ABSTRACT: Change happens. It is an inevitable part of life and the manner in which we react to change will ultimately determine its level of success. A review of the books, Who Moved My Cheese? by Spencer Johnson, and Our Iceberg is Melting: Changing and Succeeding Under any Conditions, by John Kotter and Holger Rathgeber, reveals a standard change management methodology that emphasizes the importance the role of emotion plays in the process. The ability to manage the emotional response of both oneself and others will make the change process easier.
You are currently browsing the archive for the Essays category.
A form of knowledge management (KM), a decision support system (DSS) is basically an interactive, flexible, computer-based system that aids in the process of decision-making. Decision support systems streamline the process of turning decision into action are key to the success of e-commerce. Within the world of e-commerce, companies have built data warehouses containing an incredible amount of information on customers, suppliers, and their transactions with them; this information would be useless without DSS. Decision support systems provide companies with the ability to query, sort, filter, analyze and report this information to facilitate intelligent decision-making. So, what are the e-commerce-driven DSS?
John McCain took his strongest economic stand yet in the midst of our tumbling markets. Calling for the firing of SEC Chairman Christopher Cox for “betray[ing] the public’s trust.” McCain said the SEC allowed abusive short-selling on company stocks turning “our markets into a casino.” According to the WSJ:
“Short-sellers have been blamed for piling into commercial and investment bank stocks and driving stock prices lower. Investment banks have been suffering from heavy write-offs from subprime mortgage debt and their falling stock prices have made it harder for them to raise money.”
Furthermore, McCain contends that Cox’s elimination of a depression-era trading rule, the uptick, designed to prevent short-selling by tying short-sells to previous higher stock price bid.
So what’s McCain’s plan? He wants to create a new agency, the Mortgage and Financial Institutions Trust,
“to work with the private sector and regulators to identify institutions that are weak and take remedies to strengthen them before they become insolvent.”
Investors seemed pleased with the prospect of this form of federal intervention.
We shall see. What we don’t need is massive regulation or more government bailouts!
More: McCain links Obama to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac! Speaking at a rally in Iowa today, McCain lambasted Obama (h/t: Webloggin):
“Senator Obama talks a tough game on the financial markets but the facts tell a different story. He took more money from Fannie and Freddie than any Senator but the Democratic chairman of the committee that regulates them. He put Fannie Mae’s CEO who helped create this disaster in charge of finding his Vice President. Fannie’s former General Counsel is a senior adviser to his campaign. Whose side do you think he is on? When I pushed legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Senator Obama was silent. He didn’t lift a hand to avert this crisis. While the leaders of Fannie and Freddie were lining the pockets of his campaign, they were sowing the seeds of the financial crisis we see today and enriching themselves with millions of dollars in payments. That’s not change, that’s what’s broken in Washington.”
Interesting indeed!
STILL MORE: Hot Air: here and here; Flopping Aces <– WOW!
The framework that many psychologists use to describe personality is the Five-Factor Model of personality, or the Big Five. Its five factors are
- Extraversion: extraverts are talkative and socializing, whereas introverts are silent and avoid contacts
- Agreeableness: highly agreeable persons are soft natured, tolerant and considerate of others, whereas non agreeable persons are bossy, egocentric and they impose their will
- Conscientiousness: highly conscientious persons are well organized, precise and work systematically according to a plan, whereas lowly conscientious persons are undisciplined, sloppy and have a chaotic work style
- Neuroticism or emotional stability: emotionally stable persons are poised and can put problems or set backs aside easily, whereas emotionally unstable persons–or neurotic–persons are nervous and get easily overwhelmed by problems and emotions
- Openness to experience: highly open persons are acute, critical and form their own opinions, whereas lowly open persons agree with everything, follow the majority and have no opinion of their own.
The Big Five is not a theory, but rather an attempt by psychologists to develop a descriptive taxonomy of personality traits. Although helpful, we must remember that humans are highly complex organisms. They don’t join a team or enter a meeting in predictable behavioral packages. The simple truth is that people are different and how the team leader manages those differences is the key to the team’s success or failure in meeting its objectives. An understanding of personality is key to an effective team. This will help the team leader to guide the team in the accomplishment of its mission. For example, the ability to match work profiles with personality will also help satisfy the needs of the team members. Although the team leader’s understanding of personality is important, the individual team member’s understanding of his or her own unique personality can very beneficial.
A company can identify its target customers by first asking the question, “Who are my customers?” Once the company understands their customer, they can identify whom to target. Understanding one’s customer requires careful and thorough analysis. This can be accomplished by defining customer segments, or the various customer types. Why is this important? Because people with similar attributes behave in similar fashion. So, identifying demographic differences, geographic variables and past business interactions will help the company better understand its customer. Next, the company needs to identify the things that are important to each customer. Market research is an excellent mechanism for determining customer preference. After all, customers who buy from your company also buy many other products and services, as well. Understanding the things that are important to customers in complimentary markets can help a company understand what customers prefer in its own market. Once the company understands the type of customers it serves and what is important to those customers, it can identify it’s target customer for each of its products and services. So, how would a company adjust to customer changes?
A company also adjusts to their customer’s shifting priorities by understanding them. After all, a customer does not buy a product or service, per se, he or she buys the satisfaction associated with that product or service. The best place to start is to improve the things customers would like improved. This requires the company to know what the customers expect, for example, what do customers ask for most often in their correspondence with the company? By focusing on these items, the company can effect those things that entice their customers to buy its products and services.
The rapidly changing e-marketplace is forcing companies and their enterprise partners to become more responsive to their customers. There are several forces in play putting pressure on companies to better manage their supply chain, improve logistics operations and manufacturing efficiency while remaining responsive to customer demands and constantly changing market conditions. These forces are:
- The trend toward worldwide dispersion of manufacturing and distribution facilities due to the increased demand for customized products.
- Channel unpredictability resulting from the new technologies that allow companies to better manage customer demand. This requires coordination of several distribution channels.
- Responsiveness over efficiency is disrupting traditional inventory management processes as customers drive the need for faster deliveries and increased product customization.
- Companies’ willingness to accept lower margins to increase market share as they redesign supply chains to increase efficiency and eliminate delay, error, excessive cost and inflexibility.
These forces are driving manufacturers and distributors to transform their operations to become more responsive to retailers and customers. Under pressure to reduce costs, decrease order cycle times and become more operationally efficient, companies are implementing new technologies to integrate processes and attain collaborative information sharing and planning capabilities. This means that in a real sense, information is replacing inventory.
With the advent of growing supply chain capabilities, companies are facing the prospect of managing external inventory that it never actually sees and does not own. To maintain adequate control of this ghost inventory a company must become adept at controlling information about this inventory, specifically, where it is in the supply chain at any given time. Failing this, a company is forced to maintain a physical inventory of products, which increases overhead and inefficiency.
The rapid growth of the Internet and the adoption of its use as a platform for business operations has enhanced the ability of companies to integrate their business processes through collaborative planning to synchronize internal assets and production with external demand and supplier capabilities. Today, as Internet technology is adopted globally and supply chain strategies converge, companies glean a competitive edge by reducing the cost of goods sold, improving customer service, building global brands and increasing global supply chain visibility as they move products to market quicker.
A form of knowledge management (KM), a decision support system (DSS) is basically an interactive, flexible, computer-based system that aids in the process of decision-making. Decision support systems streamline the process of turning decision into action and are key to the success of e-commerce. Within the world of e-commerce, companies have built data warehouses containing an incredible amount of information on customers, suppliers, and their transactions with them; this information would be useless without DSS. Decision support systems provide companies with the ability to query, sort, filter, analyze and report this information to facilitate intelligent decision-making. So, what are the e-commerce-driven DSS?
Not surprisingly, Russia continues to defy the international community by reneging on the ceasefire agreement and refusing to pull-out of Georgia. In fact, Russia is digging in, building ramparts around tanks and posing sentries on a hill in central Georgia about 30 miles from the capital of Tbilisi. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice observed,
“From my point of view … the Russians are perhaps already not honoring their word.”
Perhaps? Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, made it pretty clear what they intended to do when he reported that although Presiddent Mr. Medvedev had signed the cease-fire agreement and ordered its implementation, Russian troops wouldn’t withdraw until Moscow is satisfied its forces have taken the necessary effective security measures to protect the interests of the breakaway provinces.
So what are the Russians up to? It’s plain top see that Russia is simply diverting attention while it solidifies its hold on the breakaway territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Earlier today, Russian army units and separatist fighters in Abkhazia took control of 13 villages and the Inguri hydropower plant. So far, Abkhaz officials couldn’t be reached for comment. Furthermore, Lavrov said Russia would also strengthen its peacekeeping contingent in South Ossetia. (translation: Russia will absorb South Ossetia).
Still, from his ranch in Texas, President Bush said,
“A major issue is Russia’s contention that the regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia may not be a part of Georgia’s future. These regions are a part of Georgia and the international community has repeatedly made clear that they will remain so.”
I think the Russians have a different idea, Mr. President. They’ve made it very clear by their words and actions that Georgia can forget about South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
And with each day that passes, Russia tightens its grip. Are you watching America? E.U.? Georgia’s next!
MORE: Hot Air; Flopping Aces; Little Green Footballs; Neoconservative? Moi?; Political Pistachio; Right Wing Nut House
The general technology trend of infrastructure convergence or the coming together of various data and voice networks in simply the next step in e-business infrastructure evolution. Borne out of the needs of consumers for greater convenience in social and business networking, companies are in a race to 1) provide optical networks to convert electrical signals into optical data; 2) obtain sound quality of service solutions; 3) integrate services to provide voice and data over a single line; and 4) dominate the customer’s home contact point, expanding from the browser and modem to a myriad of in-home and portable appliances. This service convenience trend will only continue as customers’ needs are met through e-business initiatives.
An interesting group decision support system is currently evolving to help fight the global war on terror (GWOT). A National Virtual Translation Center connects linguists embedded with troops on the front line with networked translation assistance technologies. Currently this is accomplished with thousands of linguists pouring over the actual documents and audio clips brought from the front in an effort to extrapolate useful information. The new technology will digitize, parse and digest raw intelligence material, to facilitate the analyzing of material, instead of simply translating it.
Electronic commerce is disruptive to merchants by driving some kind of radical development that changes their business so severely they suffer setbacks. This problem was faced most dramatically by traditional, brick-and-mortar businesses that couldn’t adapt or didn’t adapt fast enough to the emergence of disruptive technology. Companies naturally play to their strengths, but many have suffered decreased market share or even bankruptcy when their strengths suddenly faced obsolescence.
International Business Machines (IBM) is such a company. Busy playing to the large corporations, IBM missed the boat with the introduction of the personal computer (PC). Although IBM eventually reacted effectively to the rise of the PC, its strength was to play to the heavy-hitters. In doing so, they missed a huge opportunity, and a significant opportunity to lead the market, because the tremendous growth in PC sales lay outside the big companies IBM played to. Therefore, IBM’s market share, once 80%, plummeted to the single digits. This is an example of a disrupted merchant, what about the disrupter?
While IBM and like-minded companies play from a position of strength, disruptive innovators play from a position of weakness. Sun Tzu said, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.” A disruptive innovator knows he or she can’t compete with an established business, with established customers, so they have to create a new strength from their competitors’ weaknesses. Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.com is just such an innovator.
In 1995, Amazon.com debuted as an online bookstore that maintained about 2,000 titles in its Seattle warehouse. Most of Amazon’s orders were placed directly through wholesalers and book publishers, so no warehouse was necessary. Amazon would simply receive a book from the source and then ship it to the customer. At any one time, Amazon would only have about 2,000 titles in its warehouse. Amazon had virtually no overhead, and maintained no inventory. This became Amazon’s strength and traditional brick-and-mortar stores like Barnes and Noble and Borders couldn’t compete. In fact, had they not entered the electronic marketplace themselves, they might be nothing more than a memory today. While electronic commerce is often disruptive to merchants who don’t recognize the waves of change, it is continuous to consumers who are willing to ride the wave.
Electronic commerce is continuous to consumers who change with the growing technology. I began working with computers in the mid-80s. My first computer was the floppy-based IBM PC Portable. To use this computer, I had to learn DOS commands and eventually became quite productive using Enable OA. Now, over 20 years later, I’m a dedicated Mac-user at home and a reluctant PC-user at work. Over the years, electronic commerce was continuous for me, as I grew with the technology.
A SuperNet is the implementation of classless inter-domain routing. Classless inter-domain routing changed the way IP addresses are interpreted by replacing the previous generation’s address syntax. Instead of allocating eight-bit address blocks which forced 8, 16 or 24-bit prefixes, it used a technique called variable-length subnet masking, which allows address block allocation on discretionary-length prefixes. A SuperNet is the combining of several contiguous subnetwork addresses into one subnet, much like one area code represents an aggregation of telephone numbers in a geographic area.
SuperNets are used to combine multiple networks into groups, which the router then treats as one big network. Internet service providers use supernetting to segment a TCP/IP network for more effective allocation of IP addresses. An organization containing several LANs, WLANs or VLANs would benefit from this same technique. A SuperNet allows an organization to use components from a public-network infrastructure for its enterprise network, which means the organization no longer has to maintain a private network infrastructure. As such, the burden of maintaining an enterprise network is greatly reduced.
A SuperNet would enhance communication because its not geographically restrictive, so a user may plug his or her device into the Internet from virtually any portal in the world and still be able to use the resources of their private network in a secure and robust manner. Each organizational SuperNet would be assigned a single public web address for its members to contact. After authenticating themselves and accessing the network, they could securely retrieve files and collaborate in real time, from anywhere in the world. Essentially, there would be no difference between the organization’s conference room and an individual’s home office.
A SuperNet expands an organization’s network by combining contiguous IP addresses into a single address. By incorporating components of a public network infrastructure, the organization eliminates the need to maintain a private network infrastructure. The SuperNet enhances communication by providing users’ single-point entry to a specific network from anywhere in the world.
Without discounting the leadership and management abilities of the project manager, I believe the single most important attribute to a well-managed and successful IT project is sound quality management. So what is “quality”? For our purposes, quality is the degree to which a set of characteristics fulfill requirements. There are three key elements in that definition: 1) degree is the relative intensity or amount, 2) characteristic is a distinguishing feature and 3) requirement is a necessity or prerequisite. All three of these elements are established and ultimately evaluated by the customer. Therefore, the quality of a project refers to the perception of the degree to which the project meets the customer’s expectations. Therefore, quality is a conditional and somewhat subjective attribute, and ultimately determines the project’s level of success or failure.
Moore’s Law would suggest that IT used to build systems today is superior to yesterday’s technology. However, new is not always better. Certainly, today’s IT is smaller and faster, but that doesn’t necessarily make it superior to the technology used in legacy systems. In fact, implementing new IT systems carry inherent risks that may outweigh the drawbacks of modifying or converting existing systems.
Electronic or “e” commerce is built on a networked landscape. Understanding how to traverse this complex landscape is the key to business success. An essential rule to follow in this network age is incorporating relationship technology to the e-marketplace. A business following this simple rule will gain a competitive edge.
The Internet, as a growing innovation, touches nearly every part of our lives. It improves communication, eliminates physical barriers, enhances education, stimulates commerce and keeps us connected. The Internet is a wonderful tool, full of information on practically any subject and disturbingly, practically any person. The Internet, though generally accepted by most, is still largely unregulated and the societal rules protecting one’s privacy in the physical world, may not necessarily apply to the digital world. Is Internet privacy something society should expect?
Moore’s Law would suggest that information technology (IT) used to build systems today is superior to yesterday’s technology. However, new is not always better. Certainly, today’s IT is smaller and faster, but that doesn’t necessarily make it superior to the technology used in legacy systems. In fact, implementing new IT systems carry inherent risks that may outweigh the drawbacks of modifying or converting existing systems.
There is still a great deal of controversy surrounding the role of cell phones in cancer development. The cell phone industry insists that cell phones are safe, and conflicting scientific evidence hardly refutes their claim. Only time will tell if the cell phone is the new cigarette. So, what does the research tell us?
The controversy surrounding the teaching of intelligent design alongside the theory of evolution in our schools is simply remarkable to me. I also don’t understand why Christian activists think that if creation can’t be taught exclusively, it must be must be taught in tandem with evolutionary theory. Truth be told, I’ve never had a problem separating the teaching of secular idioms in the public school and leaving the proper teaching of Christian principles and ideals in the home. Don’t get me wrong, I believe Christian teaching has a place in public school and is in line with the beliefs of the Founding Fathers, but also concede to the powers-that-be in its disallowance in the public arena of reading, writing and ‘rithmatic. But why can’t it?
Abstract
Approximately one million children are abused in the United States each year. The health care worker is in a position to help these children and have a moral, ethical and legal obligation to do so. In the American culture, child abuse is wrong and everyone, including the health care worker, has a moral obligation to report suspected child abuse. However, as a member of a professional society, health care workers are also bound by a code of ethics requiring them to act in the patient’s best interest. Finally, all states and territories have laws requiring certain professions to report suspected child abuse and the health care worker is among those with this legal mandate.
Is there ever a moral justification for lying? No. I’m often criticized for being too black-and-white in my perceptions, but I cannot think of any instance when lying is justified. Even when my wife asks, “how do I look in this dress?” I’m compelled to tell the truth. If I think it isn’t flattering, I will tactfully tell her so, feeling that although she might not like hearing it, she would appreciate an honest answer. It is a matter of trust.
In business, as in one’s personal life, honesty–the truth–is sacred. To lie to an employer or an employee is to deny him or her the truth, even if the lie is told for the person’s benefit. For example, a manager who tells an employee he’s being let go due to cutbacks, when he’s really being fired for poor performance, is really being disrespectful to the employee by not telling him the truth behind his termination. Although he may sincerely be trying to guard the employee’s feelings, the manager fails to provide the employee with knowledge that could potentially preclude this situation from happening in the future.
Because telling the truth can be unpleasant, we sometimes resort to telling a “white lie”. Another example would be the employee who is asked to comment on a sales presentation his employer is going to provide to the board of directors. The employee, trying to be polite, tells his boss all is a-okay when the yellow letters against the slide’s red background is distracting and hard on the eyes. The employee’s white lie may make the employer feel better, but may not prevent his embarrassment in front of the company’s board.
If lying is wrong in one instance, it is wrong in any instance. Lying, regardless of one’s good intentions, is nothing more than a betrayal of trust between one person and another. Lying for any reason is a violation of the business ethics principles of ordinary decency and distributive justice. A person who lies, even to protect the feelings of another, is still a liar. If the lie is discovered, the person may never regain the trust of the other.
In the book, If Aristotle Ran General Motors, author Tom Morris writes, “Truth is just that mapping of reality that corresponds to the way things are.” I find this a very interesting concept and am in total agreement. Mr. Morris is basically saying that truth equals reality. Therefore, truth would be an absolute representation of fact. In this sense, truth gives meaning to and allows for the understanding of the object being considered. This statement is also consistent with correspondence theories, which attribute an existence to objects whether or not those objects are being perceived or even thought about. This means truth is independent of and may conflict with perception.
In simplest terms, and in a physical sense, if I have a red ball, the fact that I’m colorblind and see its color as something other than red, doesn’t change the fact that the ball is red. The truth lies in the ball’s actual color, red, versus my perception of the ball’s color. Therefore, truth gives meaning to the knowledge one possesses of the ball’s actual color. Otherwise, my perception of the color of the ball would be reality.
The “perception is reality” or “what is true for you may not be true for me” philosophy denies truth and is the basic attitude of relativism. Relativism rejects the idea of universal truths and, instead, endorses that truth is only relative to the circumstances to which it is applied. For example, to properly understand the Holocaust, one must consider the beliefs and actions of the German government in a historical or cultural context. In this manner, depending on one’s point-of-view, the senseless killing of thousands of Jews could be considered justified and therefore a true action.
In the working environment, relativism would likely foster an environment of anything goes. Because almost any action can be justified based on one’s perception of a situation, relativism undermines morality. If I believe it is wrong to lie, I just as easily could believe that lying is right, no matter what the circumstances.
If the principle objective of business is to maximize long-term owner value, then anything I do that contributes to that end could be considered right. For example, if an EPA inspector is going to shut down a chemical manufacturing plant for unsafe practices and the forced shut-down is expected to have a negative effect on the maximization of long-term owner value, then the plant manager could be justified in murdering the EPA inspector. I realize this is an extreme example, but it follows the principle of relativism. After all, for a relativist to condemn this action, he would have to consider the act of murder to be fundamentally wrong. This implies a moral absolute that is contrary to the relativist philosophy.
Another, and more realistic, example would be in the area of negotiation. If the rightness of a person’s bargaining position is relative to that individual’s perception of rightness, then it only follows that everyone at the bargaining table is right. The contradiction in this situation is evident when the goal of negotiation is to reach an agreement. If all positions are equally right, they are just as well equally wrong. How could agreement be reached?
The relativist premise, what’s true for you may not be true for me, in the work environment, infuses a severe subjectivity into every aspect of business operation. If what is true to me is false to you, then what is true to you is false to me. Since this philosophy doesn’t recognize anything as absolute, nothing can be considered true. If there is no universal truth, there is no reality.
Most people involved in business, from the CEO of a large corporation to the assembly line worker, will eventually face an ethical dilemma. Although the breadth of responsibility for some business members is much broader than others, all have a responsibility to stakeholders. Because everyone within the business entity can potentially impact the business stakeholders, everyone should fully understand and practice sound business ethics all the time.
Consider the Firestone tire recall of 2000. This was a recall of over 14.5 million tires at a cost of more than 3 billion dollars. The tires had been manufactured at a plant in Decatur, IL, and had defects that resulted in tread separations and rollover accidents. The ethical dilemma for business leadership in this case would be between profit loss and consumer safety. To initiate a recall the tire manufacturer would probably consider the cost of the recall versus the cost of litigation. The lesser of the two would determine the company’s course of action. On the surface, this doesn’t sound very ethical, but from a practical standpoint, it may be. For a tire, there is an acceptable rate of defect and if the harm caused by these defects is within that range, it’s considered ethical to refrain from a product recall. This doesn’t mean the company keeps the information secret or initiates a cover-up. It simply doesn’t undertake what it considers is an unnecessary action. In this respect, one can easily understand the manager’s ethical dilemma and why it’s important to understand and practice sound business ethics. But what of the employee on the assembly line?
The Firestone employee at the Decatur, IL, plant is engaged in the actual manufacture of the tire. Perhaps this employee has been working the job for several months when he discovers that he has been performing a function incorrectly. This inadvertent mistake resulted in a tire defect that could lead to a tread separation. Should the employee inform management of his error and place his job at risk or should he keep quiet, simply make the process correction and eliminate the error. The potential repercussion of his silence would be harm to the consumer and the potential repercussion of his informing on himself would be a recall of the affected tires and his firing or reprimand. How the employee responds to this ethical dilemma could mean serious injury or death to consumers or severe profit loss to his employer in the form of a product recall and ultimately, the termination of his employment. How does the employee determine the right course of action?
An organization should encourage all employees to understand and practice sound business ethics. Incorporation of ethics into the business culture will ensure personnel at all levels make the rightdecision when faced with ethical dilemmas. The Firestone employee who brings his error to the attention of his employers has resolved his ethical dilemma with the right choice. How the employer responds to this information represents his own ethical dilemma and is an indication of the business ethical culture.
I believe the market should determine the level of employee compensation. An employer is interested in hiring an employee at the lowest possible cost. Conversely, the employee is interested in obtaining employment at the highest possible wage. This conflict results in an equilibrium wage being paid to employees by employers. Basically, the scales would balance.
Consider the manager of a fast food restaurant. In the absence of a minimum wage policy established by the government, the manager could offer workers any amount he or she sees fit. Let’s assume the manager offers $4.00 per hour to workers in a market where the average hourly wage was $5.00 per hour. He may be able to fully staff his restaurant, but his employees would likely resign their positions at the first opportunity of new employment for better pay. This high level of employee turnover would have a tremendous negative impact on his business. He would soon be forced to pay a higher wage in order to retain workers. Therefore, all fast food restaurants in a given market would essentially be forced pay the same basic wage.
The market would ensure the employees are treated with fairness and honesty because for the manager, turnover means money. The market would also satisfy distributive justice concerns. Fast food managers would be paying the same basic wage determined by the market they’re in. This would also apply to leadership positions within the restaurants, like assistant manager or shift leader. The manager who is interested in expanding or simply having a day off will need to delegate some managerial responsibility. To do so, he would train one or more of his employees to perform those duties. In order to keep these middle managers, the manager would be forced to pay a competitive wage. Should he fail to do so, his workers would likely take their new training and find employment elsewhere. In this respect, equals would be treated as equals both within the organization and across the given market.
I believe the market should determine the wage-rate for employees. Absent a minimum wage law, the market is a powerful driver and the laws of supply and demand will always result in equilibrium. This balanced scale would ensure the inviolate principle of distributive justice and encourage ordinary decency across the market. Managers who pay a fair market wage will, therefore contribute to maximizing long-term owner value.
Power involves a relationship between two or more actors in which the behavior of one is affected by the behavior of the other. The most important thing to remember is that power is relational. Power can’t be possessed or exercised unless there is a recipient. Additionally, power doesn’t extend simply to the individual, one organization can have power over another due to a position of strength in a particular market.
There are two outcomes to power. The most prevalent is simply compliance. When the application of power results in compliance, one agent basically yields to the will of the other. Employees who yield to the will of a manager are being obedient. They recognize the legitimate authority of a superior and act accordingly. The second and most dynamic power outcome is conflict. There are consequences to the action-reaction interplay of actors in conflict. These consequences can be functional or dysfunctional. A functional consequence results in performance improvements, whereas a dysfunctional consequence hinders performance. Hence, power and its outcomes are central organizational processes.
Properly managed conflict can act as a positive force to increase organizational performance. Conflict can improve the quality of decisions by allowing all points related to a topic to be heard. In this respect, conflict helps ensure the interests and opinions of the minority are protected. Conflict is also an antidote to groupthink. Conflict stimulates creativity and innovation by challenging the status quo and encourages the development of new ideas, which may bring change to the organization. Furthermore, conflict can improve productivity. Healthy competition between competing organizational groups can have a positive influence on morale as well as the bottom line.
Uncontrolled conflict breeds discontent within the organization. Negative conflict can dissolve common ties among members and can destroy the organization. Reduction of group cohesiveness and the subordination of group goals to individual agendas can stop the organization from moving forward. In fact, it can stop the organization from moving at all. For this reason, organizations may wish to actually strategically apply conflict within the organization in order to exercise greater control.
The stimulation of conflict within organizational groups can increase cohesiveness and ultimately productivity. Some common conflict stimulation techniques are:
- Communication: Using ambiguous or threatening messages to increase conflict levels.
- Bringing in outsiders: Adding employees to a group whose backgrounds, values, attitudes or managerial styles differ from those of present members.
- Restructuring work groups, altering rules and regulations, increasing interdependence and making similar structural changes to disrupt the status quo.
- Appointing a devil’s advocate: Designating a critic to purposely argue against the majority positions held by the group.
These techniques allow managers to control conflict levels. Conflict stimulation can increase group performance and yield improvements for the organization. The goal is to create an environment where conflict is healthy.
Change affects every aspect of life. Only organizations that take an active approach to change will secure their positions as leaders in the business world. The most formidable obstacle to effective change management is the resistance to change exhibited by employees. Communication is an important aspect of change management. The manager’s open and honest communication inspires trust and mitigates employees’ resistance to change. Failing this, organizational change is an uphill climb.
According to Robert Heller, in his book, Managing Change, resistance to change takes three main forms: misunderstanding, fear and distrust. He warns that the “intensity of negative response will largely depend on the existing degree of trust.” Heller then goes on to stress that managers must “be sure to consult and communicate with everyone as much as possible” before introducing the plan. In fact, managers who held back information discovered that employees’ fear of impending change was worse than the change itself. This fear could easily translate to productivity problems within the organization.
Organizational change will always meet with some resistance. The effective manager will confront potential resistance situations by planning ahead. In order for an employee to be willing to accept change, he or she must understand the need for change. He must also trust the manager to look after his or her best interest. The manager can mitigate an employee’s resistance by providing open and honest communication from the inception of the change. After all, knowledge is power and in a changing organization, the manager who shares that power will likely find a smoother transition to a new corporate culture.
Organizational change is defined as “the alteration and transformation of the form so as to survive better in the environment.” The same can be said of change in human beings. The similarity between human change and organizational change prompts the use of a biological metaphor to describe the organizational life cycle. Just as the life cycle of a human being consists of birth, growth, maturity, decline and death, the life cycle of an organization progresses in like fashion.
When a child is born and for some time thereafter, the infant is very susceptible to changes in his or her environment. The infant is vulnerable and requires a great deal of support to grow, thrive and flourish. Similarly, at start-up (i.e. birth), the organization may not be very tolerant of environmental changes, such as changing regulatory requirements, resource non-availability or lagging political support. The organization will be reliant on support from sources such as investors and financial institutions, the local government and the surrounding community.
During the growth and maturity stage, the infant becomes a child, who then becomes an adult. How the child responds to environmental stimuli will determine how well he or she thrives. In like manner, during these stages the organization reacts to various opportunities and threats. How the organization capitalizes on its opportunities while minimizing its threats will ultimately determine how well it thrives within its environment. When the child becomes and adult, he or she will choose a profession and begin earning a living. The adult is at this point making his or her own way in the world. Perhaps he or she will be supporting a family, as well. As the organization matures and gains strength, it is less reliant on the support structures necessary during the start-up stage. The organization will stand on its own and earn a living for its employees and dividends for its shareholders.
As the adult ages, he or she begins to slow down. With old age, the human being faces new challenges. The human body is not as tolerant of environmental changes as it was during the prime of life. The human being undergoes an inevitable, gradual decline that ultimately results in death. As with its human counterpart, the organization in decline faces new threats and is not able to respond with the strength of its “youth”. Also, the failing organization may not have the resources to take advantage of opportunities as they present themselves.
A key difference in the correlation between human and organizational life cycles is that for the human being death is inevitable; for the organization, death may never occur. The declining organization may experience a revival. Just as Chrysler did in the 1980s, the organization may mount a “come-back” and find itself in the position of strength it formerly held. In essence, the organization finds a fountain of youth. Of course, death may not be the end of the story for the human being either. What happens after death may very well relate to the life cycle of the organization, giving more meaning and relevance to the metaphor.
In September 1774, Congress met in Philadelphia and dispatched a petition to the king asking a return to the political status of 1763, which the colonists felt to be the true constitutional division of imperial and provincial power. It also urged that the colonists abide by the rules of the proposed association, whose provisions forbade the importation of British goods. A Declaration of Rights and Grievances, an ultimatum stating the American position, was also drafted. Finally, after providing for another Congress the following year, the members adjourned.
Within the year, however, war had been precipitated. William Pitt and Edmund Burke in Parliament had urged conciliation, but the majority in England felt that the revolutionary movement in America was led by radicals who were really asking for a return to non-enforcement of law; hence they supported the king, who urged General Thomas Gage (leader of the British Army in America and Governor of Massachusetts) to be firm.
When Gage tried to seize Samuel Adams and John Hancock as rebel ringleaders and to destroy colonial military stores, the quarrel broke into open conflict, and the “shots heard ’round the world” were fired on Lexington Green and Concord Bridge. Thereupon, militia from New England flocked to Boston, and , although driven from one height in the Battle of Bunker Hill, they harried the British and threatened their hold on Boston by fortifying the surrounding hills. The die was cast. About one-third of the colonists had forced the war. Another third hoped for conciliation. The remaining third was indifferent to the controversy before the war, and stayed aloof during the actual fighting.
The Second Continental Congress met on May 10, 1775. It recognized that a state of war existed by appointing George Washington commander in chief of the colonial army, and by issuing a “Declaration of Causes for Taking up Arms.”
Conservative Groups in America were slow to support any movement toward separation. Such a step meant severing the sentimental ties to the mother-country, and economic interests dictated hesitation. Not only would commercial privileges within the empire be lost, but there was a danger that the resulting revolution might bring on anarchy or military rule, more to be feared than parliamentary taxation. The Whigs in England tended to support the liberal demands of the colonies and to aid them in reducing the royal power. However, patriotism and the whole background of the mercantile system, which would keep the colonies subservient to England, influenced the majority of Parliament (perhaps as much as royal patronage) to vote support for the war. Lagging enlistments forced the English government to adopt the common practice of purchasing the services of soldiers from other countries; the ruler of the German principality of Hesse supplied England with mercenaries.
In the colonies, resentment against this hiring of Hessians, as well as the reputed incitement of Indians on the frontier, added fuel to the revolutionary propaganda being poured out. Press and pulpit recited tales of British spoliation of American territory. Thomas Paine’s Common Sense and John Dickinson’s Letters of a Pennsylvania Farmer were two of the more influential pamphlets published.
By July 1, 1776, representatives of nine states in Congress were ready to support a resolution of independence. Later the vote was unanimous, and on July 4th a formal declaration was adopted. Thomas Jefferson prepared the document which asserted the principle earlier developed by John Locke–that men have certain inalienable rights. This was followed by a list of acts of the king in opposition to these rights. Finally appeared the statement that hence “these colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states.”
Happy Independence Day!
John Trumbull’s Declaration of Independence
MORE:
- See Rick Moran’s liveblogging the Continental Congress at Rightwing Nuthouse (h/t Michelle Malkin).
- RedState’s Declaration of Independence.
- Curzon’s comments on freedom at Coming Anarchy.
- Andrew Sullivan’s post, Things We Love About America, Part 1 at The Daily Dish
- Power Line’s The Eternal Meaning of Independence Day, Part 1 and Part 2
- Happy Fourth of July from The American Pundit
- Ham reminds us what liberty is all about at Provide for the common defense
- This is how our troops in Iraq celebrated Independece Day
In 1969, Golda Meir, Prime Minister of Israel from 1969 to 1974, said, “There was no such thing as Palestinians. It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country from them. They did not exist.”
So, is Palestine a legitimate nation containing a population with common customs, culture, tradition, history, and language? No it is not. More appropriately, the Palestinian refugees should be considered displaced Arabs who are pawns in a political game enacted by Yasser Arafat and his Palestinian Liberation Organization and supported by the Arab and other Islamic Nations as a protest of Israeli sovereignty.
The term Palestine is actually derived from the name of the Philistines, a people of uncertain origins, possibly Aegean, who, in the 12th century BC, settled along the southern Mediterranean coastal plain of what is now Israel and the Gaza Strip and disappeared several centuries later. After crushing Bar Kokhba’s revolt, the Romans Latinized the hitherto seldom-used Greek name Palaestina and applied it to the entire region that had formerly included Iudaea Province (which combined Judea, Samaria, and Idumea). To Jews, the name had connotations of past conflicts. This was done to send a message to any remaining Jewish rebels that they were no longer the owners of the land. The Arabic toponym Filastin is derived from this name.
In historical contexts, especially predating the establishment of the State of Israel, Palestine was mostly a geographical term, particularly used in Greek, Latin, Arabic, and other languages taking their geographical vocabulary from them; it comprised the Roman sub-province of Syria Palaestina, roughly equivalent to ancient Canaan (including the Biblical kingdoms of Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon, and Philistia) and thus included much of the land on either side of the Jordan River although with further political sub-divisions along the River Jordan valley .
Canaanites are considered to be among the the earliest inhabitants of the region today known as Palestine/Israel, Canaan being its earliest known denomination. Some of the Canaanites are believed to have migrated in the 3rd millennium BC from the inner Arabian Peninsula. Later, Hebrews (Israelites), Philistines, Romans, Arab Nabateans, Arab Ghassanids, Arabs, Crusaders, and other people have all settled in the region and some intermarried.
It wasn’t until the British Mandate of Palestine, that ultimately resulted in the establishment of the State of Israel, that a people known as Palestinian were even suggested.
Between 1922 and 1948, the term Palestine referred to the portion of the British Mandate of Palestine lying to the west of the Jordan River; that is, all of what is now Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip. It was used by both Arabs and Jews without any ethnic connotations. For example, the Jerusalem Post, an Israeli newspaper, was known as the Palestine Post from its founding in 1932 until 1950.
The rise of Zionism, a political movement started in Europe and Russia in the 19th century seeking to create a Jews homeland in Palestine, increased the trend of Jewish immigration. By 1920, the Jewish population of Palestine had reached 11% of the population.
In World War I, Turkey sided with Germany. As a result, it was embroiled in a conflict with Great Britain, leading to the British capture of Palestine. At the subsequent 1919 Paris Peace Conference and Treaty of Versailles, Turkey’s loss of its Middle East empire was formalized. The British had in the interim made two agreements. In the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence there was an undertaking to form an Arab state in exchange for the Great Arab Revolt and in the Balfour Declaration in 1917 to “favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” while respecting the rights of the indigeneous majority.
McMahon’s promises are seen by Arab nationalists as a pledge of immediate Arab independence, an undertaking violated by the region’s subsequent partition into British and French League of Nations mandates under the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of May 1916 which became the real cornerstone of the geopolitics structuring the entire region. Prior to the conference Emir Faisal, British ally and son of the king of the Hijaz, had agreed in the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement to support the immigration of Jews into Palestine and the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, while creating a large Arab state based in Syria. When the conference did not produce that Arab state, Faisal called instead for Palestine to become part of his new Arab Syrian kingdom.
In 1920 the Allied Supreme Council meeting at San Remo offered a Mandate for Palestine to Great Britain, but the borders and terms under which the mandate was to be held were not finalised until September 1922. Article 25 of the mandate specified that the eastern area (then known as Transjordan or Transjordania) did not have to be subject to all parts of the Mandate, notably the provisions regarding a Jewish national home. This was used by the British as one rationale to establish an Arab state, which it saw as at least partially fulfilling the undertakings in the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence. On April 11, 1921 the British passed administration of the eastern region to the Hashemite Arab dynasty from the Hejaz what later became part of Saudi Arabia as the Emirate of Transjordan and on 15 May 1923 recognized it as a state.
Under the Mandate, Jewish immigration to Cisjordan Palestine increased substantially with a rise in Jewish nationalism, which encouraged Zionism, a return to the ancient land of the Jews. Between 1922 and 1946, Jews went from less than 11% to 33% of the rapidly expanding population, due in part to an influx of Jewish refugees from Nazism in Europe and the refusal of the USA, France, Britain and other countries to allow Jewish immigration.
Palestinian Arab leaders strongly opposed the immigration. In 1936 the British Peel Commission advised that the western part of Palestine be divided between Arabs and Jews. The Arabs then launched the Great Uprising against British rule in an effort to end the immigration. The Jews, for their part, organized militia groups like the Irgun and Lehi to fight the British and the Haganah and Palmach to fight the Arabs. By the time order was restored in March of 1939, more than 5,000 Arabs, 400 Jews, and 200 Britons were killed.
Conflict between Palestinian nationalists and various types of pan-Arabists continued during the British Mandate, but the latter became increasingly marginalised. The most prominent leader of the Palestinain nationalists was Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. By 1937, only one of the many Arab political parties in Palestine (the Istiqlal party) promoted political absorption into a greater Arab nation as its main agenda. During World War II, al-Husayni maintained close relations with Nazi officials seeking German support for an independent Palestine. However, the 1948 Arab-Israeli War resulted in those parts of Palestine which were not part of Israel being occupied by Egypt and Jordan.
The idea of an independent nationality for Palestinian Arabs was greatly boosted by the 1967 Six Day War in which these lands were conquered by Israel; instead of being ruled by different Arab states encouraging them to think of themselves as Jordanians or Egyptians, those in the West Bank and Gaza were now ruled by a state with no desire to make them think of themselves as Israelis, and an active interest in discouraging them from regarding themselves as Egyptians, Jordanians, or Syrians. Moreover, the natives of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip now shared many interests and problems in common with each other that they did not share with the neighboring countries.
During the few decades after the State of Israel came into existence, Palestinian expressions of pan-Arabism could be heard from time to time, but usually under outside influence. This was particularly true in Syria under the influence of the Baath party. For example, Zuhayr Muhsin, the leader of the Syrian-funded as-Sa’iqa Palestinian faction and its representative on the PLO Executive Committee, told a Dutch newspaper in 1977 that “There is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. It is for political reasons only that we carefully emphasize our Palestinian identity.”
Golda Meir was right.
Today the existence of a unique Palestinian nationality is generally recognized. This is due to the gradualness of the creation of a unique Palestinian national identity (as opposed to a regional Arab identity). A result of the mechanizations of morally corrupt Arab and other religiously-blinded Islamic leaders for reasons of political convenience. These leaders don’t care about the displaced Arabs living in the contested region and likely would not welcome them into their own country. We caudal them at our own peril.
“Palestinian.” Wikipedia. Wikipedia, 2007. Answers.com 03 Jun. 2007. http://www.answers.com/topic/palestinian-3
“Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian.” Wikipedia. Wikipedia, 2007. Answers.com 03 Jun. 2007. http://www.answers.com/topic/
definitions-of-palestine-and-palestinian
Insider trading is the buying or selling of securities by someone who has access to information that isn’t available to the public. The problem with insider trading is one of fairness. It is unfair to other investors if someone uses inside information to gain an advantage. An individual can use inside information to gain an advantage for himself or he could tip-off someone else. An individual can tip-off someone in one of two ways: purposefully (i.e. he tells someone directly) or incidentally (i.e. an outsider overhears a conversation between the insider and someone else). This means that insider trading isn’t isolated to company executives and upper management; brokers, family members, friends or a company’s employees can become insiders This doesn’t mean that an insider can’t trade his company’s securities; he can, but the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has very strict rules concerning these trades and watches them very closely.
So, is insider trading unethical? I believe that for insider trading to be unethical, the trader must have a fiduciary responsibility to the organization he is trading in. In this respect, fiduciary responsibility makes one the caretaker of another’s rights or assets. The fiduciary has an obligation to carry out his responsibility in good faith and honesty, with integrity and loyalty to the interests of the organization. This good faith imposes an ethical obligation for the fiduciary to protect the organization’s interest to the exclusion of anyone else’s interests, including his own.
For example, an executive officer of a pharmaceutical company, who learns that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is about to announce the disapproval of his company’s experimental cancer drug, and subsequently sells his stock, is betraying a fiduciary trust. He is using inside information to gain an advantage over other shareholders. This act could have a negative effect on long-term owner value in that shareholders could lose faith in the organization and the management’s integrity. He is also violating the principle of ordinary decency by failing to deal fairly and honestly with shareholders.
What if the executive’s son, who is also a shareholder, overhears his father discussing the FDA disapproval with another insider, and subsequently sells his shares? Does this present an ethical dilemma and if so, for whom? Does the son have a fiduciary responsibility to the organization his father works for? No, he doesn’t. Does the son have a fiduciary responsibility to his father? Again, the answer is no. So, although the SEC would consider the act illegal, I don’t feel the son would be acting unethically. But what of the father’s disclosure of inside information to his son, is this unethical? I believe it is. After all, the father does have a fiduciary responsibility to the company and his disclosure of inside information, inadvertent or not, betrays his organization’s trust. The result of this disclosure is no different than the executive capitalizing on this information and selling his own shares.
I believe the presence of fiduciary responsibility is the determining factor of the ethics of insider trading. Insider trading is unethical if the trader has a fiduciary responsibility to an organization and uses inside information to gain advantage over others. This betrayal of trust fails to maximize long-term owner value and violates the principles of ordinary decency and distributive justice.
The differing interests between business and its stakeholders create many ethical conflicts. The conflict that arises as managers make determinations on what is best for business and what is best for stakeholders can also result in more than just a moral dilemma. Managers also face many legal and regulatory mandates as well. In resolving these conflicts, managers must often balance the ideal solution with a practical one. The cost of making the wrong decision can have a disastrous effect on business as managers weigh the need to make a profit against the need for honesty in business practices. How the manager makes decisions in light of this conflict is a question of business goals and ethical conduct.
According to Dr. Elaine Sternberg, in her book, Just Business: Business Ethics in Action, the purpose of business is to “maximize long-term owner value by selling goods and services.” She explains that long-term owner value represents the one distinguishing characteristic of business. All other goals or purposes are “incidental insofar as they contribute to achievement of the definitive goal.” Therefore, a business that isn’t dedicated to the pursuit of long-term owner value cannot truly be considered a business. After all, a business that does not pursue long-term owner value will not remain a business very long. So, what is ethics?
The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word “ethic” as “a set of principles of right conduct.” Therefore to be ethical, one must adhere to a set of principles of right conduct. Boston University Professor Bordon Parker Bowne, stated,
The greatest need in ethics is the impartial and unselfish will to do right. With this will, most questions would settle themselves; and, without it, all theory is worthless. The selfish will is the greatest source not only of wars and fightings, but also of dishonest casuistry and tampering with truth and righteousness. One bent on doing wrong never lacks an excuse; and one seeking to do right can commonly find the way.
So ethical behavior is a choice: the will to do right. This suggests a conscious decision and conviction to focus on the rightness of decisions. This also implies the context in which decisions are made must be considered. In business, decisions are made in the context of maximizing long-term owner value. Therefore, the focus of business ethics is the determination of what is right in relation to maximizing long-term owner value.
The business has a responsibility to maximize long-term owner value. In this respect, the business is only concerned with its own self-interest. This “rules be damned” approach may actually have the opposite effect on long-term owner value. A business with the attitude of “profit at any cost” may ultimately fail because stakeholders will probably not have the same attitude toward the business. So, it’s important for the business to consider the repercussions of its decisions on stakeholders. The tenets of business ethics are to deal fairly and honestly with others and to treat equals as equals. The adherence to these tenets will assure the business attains its ultimate goal of maximizing long-term owner value while making the right decisions.
You lead people and you manage things. This is the accepted axiom and implies that leadership and management go hand-in-hand. Management is a function and deals with supervision and exercising control, while leadership is about relationships and influence and inspiration. Before one can become an effective leader in an organization, one must first be an effective manager.
The manager is responsible for setting goals and achieving objectives. In doing so, he performs four basic functions. Developing the skills associated with these functions are crucial to the effectiveness of a leader:
- Planning
- Organizing
- Directing
- Controlling
Planning is basically bringing the future into the present so you can do something about it now. Planning is concerned with defining goals for future organizational performance and deciding on tasks and resources to be used to attain those goals. To meet the goals, managers will invest significant resources for training and incentives (i.e. rewards) to motivate employees.
The leader soon learns that motivation is more than incentives. Motivating subordinates is a key leadership principle and represents the greatest challenge. Motivating people depends on understanding their needs and working to align those needs with organizational requirements. Most people will work for an organization they know cares for them, and one in whose mission they believe. The most powerful form of lasting motivation is self-motivation. In developing plans and laying incentives, the leader will provide an environment that fosters and rewards self-motivation.
Organizing involves arranging the necessary resources to carry out the plan. It is the process of creating structure, establishing relationships and allocating resources to accomplish the goals of the organization. Organizing has to do with setting priorities and team building. It is also moving people and things from one task or one place to another as the plan unfolds and the mission is accomplished.
As managers become leaders they realize organizing means to resist averting attention from the unpriortized demands of their telephone calls, in-boxes and meeting and travel schedules. Leaders have the opportunity to structure their own schedules to a certain degree. Those leaders focus on the big picture and empower their subordinates to carry out the details of the mission. They spend time with their employees in the trenches and lead from the front. The leader learns to sacrifice personal requirements or comfort for the people and the mission.
Directing, in management terms, involves conducting or regulating the affairs of the organization. The manager must learn how to direct personnel to carry out the mission. This is accomplished through the manager’s legitimate authority and subordinates are compelled to respond accordingly. An employee will perform a task because the “boss told me to,” but this is possibly more based on fear (e.g. losing his or her job) than a true desire to perform the task.
The leader builds upon this function and influences his or her subordinates through earned authority. People complete assigned tasks out of a sense of loyalty to the leader and the organization. A leader understands that loyalty is a three-dimensional trait that includes faithfulness to superiors, peers and subordinates. Before a leader can expect his employees to be loyal, he must first demonstrate an unquestionable sense of loyalty. General George S. Patton highlighted the importance of loyalty by saying, “There is a great deal of talk about loyalty from the bottom to the top. Loyalty from the top down is even more necessary and mush less prevalent.”
Controlling involves verifying that actual performance matches the plan. This is accomplished through the implementation of a decision methodology and feedback to measure the achievement of organizational goals. To accomplish this task, he will study accounting and other reports and compare them to the plans set earlier. These comparisons may show where operations are not proceeding as planned and who is responsible for what. The feedback the manager receives may suggest the need to replan, to set new strategies or to reshape the organizational structure.
Simply put, the manager knows his job and understands the organization. This is important to the leader because people will follow a competent person who has the knowledge needed to successfully meet organizational goals. The leader should have a broad view of the organization’s mission, and must ensure all personnel understand how their jobs relate to the achievement of organizational goals.
Just as important as their own competence, leaders ensure people know their responsibilities. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Maxwell D. Taylor stated, “One expects a … leader to demonstrate in his daily performance a thorough knowledge of his or her own job and further an ability to train his subordinates in their duties and thereafter to supervise and evaluate their work.”
As you can see, leaders build on the skills they learned performing the functions of management. The ability to manage an organization effectively is instrumental to becoming an effective leader. Hence, leaders can be managers, but managers can’t always be leaders. Leadership relies on management skills.
On January 28, 2005 the United States gave the gift of democracy to Iraq. For the first time in history, a muslim country has a democratically elected government. But what have we done really? I think we haven’t changed a thing other than give the Iraqis another form or tyranny. This one much more insidious than the authoritarian rule of Saddam Hussain.
I think it’s safe to say that most people in the world today consider the United States to be a democracy. Why wouldn’t they? After all, citizens of the United States think they’re living in a democracy. Our president even stated in a television interview that “we’re giving democracy to Iraq.” And truth be told, the United States is probably closer to a true democracy now than we ever were and never were intended to be!
In developing the framework for the new nation, our founding fathers voted on the form of government our country would have. Democracy was on the table and it was voted down in favor of a republic. Consider these definitions from the Merrium-Webster Dictionary of Law:
Democracy
Function: noun
1. a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2. a political unit that has a democratic government
Republic
Function: noun
1. a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president; also : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
2. a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law; also : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
They sound very similar, don’t they? A democracy and a republic are not only dissimilar, they are antithetical. The distinction is found in who “rules.” In a democracy, the majority rules to the exclusion of the individual and the minority. A republic is governed by the rule of law…in our case, established by a constitution. The law protects the minority and the ultimate minority is the individual. The law maintains liberty and keeps the majority in check.
Our constitutional republic required strict limitations on government power. The only powers permitted were those defined and delegated by the people. The democratic process was limited to the election of our leaders and was not used to grant special privileges to any group or individual, or for defining rights.
Our founding fathers cherished liberty–personal (individual) liberty–and therefore favored a limited government. Our system of checks and balances was essentially supposed to cripple our government to ensure the preservation of personal liberty. There was no doubt as to where our right to liberty came from–our Creator. And with that in mind, understand that if the government could not grant rights, they certainly couldn’t take them away.
Our constitutional republic was designed to protect the rights of the minority against the abuses of an authoritarian majority. In fact, our founding fathers feared democracy as much as a monarchy and demanded a weak executive, a restrained court and a handicapped legislature.
The colonists recognized that equal justice and protection of the minority was not egalitarianism. Socialism and welfarism were never considered. Favoring instead, an economic system based on private ownership of capital–a free market (capitalism).
So what happened?
Remember, in a democracy there’s centralized power (controlled by majority opinion). A democracy favors big government and social welfare. In contrast, our republic was decentralized, with government power strictly limited by the Constitution to the protection of liberty and private property ownership.
It was the ideas of democracy, not the principles of liberty, that led to the passage of the 16th Amendment which imposed an income tax on the American people and gave birth to the welfare state. As long as this amendment is in place, we’ll never restore our republic. The personal income tax is more than a symbol of democracy, it’s a predictable consequence. How else can the majority pay for it’s excesses?
Now, majority opinion has become the determining factor in all that our government does. The rule of law is pushed aside and our marketplace, once driven by voluntary cooperation, private property ownership and sound money has been undermined with the acceptance of true democracy.
Unfortunately, too many people confuse the democratic election of leaders of a republic for democracy by accepting the rule of the majority in all things. For majorities to pick leaders is one thing, but its quite different for majorities to decide what rights are (for example, privately-owned land that can’t be touched because it’s been categorized a “protected wetland”), to redistribute property (income taxes), to tell citizens how to manage their personal lives (hello, Patriot Act) and to promote undeclared, unconstitutional wars (Iraq).
Democracy, by necessity, endorses special interest interventionism, inflation and corporatism. In order to carry out the duties now expected of the government, power must be transferred from the citizens to the politicians.
The majority rule in our country and they can do whatever they please. Do you doubt this? Consider the issue of “gay rights.” Homosexuals are a minority in our country, representing less than 1% of our nation and yet this is one of our most intense political issues. Propelled by the propaganda machine of this “special interest” group, our government is writing protections into law and considering “minority status” for homosexuals as if homosexuality was an ethnic designation. The rule of law and the Constitution have become irrelevant, and we live by constant polls.
This is tolerated because its done in the name of benevolence, fairness and equality. The pretense of love, compassion and fairness has allowed the departure from the republic and the erosion of our liberty has gone unnoticed.
As the demands of the majority become greater, taxation alone can’t provide for them. Therefore control of the monetary and banking system is required for the democracy to operate. Enter the Federal Reserve (established in 1913). (incidentally, this was actually the year the USA took a dramatic shift toward democracy–in 1913, the personal income tax and popular election of senators were both instituted, and our foreign policy became aggressively interventionalist).
Counterfeiting is a crime, but the Fed does it legally because the government must pay for the ever-increasing needs of the majority. Central-bank money creation–a departure from the gold standard–causes currency debasement through inflation of the money supply. The belief that democratic demands can be financed by deficits, credit creation and taxation is based on false hope and failure to see how it contributes to the turbulence as the democracy collapses.
Consider Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” in the 1930s: This was a series of works programs, wealth redistribution schemes (Social Security), and new regulatory bodies, designed to bring us out of the Great Depression (which it didn’t–if anything, it kept the recession going far longer than any previous recession in American history). The “New Deal” was the government taking advantage of it’s citizens by playing on their fears. Instead of allowing individuals to participate in their free market–to voluntarily interact and cooperate through what should have been a relatively short recession–the government increased taxes and spending in an effort to solve our economic problems. The “New Deal” was, in may ways, the end of our free market economy and the adolescence of our welfare state.
Once a nation becomes a democracy, the purpose of government changes. Instead of the goal being that of guaranteeing liberty, equal justice, private property and voluntary exchange, the government embarks on the impossible task of achieving economic equality, micromanaging the economy and protecting citizens from themselves and all their activities.
The destruction of the wealth-building process, which is inherent in a free society, is never anticipated. Once this undermining is realized, its too late to easily reverse the attacks against limited government and personal liberty.
Still don’t understand the danger of democracy? Imagine a one-world government existed and the United Nations was controlled by a one man/one vote philosophy. The masses of China and India could vote themselves whatever they needed from the more prosperous Western countries. How long would a world system last based on this absurdity? Yet this is the principle that the United States is working hard to impose on itself and the rest of the world.
In the Afterward to the novel, “Children of the Mind,” Orson Scott Card explores the concept of Edge Nations and Center Nations. This concept provides insight into the mechanics of change. In understanding the relationship between edge and center nations (or peoples), one can study and predict, and embrace or combat change. In the novel, Card explains that edge nations are unstable, are drawn to conquest and expansion, but overextend themselves and seldom last long. Center nations, on the other hand, are stable, long lasting, and only conquer to ensure stability and protect the homeland. They show no tendency to go out and conquer the world because they think they already possess within their borders everything that is important. (Card: 364-365)
Card makes some noteworthy observations about edge people, center people, their characteristics and their relationship to one another. He writes that center people do not fear losing their identity and that they assume everyone else wants to be like them. They know that they are the highest civilization and all others are either a bad imitation or simply a one-time mistake. Of edge people he observes that they realize they are not the highest civilization but will often raid, steal, conquer and occasionally stick around to rule for a while. Sometimes they undergo r