The Second Opinion

What does the government owe us?

Sir George, wielder of the devastating Cluebat o' Doom at the Rott, tore up an NYT editorial by Michael Ignatieff called "The Way We Live Now: 9-25-05; The Broken Contract".  Ignatieff wails that the government somehow reneged on its "contract" with the people of New Orleans by letting the levees around the city break.  Sir George has left nothing to be said about this Ignatieff's drivel, but I am interested in the question of what the government "owes" us.

Ignatieff writes:A contract of citizenship defines the duties of care that public officials owe to the people of a democratic society.  The Constitution defines some parts of this contract, and statutes define other parts, but much of it is a tacit understanding that citizens have about what to expect from their government.  Its basic term is protection: helping citizens to protect their families and possessions from forces beyond their control.

In principle, I agree with Ignatieff.  As our Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Many of Jefferson's contemporaries preferred 'life, liberty and property'; clearly, they believed that the government's job was to protect the citizen.  But from what?  And to what extent?

Historically, I think that government's 'protective' role has been limited to defense against breaches of the peace, whether from invasion, civil unrest, or crime.  Hence, states from time immemorial have had armies and police forces (often these were identical).  As the power of the state has increased, it has been able to provide more 'protective' services, ranging from fire fighting, environmental protection, unemployment insurance, old-age pensions, and disaster relief / mitigation.

Let's be clear about one thing, however: the state does not do this solely from altruistic motives.  Rather, it has a considerable stake in providing such services to its population.  First, citizens are a vital resource for the state.  Not only do we pay taxes, we also produce goods and services which are also taxed, filling the government's coffers.  We serve as soldiers.  Our inventiveness and industry  enriches and empowers the state.  This is a cynical view, but I think that, at bottom, there is a great deal of truth to it.

If the state allows too much damage to its people and their possessions, it not only endangers its source of revenue and power, but also its own existence.  Mr. Jefferson wasn't simply engaging in a rhetorical exercise when he wrote that the people have the right to alter or abolish their government: he was stating a cold fact to which the ghosts of innumerable deposed kings, despots, and dictators could bear witness.  In a democracy, the stakes are usually not so high, but individual politicians are very aware that their reelection often hinges upon how well they provide services to their constituents. 

This is not to say that there isn't an element of altruism in government.  We Americans are a rich people, and I think that we are also a fundamentally decent people.  Americans saw people suffering along the Gulf Coast and responded magnificently, opening their hearts, wallets, and even homes.  Our government is going to spend billions to rebuild the area, and the only real quibble that the average American might have is that some of it might be siphoned away by fraud.  We want and expect our tax dollars to be used to help our fellow Americans in time of distress.

But does the government 'owe' this to us?  Is there, as Ignatieff, some more-or-less unwritten contract between government and citizen?

No.

Our government provides the services it does because WE want it to do so.  There is no 'contract of care' between John Q. Public and 'the government'.  Rather, it exists between him and his neighbor, between him and every other American from Bangor to Honolulu, from Miami to Barrow: we take care of each other.  We request and require that the government, because of its size and power, act on our behalf, but it is our SERVANT, the instrument of our desire to help each other.  I pay taxes not only because I want some services from the government, but also because I'm willing to chip in to help Americans who I don't even know who've gotten a bad break and need help, whether in the form of unemployment insurance, Social Security pension, or a grant to help rebuild their houses or businesses after they've been flattened by a hurricane.

Ignatieff is making the same mistake that so many liberals make when he assumes some contract between citizen and government: he assumes that government is some independent entity aside from the people.  It is not.  It exists at our pleasure and to serve our collective wants and desires.  We hand stewardship of it over to elected and appointed officials from the president all the way down to the local dogcatcher, but it belongs to us.  They may be good stewards or poor stewards, but they serve at our good pleasure like any employee. 

Truth in politics?

Yesterday, democrat NYC mayoral nominee Fernando Ferrer got busted because he'd posted on his website that he was "educated in pubic schools for most of my education".

Problem is, he wasn't.  According to the New York Post's Carl Campanile, Ferrer almost exclusively attended Catholic schools in NYC.  Republican Mayor Mike Bloomberg's campaign was delighted to point out the gaff, which Ferrer blamed on a staffer:

The Ferrer campaign blamed a staffer for the fib, claiming the candidate's Web site writing had been "inaccurately edited."

"In a blog entry from earlier this month, an item submitted by Freddy Ferrer was inaccurately edited regarding Freddy's education. We apologize for the mistake and have corrected the entry," said Ferrer campaign manager Nick Baldick.

During a campaign event with Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean yesterday, Ferrer insisted he didn't write the line about attending public schools.

"It's my campaign and my responsibility," he said. "So that's been corrected."

Ferrer denied that he intentionally lied about his schooling.

"That's absolute nonsense and everyone knows it. I'm proud of the schools I went to and the after school programs I went to, and everyone who knows me in public life knows that," he said.

Now, I personally don't care where a candidate went to school (OK, so long as it wasn't Florida, but that's a personal matter).  What really bugs me about this is the lame excuse that a staffer "inaccurately edited" the story.  Politicians must think that we, the voters, are REALLY stupid to fall for this kind of thing.  Would it be too much to ask for politicians to stop playing these silly games, or for the media to call them on it?  I mean, really:

CAMPAIGN SPOKESMAN: "An item on our campaign website was inaccurately edited."

ME: (guffaws) "You must be kidding!!  'Inaccurately edited'???  THAT'S the best you can come up with???"

More to the point, why do politicians seem to find it necessary to fictionalize their lives?  I think it's clear that Ferrer was trying to portray himself to be a good ol' boy from the Bronx.  Why?  Why not simply be honest and tell his real story?  Or does he think the electorate is so stupid that they'll vote for a 'story' instead of ideas?

Ooops...  Maybe he's right!

Qualifications

Michelle Malkin is on a tear today about the appointment of Julie Myers to be the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE):

She may be perfectly capable of writing briefs and I'm sure her knowledge of export controls is second to none. But as long as the borders are broken and al Qaeda continues to exploit lax immigration enforcement, I don't want her in charge of ICE. Why hire someone who needs to "seek out" those "who know more than I do" in order to her job? Why wait until the next mass terrorist attack to put those more knowledgeable people in leadership positions now and leave the paper-pushers in their cubicles?

My post is not about Myers or Michelle's opinion of her.  Rather, it's about what qualifies any person for a given position.  Anybody who has ever had to hire a new employee must wonder about this.

First, let me quote a statistic I read some years ago: you have a slightly better chance of hiring a 'good' employee by randomly choosing from among the applicants than if you go through an interview process.

I think that part of the problem lies in the fact that nobody really KNOWS what makes a person 'qualified', and even if they do, the traits are not easily tested.  For example, how can you determine an employee's dedication to the job?  His ability to cope with the unexpected?  Growth potential?

In many ways, you can't.  We do the best we can by setting requirements for education and experience; we look at resumes and CV's; when possible, we talk to people who have worked with / for / over the applicant.  But we're never sure.  What makes it doubly difficult is the fact that there are examples of people who, on the face of it, were totally UNQUALIFIED for a position, yet did well when they found themselves put to it:

Abraham Lincoln was a country lawyer who'd never held an elected position higher than one term as a Congressman.  And yet...

Ulysses S. Grant graduated near the bottom of his West Point class.  After leaving the Army, he ran a series of businesses that went bankrupt.  He had a drinking problem.  And yet...

Dwight Eisenhower was an obscure staff officer before World War II who'd never commanded a unit in combat.  And yet...

Drive.  Determination.  Vision.  Dedication.  These are traits that make a person successful in a leadership position, but they are also traits that are impossible to test or quantify.  Perhaps Julie Myers will make a splendid ICE head, just as Theodore Roosevelt did well as assistant police commissioner in NYC when he was a young man.  Maybe she'll be an utter flop.

How can we tell?

Memorials

A couple of days ago, I posted about the disgusting winning design for the terrorist Flight 93 memorial in Pennsylvania.  It led me to recall a reading assignment in college that I once had.  Forgive me for not being able to remember the title of the book, but it concerned how Europeans memorialized the Great War.  The different countries did so in somewhat different ways, and the ways that memorials were designed changed as the war faded into memory.  I think it's worth considering what a memorial SHOULD do.  Depending on the period of history and the culture, there are different answers to this question.

1.  They are a place to grieve.  Consider this German memorial from the Great War called simply "Die Eltern" (The Parents).  Sculpted by artist Kathe Kollwitz in 1932 in memory of her son who was killed in 1914.  The stoic father and the weeping mother express a loss that cannot be put into words, and silently speak for the hundreds of thousands of German parents who lost their sons in the war.

In the same vein, though with a very different motife, is the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, known simply at The Wall.

2.  They are a place to remember nobility and sacrifice, and to ponder the better parts of human nature that find expression in the most trying circumstances.  What American does not know this monument, perhaps the most famous war memorial in the United States:

We don't consider the fact that only three of the men portrayed in the Memorial survived the battle at Iwo Jima.  Indeed, most people don't even know that the men portrayed are real.  Rather, they represent every Marine or sailor who fought on Iwo Jima, and, in a larger sense, on every battlefield where the Marines have demonstrated 'uncommon valour'.

3.  They are a place to find healing.  In the quiet 'gardens of stone' at Arlington or the cemetery at Gettysburg, people can take a peaceful moment to remember what was lost and accept the fact that life goes on.

4.  They are a place to inspire.  This is a rather older use of a memorial.  In the modern day, we don't take much inspiration from loss, though in earlier days this was not uncommon.  A prime example is the Arc d'Triumph in Paris.

However, we do erect memorials to great people or events that inspire us, such as the Lincoln Memorial.

The question become what purpose we want the Flight 93 memorial to serve.  What do we want it to say about the passengers and crew?  Do we want it to say something to ourselves and our posterity about US?  Do we want it to remind us and inspire us of the bravery of Todd Beamer and the other passengers who fought back and lost their lives in the struggle?  Or do we want it to be a peaceful place to remember and mourn their deaths?

Personally, I choose the former.  While I mourn the loss of the men and women of Flight 93, I also take inspiration from their heroism.  Like the rest of us, they didn't want or expect the war that came on 9-11.  They didn't want or expect to be in the front lines of the first battle.  But when they realized their situation, they didn't hesitate to go down fighting.  This is how I think we should memorialize them.

(I apologize for the weird picture placement; it's apparently a Typepad thing)

Upon the king

Upon the king! let us our lives, our souls,
Our debts, our careful wives,
Our children and our sins lay on the king!
We must bear all. O hard condition,
Twin-born with greatness, subject to the breath
Of every fool, whose sense no more can feel
But his own wringing! What infinite heart's-ease
Must kings neglect, that private men enjoy!
And what have kings, that privates have not too,
Save ceremony, save general ceremony?
And what art thou, thou idle ceremony?
What kind of god art thou, that suffer'st more
Of mortal griefs than do thy worshippers?
What are thy rents? what are thy comings in?
O ceremony, show me but thy worth!
What is thy soul of adoration?
Art thou aught else but place, degree and form,
Creating awe and fear in other men?
Wherein thou art less happy being fear'd
Than they in fearing.
What drink'st thou oft, instead of homage sweet,
But poison'd flattery? O, be sick, great greatness,
And bid thy ceremony give thee cure!
Think'st thou the fiery fever will go out
With titles blown from adulation?
Will it give place to flexure and low bending?
Canst thou, when thou command'st the beggar's knee,
Command the health of it? No, thou proud dream,
That play'st so subtly with a king's repose;
I am a king that find thee, and I know
'Tis not the balm, the sceptre and the ball,
The sword, the mace, the crown imperial,
The intertissued robe of gold and pearl,
The farced title running 'fore the king,
The throne he sits on, nor the tide of pomp
That beats upon the high shore of this world,
No, not all these, thrice-gorgeous ceremony,
Not all these, laid in bed majestical,
Can sleep so soundly as the wretched slave,
Who with a body fill'd and vacant mind
Gets him to rest, cramm'd with distressful bread;
Never sees horrid night, the child of hell,
But, like a lackey, from the rise to set
Sweats in the eye of Phoebus and all night
Sleeps in Elysium; next day after dawn,
Doth rise and help Hyperion to his horse,
And follows so the ever-running year,
With profitable labour, to his grave:
And, but for ceremony, such a wretch,
Winding up days with toil and nights with sleep,
Had the fore-hand and vantage of a king.
The slave, a member of the country's peace,
Enjoys it; but in gross brain little wots
What watch the king keeps to maintain the peace,
Whose hours the peasant best advantages.

William Shakespeare, The Life of King Henry V, Act IV, scene 1

I recalled these lines this afternoon while I was at home having my lunch as I watched a few minutes of a very old movie about a fictional president during the time of the Great Depression.  I think that the Immortal Will would have understood what a burden the president - any president - bears.  When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and established the federal government, I think that they intended for the Congress to be the preeminent branch.  If so, then they overestimated the general character of the Congress and underestimated the need for people to have somebody upon whom they can cast their burdens.  How many men have spent silent moments of doubt, uncertainty and even fear in the Oval Office and felt an unconscious kinship with the fictionalized Harry?  I do not refer to fear for themselves or even the more base fear for their own political fortunes: I mean a fear for the safety and prosperity of United States and the millions of Americans who trust in them.  Unless a man is totally self-centered, it must be an awesome thought to realize that he has nearly 300 MILLION people in his charge.  Even the most powerful Congressman or Senator ultimately has only his district or state to worry about, and it's very easy to dodge his responsibility by pinning it on somebody else.  And that somebody else, as often as not, is the president.  President Truman wasn't kidding when he said "The buck ends here." It's no wonder that presidents often leave office looking as though they've aged a decade in only four or eight years.

The President is the direct representative of the American people ... [and is] elected by the people and responsible to them. - President Andrew Jackson

The President is not only the leader of a party, he is the President of the whole people. He must interpret the conscience of America. He must guide his conduct by the idealism of our people. - President Herbert Hoover

When you get to be President, there are all those things, the honors, the twenty-one gun salutes, all those things. You have to remember it isn’t for you. It’s for the Presidency. - President Harry Truman

Every president wants to do right. - President Lyndon Johnson

Planning for disaster

The United States has been pretty lucky in the past century with regard to disasters.  Much of this is due to our wealth: we can afford buildings that are (more or less) storm and earthquake proof; we have a large and well-trained corps of police, firefighters, medical personnel, and other first responders; we have a well-developed and extensive transportation and communications system that makes it possible for rescue and recovery teams to quickly reach affected areas; we've done a lot of planning and organization to prepare for disasters.

In the wake of Katrina, it's a good time to think about what we need to do better for the future.  Some thoughts:

1.  Major urban centers, especially those in areas liable to major natural disasters such as in southern California, 'tornado alley' in the mid-west, and along the Gulf and East coasts, MUST have plans to quickly and completely evacuate all their citizens.  The fact that so many thousands of people were left in New Orleans for whatever reason is unacceptable.  Plans to quickly bring in buses, passenger trains and transport aircraft must be in place and ready to go.  Evacuation routes need to be laid out.  If there is sufficient warning of a disaster (as there was with Katrina), citizens should be informed directly of where they need to go to get out of the threatened area.  It's like lifeboat drill on a ship at sea: know where to go and what to do BEFORE you need to actually do it;

2.  There should be periodic reviews of infrastructure such as bridges, buildings, and levies.  Are they in good repair?  If they fail, are there plans to deal with the consequences?  We have the technology to build houses and buildings that are disaster-proof to a large degree.  People who live in disaster-prone areas should be encouraged (or perhaps even mandated) to build such structures;

3.  Major urban areas should have several very large evacuation roads to reduce the possibility of traffic jams that trap people in the disaster area;

4.  Some thought should be given to establishing small fuel and supply dumps (manned by state police or National Guard) along the evacuation routes to provide refugees with gasoline, food and water to get them out of the threatened area;

5.  Local, state and federal agencies need to determine AHEAD OF TIME not only what their roles in a disaster are, but how to avoid or mitigate the effects in the first place.  I've read complaints that the federal government (and especially the Bush administration) have neglected the levies around New Orleans.  We'll see as more information becomes available how true this is.  However, I must ask: if the levies were not properly maintained, why didn't the City of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana take measures themselves to remedy the situation.  They collect taxes, they have their own engineers and specialists.  Why do they have to whine to DC to get anything done?

6.  Serious consideration should be given to building refugee camps at various places in the country so that people dislocated by disaster or evacuation have a place to go.  It seems to me that former military bases would be excellent for this.  Camps capable of housing, feeding and sustaining at least 50,000 people each could be erected and maintained with small caretaker crews to ensure that they are ready for use at a moment's notice.  The camps should have barracks, kitchens, dining halls, recreation facilities, chapels, large banks of telephones, a modern hospital, sewage treatment and waste disposal facilities, laundries, a jail, and their own powerplants.  They should have or be located near airports capable of handling commercial passenger aircraft, as well as being able to accept rail traffic and significant road traffic.  It would be a significant and expensive undertaking to build such sites and ensure that they are ready-stocked with such necessities as sheets, diapers, plates, soap and other hygiene supplies, and the hundreds of other things that refugees would need, but the costs would be worth it when another disaster strikes;

7.  It should be made clear to anybody who chooses not to evacuate that looting or other civil disturbances will be dealt with promptly and even harshly: "If we see you loot, we will shoot!"

8.  Frankly, people should be discouraged from establishing businesses or living in disaster-prone areas.

The Cynic's Guide to Communication and Conflict Resolution (pt III)

Many conflict / communication classes assume that people desire - or at least are happy with - outcomes where everybody is satisfied  ('win / win' outcomes).  Implicit is the belief that such outcomes are often if not always possible.

My experience is that neither of these propositions is true.

People are very competitive by nature, some moreso than others.  The competitive drive is reinforced by most experiences we have in life.  In virtually every game we ever play from the time we're able to walk, we learn that there is a winner and a loser.  We are taught that winning - having the best / most / highest - is desireable.  Good grades win praise from teacher and parents, while poor grades result in punishment.  The fastest runner wins a gold medal, while the slowest runner gets... nothing.  Hence, most human interactions are adversarial on some level.

When the vast majority of people find themselves in a conflict, they naturally and automatically set 'victory conditions' and start thinking about how THEY are going to win.  Because people naturally assume that there can be only one winner, this means that they are also thinking implicitly about how they are going to make the other person LOSE.  In some cases, people who perceive that they will not / cannot win will maliciously even start to think how they can make EVERYBODY lose.  These things occur even when it may well be possible for both sides to win, and they will almost certainly occur when there is only one possible winner.  Implicit in this assumption is that one party's 'victory conditions' change during the conflict from "I win" to "you lose".

If it sounds as though I consider most people to utterly selfish... I do.  At least, I believe that most people are motivated by some degree of selfishness and even malice.  Countering this is the fact that people also value their relationships with other people (or God) and are sometimes willing to forego 'victory' to preserve those relationships.

Consider again the scenario of Ann and Bob trying to decide at which restaurant they want to have dinner.  What are their victory conditions?  Obviously, 'victory' for Bob means that they eat at the restaurant of his choice, while victory for Ann means that they eat at the restaurant of her choice.  Unless they both happen to want to eat at the same place, the only thing that will prevent conflict is their relationship: do one or both of them value it more than they value 'victory'?  If so, then one of them will compromise and let the other make the decision, or they will cooperate and reach a mutually satisfactory decision.  Rational, mature people do this.  Judging by the number of sour faces seen in restaurants, there appears to be a shortage of mature, rational people in the world!

Complicating the problem is the fact that the value of 'victory' is not fixed and can change with the situation.  For example, as we've seen, Ann thinks that Bob is too pushy, always gets his own way, and she's tired of it.  This raises the value of 'victory' relative to her relationship with Bob, and makes her less inclined to give in or even cooperate.  Let's assume that Bob thinks that Ann has horrible taste in restaurants and the only way he's going to have a good meal is to make sure that they eat where HE wants to eat.  This raises the value of 'victory' relative to his relationship with her.

Obviously, the value of the relationship is also not fixed.  Even though Ann and Bob normally get on very well, Ann may have had just about enough of Bob's constant complaining about his job and has little desire to hear more of it while she's trying to eat.  Bob may be peeved at her because she wasn't quite as attentive and supportive as he wanted while he was talking about his problem.  Both of them thus value the relationship rather less than they normally would, at least for the time being.

If the value of the relationship is sufficiently low relative to 'victory', somebody is likely to be hurt, doing more (and possibly permanent) damage to the relationship:

"You know, I've had enough of you always being so pushy and getting your own way.  Eat wherever you want, you selfish pig!  But don't count on me being there."

"Hey, that's fine with me!  Fat lot you care about me, anyway."

Things have clearly gotten out of hand, and the victory conditions have changed.  Neither party is interested in 'winning' anymore; they've become far more interested in making the other person 'lose'.  Seen objectively, they are both losing, but as I've indicated, most people are NOT objective, especially when they are in conflict.  Keep in mind that Ann THINKS that Bob is pushy, and that he THINKS she wasn't paying enough attention to him.  It's very possible that Bob lets Ann choose the restaurant in the majority of cases, but that she's such a control freak that she is offended if she doesn't ALWAYS get to choose.  Ann may have tried as hard as she could to be attentive and helpful to Bob, but he simply wanted more than she could give.  Keep in mind that perception IS reality, and if Ann or Bob THINKS they've been slighted in some way, all the evidence in the world to the contrary probably isn't going to change their minds one bit.

This is very unfortunate in this particular scenario, because it was obviously possible for there to be a 'win / win' outcome: Ann and Bob eat at a restaurant that they both enjoy and have a nice time.  The problem did not lie in their lack of communication so much as it did in their own psyches.  Once they recognize their motivations AND that they are really competing with each other, it becomes possible for them to step back, reevaluate what they are doing, and begin effective communication and probably reach a happy conclusion.

What about situations when 'win / win' is not easy or perhaps even impossible?

During the seminar, one of the ladies raised the issue of her daughters and trying to get them to keep their room tidy.  This is a common situation, but doesn't seem to allow both parties to really 'win': for Mom to win, the girls must take time to clean their room on a regular basis.  The girls 'win' if they don't have to spend time cleaning.  There is really no middle ground unless either side is willing to lose something: Mom may admit that the room can be a bit less tidy than she'd prefer, and / or the girls may spend at least some time and effort in keeping it from being a total pigsty.

This type of problem introduces the concept of future loss: I may win THIS battle, but it's going to cost me more in the long run.  If they are rational, the girls will recognize that there will likely be unpleasant consequences in the future if they don't do what Mom says.  For example, she may ground them, spank them, or give them even more work to do.  To minimize their ultimate losses, they thus should 'lose' now by cleaning their room to avoid losing even more later.

Unfortunately, many people are not especially good at measuring future losses.  Again, communication is not the issue.  Rather, it's a question of people's ability to think rationally and make logical decisions.  They must be able to clearly identify their victory conditions and then balance them against both their relationships and the possibility of future losses.  Once they can do this, effective communication becomes possible.  From this stems better outcomes for all concerned.

The Cynic's Guide to Communication and Conflict Resolution (pt II)

A favorite topic when discussing communication is 'active' listening.  It is a very useful skill, one that many people do not possess in any great degree.  To some extent, however, it is overrated.  Many people talk (and complain) not because they are really interested in what somebody else thinks, but rather simply to vent.  In such a case, active listening is neither necessary nor even helpful.  Rather, the appearance of being attentive is all that is required.  Yes, I am cynically suggesting that people can often just nod their heads and make the occasional sympathetic noise without really paying any attention at all.  However, I believe that this is perfectly acceptable in most cases.

Active listening can also easily degenerate into 'parrotting', which sounds patronizing and can be HIGHLY annoying.

In any type of communication, the parties not only have to be open-minded and rational but they also must have a basic understanding of each other and why the communication is occuring in the first place.  Consider our two characters, Ann and Bob, in the following scenarios.  Bob is unhappy in his job and talks to Ann about it.  It is implicit in all the scenarios that Ann knows Bob very well and understands how his mind works:

Scenario 1: Venting

"Oh, there he goes again.  He gripes and groans about his job every other day, but when push comes to shove, he'll never go look for another one unless they fire him."

Ann believes that Bob is simply complaining to complain.  I believe that this is a very common situation.  Her best course of action - if it won't drive HER crazy - is to simply nod her head occasionally and not worry too much about what Bob is saying.  She's heard it all before, and he's not really interested in what she thinks, anyway.

Scenario 2: The supportive friend

"Hmmm... It's pretty clear that Bob's already made up his mind to look for a new job." 

Ann believes that Bob has already reached a decision, and so her  best course of action is a LITTLE active listening so that Bob can feel confident that he's really being heard.  Unless she feels strongly that he's made the wrong decision, she doesn't need to make him feel that she's questioning him.  In short, she can / should simply agree with him while demonstrating that she really has been paying attention.  She should NOT attempt to draw him into a debate about his decision:

YES: "Well, Bob, it sounds like your plan to start looking for another job is pretty good.  I hope it goes well for you."

NO: "Uh-huh... uh-huh... Yeah."

NO: "Well, Bob, it sounds like you're plan to start looking for another job is pretty good, and I hope it goes well, but have you considered trying to work things out with your boss?"

Scenario 3: The helpful advisor

"Hmmm... I've never heard Bob sound so unsure of himself.  I think he really needs my help."

Ann will have to engage in a good deal of active listening as she helps Bob organize his own thoughts and attempt to understand his own desires more clearly.  Ultimately, he'll have to make the decision, but she can help him through the process both by acting as a sounding board for his ideas, perhaps suggesting other approaches to him, and ultimately supporting him in whatever conclusion he reaches.  She should NOT brush over the problem with a short reply, as this will not help him solve it.  He will probably also be irritated that she cares so little for him that she doesn't bother to really pay attention. 

A pitfall that Ann should avoid is taking a position and telling Bob what to do.  She may believe that she sees the problem clearly and that she knows the best solution.  It is very possible that she does: since she is not personally affected by the problem or any unpleasant outcomes of the decision, she can be much more detached and rational than Bob.  However, it's Bob's problem and his decision, and he has to handle it.  Ann must avoid taking a position that puts her in the position of being an advocate for one answer rather than a helpful advisor to Bob:

YES: "Gosh, Bob, it sounds like a pretty tricky problem.  How do you think Mr. Smith might respond if you talked with him about how you feel about your job?"

NO: "Well, whatever you think is best."

NO: "Gosh, Bob, it sounds like a pretty tricky problem, but I think you ought to go talk to Mr. Smith tomorrow and tell him how unhappy you are."

Scenario 4: The boss

"Hmmm... Bob is clearly worried that I'll be upset no matter what he decides."

In such a case, Ann is pushed into acting as Bob's boss: he really wants her to tell him what to do, set some boundaries, or at least reassure him that she won't kill him if he makes the wrong decision.

YES: "Bob, you're clearly unhappy with your job.  I really think you need to find another one as soon as you can."

NO: "Well, Bob, what do you think you ought to do?"

NO: "I don't really care."

Until now, I've talked about what Ann should do.  However, Bob has an important decision to make before he says the first word: should he talk to Ann in the first place?  It may be that she is a lousy listener, will use the opportunity to talk about HER problems, can't be trusted not to tell other people what he said, or even genuinely doesn't care about him or his problem.  It may be that she's normally a good listener and offers good advice, but perhaps she's having a bad day.  Maybe she's heard Bob complain about the same problem so many times that she's starting to feel irritated that he won't shut up about it. 

Bob also has to realize that he may not get exactly what he wants from the conversation.  This is not necessarily Ann's fault.  She may try with all her might to be as attentive and helpful as she can, but she may misinterpret what Bob wants: he may want to vent, but she tries to help him solve the problem, or vice versa.  She may not be as tactful as he would like and inadvertently insult him.

Bob also needs to remember a very important rule of conversation: NEVER ask a question if you're not prepared for the answer you don't want.

The Cynic's Guide to Communication and Conflict Resolution (pt I)

This weekend I attended a seminar about 'creative' conflict resolution.  While it was a well-done seminar and I learned some interesting things, it occurs to me that most communication / conflict resolution models are based on the following flawed assumptions:

1.  That people are fundamentally rational, even during periods of conflict;

2.  That people typically want or at least will be happy with 'win / win' outcomes;

3.  That people are generally capable of separating the objective from the subjective, and the personal from the impersonal.

It is my experience that these assumptions are not true.

I am quite cynical about human nature, so I propose THESE assumptions:

1.  People tend to be irrational, especially during periods of conflict;

2.  People are naturally competitive and want to win.  They also are not especially 'good' losers.  There are some especially malicious people who want to win at all costs and even if they can't 'win', they certainly want others to 'lose';

3.  People are generally incapable of keeping a detached and impersonal attitude during conflict and tend to give subjective evidence / opinions as much (if not more) weight than objective evidence;

4.  Perception IS reality;

5.  People take offense very easily;

6.  People enjoy giving offense.

The extent to which people are irrational during periods of conflict is strongly affected by past experience, values, and world-view.  Take, for example, this scenario:

Ann and Bob are going out to dinner and are trying to decide where to go.

On the face of it, this is a very simple situation, and should lead to little or no conflict.  But what happens if Ann feels that Bob is 'pushy'?

"Every time we decide to go out, it's the same thing.  We always wind up going where Bob wants to go.  I'm sick of it!"

Whether or not Ann's premise is OBJECTIVELY true (i.e. that Bob always gets his way), she certainly feels as though she's been pushed around.  It may be that she'll 'give in' this time, but it wouldn't be surprising if she digs in her heels... or stores up this 'slight' for some future argument when she again feels that Bob is again pushing to have his way:

"You always want your own way!  I've had it!  Even when we just go to get dinner, you have to have everything the way you want it!  You never care what I want!"

Naturally, this kind of situation could be avoided if Ann and Bob engaged in rational communication.  However, that isn't always possible or even likely.  Rightly or wrongly, Ann may feel that Bob won't respond well to ANY criticism, no matter how gentle, and it's simply not worth a fight to suggest that he might try to be a bit more accomodating.  Rightly or wrongly, Bob may feel that Ann will look for any excuse to criticize him, or that Ann is so indecisive that he MUST make the decisions.

There is no easy way out of such a scenario, but the way points more toward better self-control rather than better communication.  Perhaps Ann needs to be more objective: does Bob REALLY insist on having his own way all the time?  Is he REALLY so sensitive that he can't stand criticism?  Ann must be ready to accept that she has misunderstood Bob and that SHE may actually be at fault.

For his part, Bob needs to be prepared to deal calmly with criticism.  Whether or not Ann is right about him, he shouldn't take her remarks personally but rather be willing to listen to what she has to say.  Once they both agree to disagree amicably, THEN they can communicate.  Otherwise, they're probably talking to a brick wall.

Management

I suppose that anybody who has worked for somebody else for more than five minutes has experienced some level of frustration with 'management'.  I certainly have.  It never ceases to amaze me that, given the time, money, and effort Americans put into reading and writing books about leadership and management, or attending courses, classes and seminars on these subjects, the quality of American management... well, it sucks, as a general rule.  It doesn't have to, of course.  The funny thing is that 'management' are not some strange form of life that beamed down from a spaceship, nor are they imps of hell set on us to make us suffer throughout this life on earth (there ARE exceptions, of course).  They are normal people who have families, children, dogs, etc.  They have the same feelings, fears, hopes, and desires that the rest of us have.  Why, then, do they do the things they do?

1.  They think they're expected to by THEIR management.  How many times has a supervisor enforced a silly rule or made a decision he KNEW to be asinine because he felt sure that 'the boss wants it that way'?  Sure, there are many occasions where the boss does indeed 'want it that way', but there are many others where the boss couldn't care less.  'The boss wants it that way' is sometimes a convenient excuse for the cowardly supervisor to pass the buck, or else it's the lickspittle's way of trying to show 'loyalty' in the hopes that it will be rewarded.

A related reason is 'because it's a good business practice / behavior'.  There are certainly good business practices that any smart manager ought to follow, but there are a lot of others that are followed out of habit or (in the worst cases) because it gives the small-minded supervisor a chance to nitpick at his subordinates.  Dress codes are a prime example, as are assigned parking spaces, bans on certain forms of office art, etc.

2.  They think they know more than their employees.  Who knows how best to do a job?  Why, the person who does it regularly, that's who!  Why, then, do supervisors often INSIST on ignoring the worker's input?  There are certainly times when  management can't trust the worker's input because he knows that the worker hasn't got all the information or (worse) because he knows the worker is a slackard or a liar.  In most cases, however, it seems to me that the wise manager follows the old saying: don't tell your people how to do a job; tell that WHAT you want done and let them surprise you with your ingenuity.  DON'T MICROMANAGE.

3.  They believe on some level that the workers are scum, and that without close supervision, nothing will get accomplished.  They believe that the workers are lazy, stupid, crooked, or some combination of these three (this is where time clocks come from).  Let me ask you: do you go into your job thinking, "Boy, am I gonna do a bad job today!"?  Of course not, and neither does the average worker.  While he may not show up every day with the intent of setting the world on fire, he certainly doesn't want to go home feeling that his work has been pointless or shoddy.  The wise manager will trust and encourage his employees, not hover over them.

Time clocks and limited sick days are signs that management doesn't trust the employees.

4.  Management somehow thinks that THEIR customers are totally different than every other customer in the world.  THEIR customers will accept shoddy products, THEIR customers will complain about even perfect products, THEIR customers would never think about looking for another supplier, etc.  THEIR customers need to understand that sometimes shipments are late, or that the quality isn't always going to be quite up to par.  Natch, they'd NEVER accept this for themselves: they want everything THEY buy to be exactly what they want.

There's a survey popular in many restaurants that indicates that something like 90% of dissatisfied customers will never return.  They won't complain, they won't fill out a "How are we doing?" card, they won't call the head office.  They'll just never come back.  News flash: this doesn't just happen in restaurants!

5.  Manangers believe that 'anybody can do this job'.  While it may be easier in some jobs than others to find replacement workers, every time an employee quits or is fired, the company just lost some amount of time and money invested in his training and experience.  This will have to be paid AGAIN to bring a new employee up to that level.  Why throw money and time away when you don't have to?

If the company is starting to become a 'revolving door' with high turnover, there is a serious problem.  First, all the experience is walking out the door.  Worse, turnoever becomes contagious, and employees who might otherwise stick around start looking for better jobs.  Quality inevitably suffers, and it take a LONG time to put things right.

6.  If it doesn't hit the bottom line, managers often don't consider it as a cost.  This often happens in my racket (quality control).  I think the technical term is 'foregone earnings'.  For example, it costs $X to make a product or deliver a service, which is sold for $Y (hopefully, Y is larger than X!).  If you sell 10 units, you've made $(10Y - 10X), right?   Well, not necessarily.

Suppose that for three of the ten units, defects were found by quality control.  They either had to be reworked or scrapped.  Now, you've not only had to pay the costs to make the things the first time, you've got to pay more to fix them.  You might have to hire more inspectors.  You might have to put employees on OT, or even hire extra staff to deal with the rework.  There are possible storage and disposal costs.  Morale often suffers, and experienced workers start looking for other jobs.  If the problem caused the shipment to be late, and you had to pay a penalty for this?  Worse, what if this sort of thing caused the customer to rethink additional orders?  YOU CANNOT MEASURE THE BUSINESS YOU NEVER GET.  Too many managers, obsessed with the bottom line, never realize this even when their company drowns in red ink.

7.  Managers put too much distance between themselves and their employees.  I'm not suggesting that managers have to be buddy-buddy with their employees, but the wise manager will make efforts to see and be seen, to talk and TO LISTEN.  Employees watch their management like hawks and will spot right away when a manager is 'too good' to come out of his office.  They will thus be far less likely to let him know when problems start to arise, and for more likely to be less cooperative with him when he suddenly tries to fix them.

Please don't confuse 'see and be seen' with micromanaging (see above).  Employees don't want to be bothered by their management, but they want to know that their manager is a human being who is interested in what they are doing and their ideas for doing it better.

The suggestion box is not a bad idea, but frequently it's a dead-end.  Employees quickly learn that they could put a suggestion in the box telling management how to turn lead into gold, and it wouldn't be read much less implemented.  The wise manager should get his suggestions face-to-face.

Incidentally, many companies work more than one shift.  The wise manager remembers this and shows up frequently 'after hours'.

8.  It should go without saying that management should be honest... but we all know better.  Employees don't need to know all the company's secrets, but they usually find out pretty fast when management is lying to them.  Some managers seem to think that 'spin' is perfectly acceptable.  It isn't.  Employees are willing to forgive any number of honest mistakes, and indeed will try to help the manager who admits when he's fouled up.  However, they'll have little but contempt for the manager who fouls up and tries to hide it... or shift the blame to somebody else.

9.  Along with honest, openess is very valuable.  Workers like to know about big sales or good profits, and they need to know about bad things, too.

More than just information about the business, however, openess also extends to relations between the manager and his employees.  They should feel comfortable telling him when they're not happy or even thinking about looking for another job.  If they don't, usually his first sign that he's losing somebody (and their training and experience) is when they hand in their notice.  By then, it's too late to do anything except check around and see if other people are thinking about leaving.  I've actually worked in a company that had a POLICY of firing people if management found that they were job hunting.  Not good for building trust.  Not good at all.

Oh, by the way: that company is now bankrupt.

10.  Managers don't regard loyalty as a two-way street.  This never ceases to irk me.  Managers expect their employees to work over, to come in on their days off, to give 110% to the company, and in return give back... a paycheck and maybe an annual company picnic.  They'll lay off employees at the drop of a hat, reduce or take away benefits, and in general treat the employees like cattle (or 'human resources'), never stopping to wonder why it is that they have a turnover problem.

I'm sure that there are problems that I've overlooked, but I think this provides a good start.

Ironically, thousands of companies spend millions (perhaps billions) of dollars every year to send their management to courses to teach them these things.

I guess you really CAN'T teach an old dog new tricks.