense in the world of chaos theory, quantum physics, and a diverse, alive, interconnected, and interdependent world and global economy where many nations are powerful and are global leaders. The world is in need of wisdom and intellect along with computer skills.

In his acceptance speech at the Republican Convention, McCain said that he understands the world. Can a man who does not understand the internet understand the world?

I believe that a well-intended McCain will lead America deeper into decline and mediocrity because he doesn’t understand the world of the Singularity. Will we follow blindly?

McCain lives in a world that no longer exists. He is a “Smith Corona” typewriter in an iPhone world. Do we want our future in his hands?

JOHN MCCAIN'S DAN QUAYLE

2008-09-05T17:15:00.001-05:00

This commentary appeared in The Fargo Forum on Sunday September 7, 2008.

Let’s put things in perspective: The United States faces many problems that threaten our way of life, our standing in the world, and the planet itself: two wars, a recession, an energy quagmire, an overheated planet, a health care crisis, unlawful immigration, and a loss of respect around the world.

Thoughtful Americans agree that this election is one of the most important in American history—the problems are massive, the threats to us are real, the differences between the candidates are great, and our future as a nation may depend on the choice we make for our next president. We need our best and brightest people to lead us into an uncertain future.

In these critical times and with John McCain’s age and past health problems, he called on Sarah Palin to be his vice-president--a first-term governor of Alaska who he met once before he offered her the job— a cynical display of gender politics—a political gimmick and a “laugh our loud” moment that insulted the seriousness of the times in which we live.

Have you ever experienced something and felt confused: suddenly up was down, right was wrong, sane was insane, and you felt the rug was pulled out from under your experience of life? Cognitive Dissonance is the discomfort we feel whenever what we know, value, or believe differs from what we experience.

I felt disoriented when I read that John McCain called Sarah Palin his soul mate. I felt like up was down when Cindy McCain said that Palin has national security experience because Alaska is close to Russia. I felt disoriented with I listened to Republican leaders assert with straight faces that Palin has “good judgment” and is qualified to be president on day one—a requirement McCain said was his first priority in selecting a vice president. Suddenly the Republican attacks on Barack Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience became disingenuous.

I think David Gergen, advisor to many presidents, felt crazy too: “But what surprises me so much is that John McCain again and again and again has said the transcendent issue of our times is the fight against terrorism and that we live in a dark, dangerous world. And the most important thing is to have a commander in chief that’s ready on day one. So, here to reach out—and he’s criticized Barack Obama as not being ready—to reach out to Sarah Palin who has no national security experience, no national security exposure, and say you’re my standby and I’m 72 years old and I’ve had some bouts with melanoma….”

I began to feel more aligned with reality when Palin’s mother-in-law—in a moment of candor--said, “I'm not sure what she brings to the ticket other than she's a woman and a conservative. Well, she's a better speaker than McCain," Faye Palin said with a laugh.

I felt a little saner when I read a commentary in the Anchorage Daily News: “We're not sure she's a competent governor of Alaska. And yet McCain, who is no spring chicken, has decided she's the best choice to replace him as president if he should win and then fall afoul of the Grim Reaper. Sarah Palin?

Americans are not as dumb as politicians think: A Gallup poll shows that Palin is seen as less qualified to be president than any vice presidential selection since Dan Quayle in 1988.

Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin was kind when she described McCain’s first presidential decision as “a strange choice.” I think it is an irresponsible act of by a man incredibly immature for his 72 years. McCain put his country last at a moment in history that calls for Americans to put excellence first. I hope for the good of the country that this folly fails.

OBAMA & MCCAIN ON EVIL

2008-09-01T08:59:00.000-05:00

Pastor Rick Warren asked Barack Obama and John McCain about evil at Saddleback Church on August 16, 2008.

WARREN: How about the issue of evil? Does evil exist?

OBAMA: Evil exists. I think we see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur. We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children. It has to be confronted squarely. It is important for us to have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil because a lot of evil has been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil.

MCCAIN: Defeat it. If I’m president of the United States, if I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get Osama Bin Laden, and bring him to justice. I will do that, and I know how to do it. I will get that guy. Of course evil must be defeated. We are facing the transcendent challenge of the 21st century—radical Islamic extremism. And we’re going to defeat this evil.

M. Scott Peck, M.D. defined evil as the imposition of one’s will upon others by overt or covert coercion in order to avoid facing their own failures and spiritual growth. Evil is the intentional infliction of harm on people. All of us do bad things--that is part of being imperfect human beings. That does not make us immoral people. Evil people are distinguished not by their sins but by the subtlety, persistence, and consistency of their sins. Wicked people kill the spirit of those they blame for their own deficiencies.

Healthy people see their mistakes, are responsible for the effects of their acts, and try to become as aware as they can of the impact of their behavior on others. Evil people, with an excess of self-esteem, deny their imperfections, run from their guilt, and perpetuate their cruel behavior.

We can see evil all around us, as Obama stated, not just in our enemies (real and imagined) abroad where McCain focused: parents who neglect and abuse their children, men who emotionally, physically, and sexually abuse women, supervisors who routinely mistreat employees, and in racists, sexists, and those who use rank in any form to disrespect others.

A common characteristic of evil people is scapegoating. Because they think so highly of themselves (with little to justify such an opinion), they must attack anyone who criticizes them. Often, in their own righteousness, they project what they don’t like about themselves onto others. Political leaders frequently demonize and scapegoat their opponents and other nations to justify violent and oppressive actions. Scapegoating allows evil to masquerade as good.

Men and women in business suits perpetuate more evil by far than most criminals in our jails—something I learned quickly as a young Secret Service agent in Chicago, Illinois. Our most dastardly people dress well, go to work on time, pay their taxes, coach their kid’s sports teams, and outwardly appear to be above approach. Unable to be good they excel at appearing to be good. And, the scapegoaters they are, they would be shocked and offended deeply to be characterized as inhuman. Evil people like to think of themselves as victims.

As long as people are imperfect, we cannot eradicate evil. We must, however, confront it with courage and humility as Obama said. For when each of us looks the other way in evil’s presence, we collude with it. We need to make wise moral judgments, and we must judge others. But before we do, we must look within our own hearts and see our own capacity for evil.

What do Obama’s and McCain’s words about evil say about what their focus as president would be?

SOMETHING SPECTACULAR IS GOING TO HAPPEN

2008-08-24T08:12:00.001-05:00

This commentary was published in The Fargo Forum on Sunday August 24, 2008.

New York Time columnist Thomas Friedman wrote, “We don’t have a ‘gasoline price problem.’ We have an addiction problem. We are addicted to dirty fossil fuels, and this addiction is driving a whole set of toxic trends that are harming our nation and world in many different ways. It is intensifying global warming, creating runaway global demand for oil and gas, weakening our currency by shifting huge amounts of dollars abroad to pay for oil imports…destroying plants and animals at record rates…..”

More fundamentally our problem is that six billion people (10 billion by 2050) are addicted to the consumption of our alive, interconnected, and interdependent planet.

That is not sustainable.

Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute, Washington D.C., wrote, "A sustainable society is one that satisfies its needs without diminishing the prospects of future generations.” Sustainability is the moral issue of this generation.

We will change how we think, and we will figure out how to live sustainably on this planet or we will not. Either way, something spectacular is going to happen. If we change, we will renew our economy, restore American global leadership, and help save the planet. We will experience a new renaissance of ideas and an indefinite future. Nothing less will save our way of life and perhaps the young of today and the unborn of tomorrow.

People I believe (Al Gore, scientist Jim Hanson, philosopher Daniel Quinn, & explorer Will Steger) say we have 10 to 40 years to change. If we don’t change, the momentum that carries us to possible extinction will be too great to overcome. Without change, within 200 years we may perish as a species or a few islands of prosperity and privilege may survive surrounded by a sea of misery and violence. We need to move quickly and boldly.

We are experts at denial. We like quick and easy fixes to our problems. We expect magic or God to rescue us. No hero or heroine will rescue us. No miracle will save us. We are responsible for our collective fate. The great threats of climate change, population growth, species extinction, resource depletion, and global poverty have called for change for a long time. Are we ready to listen and to change how we live together on this planet?

Some signs offer hope. Global warming and the economic and national security threats posed by fossil fuels are in the forefront of our presidential election. As we consider which candidate’s vision for energy independence is best, consider Buckminster Fuller’s Law: “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” In other words, we should not try to continue our dependence on fossil fuels. To do so only makes the problems greater. We should instead move to the solution on the other side of today’s problem and that is a full transformation to green energy sources.

Change will be difficult but ease or difficulty is not the issue. The question is: are we ready to change or not? If we are ready, we will get behind a new vision for the renewal first of the United States and then of the world and we will do what is necessary.

We put a man on the moon eight years after John Kennedy challenged the nation. We can be free of foreign oil and produce 100% of our electricity from renewable energy within 10 years.

Whatever we do, something spectacular is going to happen soon. We will experience an evolutionary bounce or an evolutionary crash.

MCCAIN'S INAUTHENTICITY

2008-08-11T10:56:00.000-05:00

We can sell our souls—be inauthentic and behave counter to our deepest purpose and values—to many things: fame, money, and power. John McCain sold out his “authenticity brand” recently to try to win a presidential election.

McCain promised a high-minded campaign against Barack Obama. That promise fit with the long nurtured image of McCain as a man who put personal honor and courageous authenticity at the center of his political identity.

Then Obama, goaded by McCain, went to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Europe. His highly publicized trip showcased his grace, dignity, strategic mind, and the hunger abroad for new American leadership.

The McCain camp suffered a collective nervous breakdown over Obama’s media coverage. McCain stammered and stuttered that Obama was wrong about the surge and didn’t understand what was at stake in Iraq. He attacked the media and demanded credit for himself.

In his outrage McCain made more of his famous gaffes saying Iraq borders Afghanistan. Pakistan, not Iraq, borders Afghanistan. The previous week McCain repeatedly referred to Czechoslovakia, a country that has not existed for 15 years. He misstated the history of the surge and the Anbar Awakening. I

Over the next two weeks, an envy filled McCain set out to destroy Obama—the only way he thinks he can win. He willfully, intentionally, and with full knowledge of his own dishonesty (as documented by countless fact-checkers):

--Accused Obama of snubbing wounded soldiers in Germany,
--Called Obama a traitor who would lose a war to win an election,
--Put out a slimy Britney Spears and Paris Hilton ad filled with racist overtones. McCain’s 96 year old mother called the ad, “kinda stupid.”
--A Charlton Heston ad comparing Obama to God. David Gergen, who has worked with White Houses, both Republican and Democrat said, "…when you see this Charlton Heston ad, ‘The One,’ that’s code for ‘he’s uppity, he ought to stay in his place.’”

The New York Times editorial page, “Both (ads) were designed to exploit the hostility, anxiety and resentment of the many white Americans who are still freakishly hung up on the idea of black men rising above their station and becoming sexually involved with white women.”

The goal of this character assassination is to raise Obama’s negatives with pivotal voting groups to give McCain the presidency. If McCain cannot win on the issues or on his own charisma, he will destroy Obama to win, just like Bush did to John Kerry.

I’ve watched McCain for many years. I’ve always thought of him as a man at war with himself, a man who struggled to be true to himself in the phony world of Washington politics. I’ve also experienced McCain as an angry and wounded man whose dark side often burst through in temper tantrums and ugly jokes and comments.

The ugly twin of the warrior who struggled to be authentic appears to be winning right now. His ambition to be president and his dark envy of the attention and celebrity of Obama override his better self. The more inauthentic John McCain is, the angrier he will become and the more unappealing he will be to the voters he seeks to manipulate.

For a man in his 70’s, McCain is remarkably immature. He parrots the words of the Karl Rove clones in his campaign. He appears bitter and desperate. What kind of president would such a malleable man be?

Voters need to remember that these kinds of politics brought America two terms of disastrous George Bush. McCain, who once said, “I want the presidency in the best way, not the worst way” needs to get his dark side under control. Our nation’s problems demand a deep dialogue about the issues and the direction of this country. We need better from John McCain than his recent behavior.

DEFENDERS OF THE STATUS QUO WILL ATTACK OBAMA

2008-08-11T10:35:00.001-05:00

This commentary appeared in The Fargo Forum on Sunday August 10, 2008

In a recent column, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert wrote, “I’ll say this about Senator Obama. He sure raises people’s hackles.” Leaders who represent change tend to do that.

Herbert continued, “I’ve never seen anyone so roundly criticized for such grievous offenses as giving excellent speeches and urging people of different backgrounds to take a chance on working together. How dare he? And 200,000 people turned out to hear him in Berlin. Unforgivable.”

We’ve watched the McCain camp sputter in outrage at Obama because he exposed McCain’s gaffes, flip-flops, and tired political games. Republicans call Obama unpatriotic because he wants to conclude a war Americans want to be rid of. McCain even blamed Obama for high gas prices--a dull-witted and clownish assertion. Each week McCain becomes grumpier and looser with the truth. America, in a time of crisis, needs better from McCain than dishonest and sophomoric attack ads that demean the McCain brand.

Powerful politicians invested in the old ways that no longer solves problems suffer hubris, entitlement, and intellectual laziness. They do not offer new solutions to problems. Instead they attack bold and imaginative leaders who offer new approaches to serious issues. Doesn’t Obama know his place?

Anger isn’t the only emotion those who attack Obama feel. Often they feel scared of the change he symbolizes. Obama calls for the renewal of America. This revitalization threatens ambitious politicians and special interests that benefit from the status quo--regardless of the harm to America. Others feel envious of the attention the political rock star receives and try to make people’s attraction to him a character defect. The McCain camps recent “nervous breakdown” over Obama’s successful overseas trip appeared to be fear and envy driven.

University of Oklahoma president David Boren wrote in A Letter to America: “The country we love is in trouble. In truth we are in grave danger of declining as a nation. If we do not act quickly, that decline will become dramatic.” Most Americans say they are unhappy with the direction of the country. Are we ready to do the work of sustainable change?

My experience as a change consultant tells me that most people don’t change willingly or easily; they want to feel better without doing the hard work necessary to improve the health and success of their lives, nation, and organizations. They want a painless and easy quick-fix.

A rule of thumb: 10% will do the work of real change. Another 10% will resist to the death, and the remaining 80% stand around docile and passive.

Pundits say this election will be a referendum on Obama. More broadly it’s a referendum on transformative change. He has to overcome his race, newness on the scene, resistance from the status-quo, and politicians who have left us cynical and disillusioned—no small task.

Most of all he has to confront Americans with the truth and seriousness of our problems and reassure the 80% that they are up to the challenges as Americans throughout history have demonstrated. He can do his part by offering a vision that represents our values and aspirations and arouses our courage.

Arctic explorer Will Steger told area residents last fall that he likes “do or die” situations and that we are in that situation now. And he was only talking about global warming. We also have two wars, a recession, a shrinking middle class, a health care crisis, and an educational system that does not prepare our students for a global economy.

Change has risk. It is riskier to not change. We need to channel our fear and pain away from childish attacks on those who can lead and into good works that renew the American spirit. The alternative for America is continued national decline that will grow increasingly frightening and painful.

MERITCARE'S LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE

2008-07-28T14:00:00.001-05:00

Recent troubles at MeritCare—layoffs, accreditation issues, and revenue shortfalls/expense overrides—illuminate MeritCare’s more profound issue: how to lead an organization in a chaotic and unpredictable world.

Mort Myerson, former chairman and CEO of Perot Systems said several years ago, “Everything I thought I knew about leadership is wrong.”

Throughout the Industrial Era, managers led organizations as if they were great machines. The emphasis was (and often still is) on top-down control with hierarchal and compartmentalized departments with rigid boundaries. Conformity became the first rule. Creativity, initiative, and innovation came from the top or from outside experts. Human potential was ignored (leave your brains at the door) and most organizations were mediocre with life-spans of less than 50 years.
.
A leadership revolution exploded over the past 20 years as the marketplace shifted from stable to chaotic and the metaphor of organizations as a lifeless machine was encompassed by one of a dynamic, potential filled living system. The new metaphor requires new leadership talents, hence the Myerson insight.

Have MeritCare leaders, like Mort Myerson, changed their core assumptions about leadership in today’s world? Can MeritCare employees tell an outsider what MeritCare’s vision, values, and purpose are? Do MeritCare managers know how to lead others through change? Does MeritCare have a culture of high accountability? Do MeritCare leaders realize how much human potential has been lost in the mechanistic model of organizations?

Core leadership practices in a dynamic organization:

See reality as it is. “Thirty to 50 percent of what we do doesn’t add value to patients,” said Dr. Roger Gilbertson, president and CEO in a stunning admission of “remarkable inefficiencies.” Do MeritCare executives receive ongoing feedback on their conduct and initiatives? Are they quick to discard failed programs, strategies, and subsidiaries? Do they explore and bring to light the dark side of the corporate culture and receive ongoing feedback on their leadership impact? Have executives been in denial, slow to respond to issues in recent years?
Create an organizational identity that inspires people: a spiritual purpose for why they exist, noble values to guide behavior, and a vision that provides direction and courage to employees. Is MertiCare’s vision bold enough, its goals big enough?
Practice tough love—a high standard for behavior and performance with a deep respect and compassion for others. People thrive in organizations where responsibility and accountability are valued and where the neurotic, mediocre, immature, irresponsible, and passive-aggressive are exposed, confronted, and held accountable. Does MeritCare invest in the quality supervision needed to retain their best employees?
Involve people in change and require empowerment. Leaders understand that people support what they help create. They require people to make decisions about the work they do. People are often lazy and don’t want to do the work of empowerment. Good leaders don’t let them get away with upward delegation. A stated goal at MeritCare is to have “fewer people and pay them more.” I would add “fully utilize the talents of people” to that objective.
Embrace and go into and through the anxiety, uncertainty, and ambiguity of the chaos of today. This is where people find their creative energy. They “plan, do, reflect, and adapt” constantly. They act boldly and decisively and change everything but their identity as they adapt continually to the world around them.

Efficiency is important at MeritCare and the recent discovery of major inefficiencies (Why weren’t they discovered years ago?) gives MeritCare a great opportunity for transformation.

But efficiency is just one element of an overall leadership philosophy for an organization. Enlightened leadership of people, seeing reality accurately, a tough love culture, imaginative and creative vision and strategies for continued development, and the courage to go into the unknown regularly and courageously are even more important.

It’s always all about leadership.

KEEPING JOBS IN NORTH DAKOTA

2008-07-19T12:37:00.001-05:00

This commentary appeared in The Fargo Forum on July 20, 2008

North Dakota has 14,000 job openings.

A report entitled “Workforce Policy System Recommendations” commissioned by the North Dakota Legislative Council highlights ideas to attract and retain employees. The majority of the suggestions involve incentives to attract and then retain North Dakota workers.

The report did not focus on improved leadership, management, and supervision by North Dakota employers as a proven way to attract and retain not only employees but quality employees.

Absent the ongoing development of quality supervision, I predict the ideas proposed will prove to be little but cosmetic quick-fixes that give the illusion of progress but, in reality, are disappointments.

Employers first attract good employees with competitive compensation, fairly administered, and with clear guidelines on how to earn increases. Competitive compensation, while necessary, is not sufficient for the retention of great employees. Good supervisors and a culture of engagement are crucial to the attraction and retention of quality workers. Such supervisors and cultures are rare: The Gallup Organization reported that 76% of American workers are disengaged clock-watchers who cannot wait to go home at night. Their discretionary energy—the energy available to them beyond that needed to keep their jobs—is lost to their employers.

Gallup conducted over 1 million interviews and massive statistical analysis to answer the question: “What do the most talented and productive employees need from their workplace?”

Twelve questions emerged from the data. These questions captured the most important information about how to attract, focus, and keep (physically and mentally) the most talented employees. The questions, from the book First Break All the Rules by Marcus Buckingham & Curt Coffman, are:

Do I know what is expected of me at work?
Do I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right?
At work, do I have the opportunity to do what I do best everyday?
In the last seven days, have I received recognition or praise for good work?
Does my supervisor, or someone at work, seem to care about me as a person?
Is there someone at work who encourages my development?
At work, do my opinions seem to count?
Does the mission/purpose of my company make me feel like my work is important?
Are my co-workers committed to doing quality work?
Do I have a best friend at work?
In the last six months, have I talked with someone about my progress?
At work, have I had opportunities to learn and grow?

High ratings correlate with high productivity, increased profit, employee retention, and customer satisfaction. The data shows that engaged employees miss less work, quit less often, steal less from their employers, have fewer accidents (all by dramatic percentages), and more engaged organizations outperformed the earnings-per-share of their non-engaged competitors by 18%.

A key finding of the study was that opinions are formed by the employee’s relationship with the immediate supervisor, not the overall company, its leader, its structure, or its policies and procedures. In other words, people quit their immediate supervisor, not their company. Therefore, the selection and development of supervisors is crucial to the retention of the best employees.

If North Dakota enterprises want to attract and retain the best employees, make a lot of money, and endure longer than the length of a career; if North Dakota schools want to attract and retain quality teachers and administrators and graduate educated students; and if North Dakota governments want to provide efficient services, then North Dakota employers would be wise to create a well led and engaged workforce.

A SUSTAINABLE MERITCARE

2008-07-05T18:38:00.001-05:00

This commentary appeared in The Fargo Forum on July 6, 2008.

MeritCare recently laid off 90 employees. Ninety others had hours reduced, and 120 open positions will be absorbed.

Being laid off is a big deal to people: lives, families, and communities are impacted negatively. When people are laid off from one of the area’s largest employers, a little bit of the community’s vitality and sense of security is destroyed.

I once led a 4,500 employee business unit at a major newspaper. Faced with a revenue shortfall, we had to reduce staff. Serious about our employee engagement efforts, we worked hard to reduce our staff in voluntary ways that built trust.

We offered early retirements, gave incentives to leave, eliminated open positions, retrained people to fill open jobs in other departments, and redesigned jobs and departments to operate more efficiently and with fewer, more fulfilled people. Extra people were used in new product lines that generated new revenues. We made our downsizing goals and grew trust and commitment too.

Dr. Roger Gilbertson, president and chief executive officer of MeritCare, said that cutting costs is the only way to keep the organization viable for another 100 years. “The actions of today are a way of safeguarding the organization,” he said.

I disagree.

The layoffs were a temporary fix to deeper dynamics—within and outside of MeritCare. No organization ever downsized its way to long-term sustainability.

What do we know about sustainable organizations?

Some companies endure for hundreds of years. Sadly, however, the average life-expectancy of a Fortune 500 company is only 40-50 years. This statistic cuts across nations and is even worse for smaller start-up companies—40% survive less than 10 years.

Arie DeGeus, former coordinator of worldwide planning for Royal Dutch/Shell, wrote in The Living Company: “Companies die because their managers focus on the economic activity of producing goods and services and they forget that their organizations’ true nature is that of a community of humans.” Layoffs destroy trust, loyalty, and the strong relationships essential for survival amid change.

How do organizations like MeritCare endure in a today’s turbulent world?

Sustainable organizations:

1. Continually adapt to the external environment. Leaders constantly imagine a better future and rally people to join together to make the vision come true.
2. Have a core identity of purpose (why they exist) and values (guiding principles) that provide stability and continuity as all else changes over time. Most organizations today have vision and values statements. Few make them real by holding people accountable to “walk the talk” of the enterprise.
3. Change everything but the core identity: culture, strategies, operating practices, and products as they learn continually and adapt to the world around them. They experiment with ideas to find what works. Employees do the work of re-engineering and redesign while consultants provide methods, experience, and facilitation.
4. Are inclusive of those who stretch their understanding of what is possible: critics, outliers, risk-takers, and different points of view.
5. Are fiscally conservative. In sustainable companies profits are necessary to sustain the enterprise but they are not sufficient; they are an outcome of leading engaged people. In long-lasting companies researched in the book Built to Last an investment of $1.00 in those companies on January 1, 1926 would have grown to $6,356 by 1994—over 15 times the general market—15 times by putting the “community of humans” first.

The health care industry thinks it is in the midst of transformation. They haven’t seen anything yet. The leadership challenge of the 21st century is to achieve outstanding and sustainable business results by creating conditions for employee engagement that bring forth the vast untapped human potential in organizations—the competitive advantage of our time. Sustainability will go to those organizations whose leaders have foresight, are creative, can engage the talents of all, and can lead others through change.

A WELL CONSIDERED PATRIOTISM

2008-06-29T09:12:00.002-05:00

This commentary appeared in The Fargo Forum on June 29, 2008.

I learned as a child that patriotism is love of our country and devotion to the ideals we believe in. Patriots are people who act courageously for their country. I love America, but never thought of myself as a patriot—that title was reserved for those who sacrificed greatly for the rest of us—usually on the battlefield.

Somehow over the years the definition and symbols of patriotism changed for some to a narrow and shallow aberration disrespectful to true patriots: lapel pins, polarization, empty swagger, artificial conflicts, and a refusal to admit mistakes or errors of policy.

Patriotism became a bludgeon used to intimidate anyone who criticized these pseudo-patriots or their policies in an effort to silence dissent and to deceive, frighten, and manipulate citizens. Even obvious patriots like John McCain and John Kerry were not immune from vile personal attacks. Concomitantly mediocre political leadership became the norm, and our nation’s problems grew in number and complexity as gridlock prevails in Washington.

This year’s presidential election promises to be definitive for America. We face many intertwined problems that demand an end to obstruction: two wars, a recession, energy costs, an overheated planet, a health care crisis, unlawful immigration, and a loss of respect around the world.

Already the dark side of patriotism rears its ugly head as some try to frighten us about Barack Obama. Those who demonize him cry out: “He doesn’t wear a lapel pin! He’s not patriotic! His middle name is Hussein! He’s not like us, and his wife hates America!” Such foolishness. We can be better people.

Mike Huckabee, former presidential candidate got it right, “Elections ought to be about elevating the best ideas and exposing the worst ones—not engaging in character assassination with half truths, innuendoes, and disputable ‘internet facts.’”

We need a broader and deeper definition of patriotism today—a “well-considered patriotism” that Alexis De Tocqueville wrote of in “Democracy in America” that is rational, creative, and enlightened.

Eric Liu and Nick Hanauer wrote an important new book, “The True Patriot.”
True patriots, they wrote, “believe that freedom from responsibility is selfishness, freedom from sacrifice is cowardice, freedom from tolerance is prejudice, freedom for stewardship is exploitation, and freedom from compassion is cruelty.” Each of us can get engaged and give of ourselves for love of country—to be a patriot—not just on the battlefield but also in everyday life.

We can pay attention, become informed, get involved, and tell the truth.
We can see through lies, distortions, partial truths, political spin, misrepresentations, and intellectual dishonesty. We can say “NO” to mock patriotism, unenlightened egoism, and its selfish ends. We can stand up to those who try to corrupt our political process.

The problem in the world is not the liars, the manipulators, or the fear-mongers. The issue is the good people who have gone to sleep. They need to wake up, stand up, and speak up against those who appeal to the most irrational of our fears. We can renew our public morality as we redefine what it means to be a patriot. Future generations demand this of us.

When someone sends us a dishonest email about a candidate, we can refuse to pass the message on and return it with criticism. We can refuse to listen to radio and watch television that tear people down. We can write letters to the editor and confront intellectual dishonesty on the editorial pages. We can make this election about ideas and solutions instead of character assassination. We cannot afford to be fooled again by the politics of fear-mongering and manipulation. We need aware, informed, and courageous citizens who raise our public standards.

Robert Kennedy said in 1968, “I am dissatisfied with our society.” Eighty percent of Americans feel the same today 40 years later. Kennedy stood for economic fairness, a thoughtful foreign policy, and justice and opportunity for all—principles in need of renewal today.

A well considered patriotism loves country always and from this tough love of country sees clearly and confronts our nation’s flaws and finds creative solutions to the problems that seem insolvable.

As the 4th of July approaches each of us might reflect on what patriotism means to us. Patriotism belongs to us all and each of us can be a patriot. If we say no to character assassination and attack our nation’s problems with the fervor of a patriot’s love, we will be energized, and we will evolve America.

AN OBAMA LANDSLIDE?

2008-06-15T16:44:00.003-05:00

This commentary appeared in The Fargo Forum on Sunday, June 15, 2008.

Approximately half the states may be competitive in November’s presidential election. Barack Obama plans a 50 state campaign to take advantage of changed demographics, superior fund-raising, and his unmatched ground organization. A landslide Obama victory is possible.

I believe that Obama will break away from the recent statistical tie with John McCain and win an overwhelming majority of electoral and popular votes.

How?

Brand--Obama will solidify his image: an inspirational candidate with a vision for the renewal of America that will “turn the page” to a new generation of leaders. His style, message, and the momentousness of his quest will swell passion for his campaign to more Americans and will bring out contributors and voters in record numbers. McCain will try to brand himself as a reformer with a vision that conserves the best of the past. But he cannot escape George Bush whose brand is one of corrupt, arrogant, and incompetent leadership. Only 28% approve of Bush’s leadership, 82% believe the country is going in the wrong direction, a majority of American want our troops withdrawn from Iraq, and 87% believe the economy is getting worse. McCain cannot separate himself: his Senate votes were consistent with Bush’s positions 95% of the time over the past year.
Issues—Obama is, I believe, on the right side of the issues of Iraq, the economy, health care, and global warming. Those who wonder what change Obama advocates need to become informed citizens.
Temperament—Obama models grace, patience, and calm under fire. He can take a political punch and can counterpunch fast and effectively. He will be tougher on McCain than he was on Hillary Clinton, a fellow democrat. McCain is an angry man easily provoked by Obama who has political killer instincts. McCain’s anger should concern us. Unable to win on issues or personality, McCain will take the low road and try to demonize Obama. Doing so makes McCain appear small and ungracious. McCain comes off as an immature and grumpy granddad, which raises concerns about his age.
Leadership--Leaders have a vision for the future that inspires people to get involved. Obama’s inclusive campaign is a new model and foreshadows how he will govern. His grassroots organization, organic and networked, makes use of the internet, volunteers, and social networks to create commitment and exemplify his leadership style. McCain is a rebel who reacts against problems and looks to the past for solutions but lacks a creative vision for a new future. So far his campaign has stumbled and fumbled failing to get even the basics of campaigning right.
Transform or reform—some change is reformation: putting a new façade on an old building but underneath the plumbing and wiring remain defective. This is John McCain and the Republican Party. To transform is to bring about fundamental and sustainable change in values, practices, and culture. This is Obama’s goal and what America needs.
Experience and Judgment—John McCain has been a Washington insider for decades. What has he learned? Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan wrote that Bush lied to the American people about Iraq. Why didn’t McCain’s experience give him the insight and judgment to see through the Bush propaganda and faulty decision-making process? Obama demonstrated superior judgment in opposing the Iraq war from the beginning and has consistently shown that judgment during his primary campaign. Obama will challenge McCain on foreign policy and demonstrate his superior intellect and insight into a changed world. McCain’s thinking reflects his lack of intellectual vigor and his attachment to a military worldview that mirrors our historical past, not our present or future.

The 2008 presidential election is about Barack Obama. Americans recognize the need for dramatic change in direction from how we engage with the rest of the world to how we educate our children, to how we give every American the opportunity for success, to our stewardship of the planet. We are tired of saber-rattling and fear-mongering. John McCain cannot see the depth of change needed. He wants to change by reinventing the past—never a good strategy.

Obama’s challenge is to introduce himself to more Americans and to gain their trust and confidence—no small task in light of his newness and Reverend Wright. If he can do that, he will be our next president with the electoral mandate—up and down the ticket--needed to bring about the changes we need as a nation.

THE LESSON OF ROBERT POTTS & SANDY BLUNT

2008-05-14T10:55:00.004-05:00

This commentary appeared in the Grand Forks Herald on May 14, 2008 and in The Fargo Forum on Sunday May 18, 2008.

Robert Potts and Sandy Blunt came to North Dakota to lead change in dysfunctional and insular organizations—Potts as chancellor of the North Dakota University System (2004-2006) and Blunt as CEO of WSI (Workforce Safety and Insurance, 2004-2008). Both learned that nothing is more difficult or dangerous than to initiate a new order of things.

Trouble began for Potts—by all accounts a good person and a terrific leader--when he stood up to a powerful university president who wanted to do things his way to the detriment of the North Dakota University System as a whole.

When Potts threatened to hold the university president accountable, the battle began and moved underground—to the land of cynical and passive-aggressive political intrigue and manipulation. The university president maneuvered and manipulated with the media, governor, legislature, and members of the Board of Higher Education. Soon all were engaged in a nasty game of sabotage.

Potts refused to go along to get along and asked the board for authority to enforce policies and reporting lines equally across all the institutions in the university system. In other words, he asked for the authority to discipline subordinates who would not accept his leadership. The spineless board refused to support the leader they hired. Potts resigned. Ultimately a local politician replaced Potts and the status quo was restored.

Sandy Blunt was hired to lead WSI—the fourth CEO since 1995 at the troubled agency.

Blunt, an enthusiastic and positive leader, set out to change the culture of the mismanaged WSI. A powerful shadow culture invested in the old order set out to get Blunt because of the change his ideas represented. Blunt wanted to fire those with personal agendas but was discouraged. Soon, with the zeal of partisans and a “kitchen sink” strategy, the media, legislators, state auditors, and even the local prosecutor’s office joined forces against change. Blunt was forced out.
Consultants were hired to sort out the mess.

Consultant Neal Conolly on Bismarck’s KX television: “WSI is really doing an excellent job. It was almost puzzling to come in here and after hearing everything that we heard to see an organization that I would stack up with any organization that does this kind of work in the United States.”

The consultant reports were clear. Blunt, his staff and employees at WSI served their clients well. Business results were impressive. A local politician replaced Blunt and the attacks stopped.

Blunt and Potts were victims of provincial and passive/aggressive political gamesmanship colluded with by the media and politicians more interested in their own agendas than in good leadership or excellence in state organizations. Outsiders were not going to change the way things are done in North Dakota.

Both men were sullied and subverted by unethical underlings invested in the status quo. The “leaders” above Potts and Blunt buckled under “shadow managements” and failed to support the leaders they hired.

Why would Potts and Blunt want to transform these organizations?

Most organizations and most leaders are mediocre when actual performance is compared to potential. Almost 75% of American workers are disengaged clockwatchers who cannot wait to go home at night. Nineteen percent work against the leadership of their organizations.

Transformational leaders—those who can imagine a better way--lead sustainable change in organizations that bring about engaged employees with high morale and improved business results in the 25% to 50% range. These leaders engage employees, involve employees in the redesign of jobs and work processes, empower workers to make decisions about the work they do, and are value driven. These leaders believe in “tough love” and in high levels of accountability.

Such change is difficult--conflict and resistance unavoidable--many benefit from the status-quo and few have the courage to bring about something new Seventy to ninety percent of these change efforts fail—many overthrown by the shadow side of organizations that undermines good, smart, and decent leaders whose fearful supporters offer only lukewarm support.

If North Dakota government wants sustainable change in its agencies that brings forth operational excellence, then it must hire transformational leaders and must support those leaders when difficult actions are needed. Otherwise North Dakota must settle for mediocrity. Asking leaders to bring about change without giving them the power to affect change sets them up to fail.

Robert Potts and Sandy Blunt are good men. They did not fail North Dakota; North Dakota failed them.