Leadership and Laziness

I got this one from Jerry Pournelle. It's worth reading as an analysis of how leaders are selected (or rejected) in the armed forces. There are lessons for the civilian world as well.

In classic military science, officers are divided into Brilliant vs. Stupid, and Lazy vs. Active. Now understand, these are relative terms: we are assuming that this is not Lake Wobegon, and even the Stupid can be pretty smart compared to the general population; stupid is probably the wrong word although it is the one generally used in these discussions. You will see what I mean in a moment.
This produces four classes of officers. What do you do with them?

First, the commanders, from company to regiment to division to army to army group: which class do you want as commanders? The answer is that you want them Brilliant and Lazy. Then for their Chief of Staff you want the Brilliant and Active. The reasoning is simple enough. The Active tend never to leave well enough alone. They drive the troops mad with new schemes for improvement. Your units go to hell.

However, you need the Brilliant and Active in the picture, just not as commanders. Someone has to recognize problems and look for solutions and agitate for improvements. You want the man at the top to understand this, and select among the various recommendations those which are needed – and which are affordable. But you want the agitation for improvement, else things atrophy.
So far so good. Now what do you do with the Stupid and Lazy? Why, that’s the bulk of your officer corps. They follow orders, and if they come up with awful ideas they aren’t so active as to try to implement them. As to the Stupid and Active, you encourage them to get out and go away. You have no place for them.

Looking Back: Bart on Leadership

I was on a cleaning blitz today, and I finally decided to look through a three-ring binder I'd saved from a leadership class I took in 2004. At that time, I was still living in Northern Virginia, working for Radian Inc (subsequently bought by ESSI, which was bought by Finemeccanica) as a proposal writer. Among the items in the binder was my look at the future 25 years out.

Bart, A.D. 2030

Overview

• Writer/Intellectual
• Artist/Filmmaker
• Outdoorsman
• Executive/Entrepreneur/Consultant
• Husband
• World Traveler
• Wise Counselor
• Good Friend
• Happy Wherever I Am

What is Needed to Get from Here to There?

Education
Business, filmmaking, drawing, painting

Money / Material
Better investments, more savings, better position, side/consulting income, art/travel supplies/gear

Behavior
Better health, better diet, more exercise, stress reduction, caring for others, more self-confidence, romance, sociability

Deliverables
Books, articles, blogs, op-eds, stories, scripts, paintings, drawings, movies

Results
Better balance, more clarity, more confidence, bravery, self-awareness, financial security, ability to take care of myself and those I care about, happiness, peace

All in all, an interesting vision. It's not far off from the trajectory I've been pursuing. If I haven't become more of an "outdoorsman," I've at least spent more time in the gym than I used to. And I have managed to get some traveling done, here and abroad. I haven't pursued my artistic side as much as I probably would have liked, but I have pursued travel and outside writing. Things to work on and look forward to, anyway.

Another thing I worked on in this class was a statement of leadership philosophy. The concepts evolved a bit over the course of the six-week class. Here's what I had to say:

11/8/04
I am fascinated by leaders and the practice of leadership because, in my reading experience, a leader is an individual who is able to get others to do things they might never have accomplished otherwise. Leaders have specific goals in mind and are able to tap the best abilities of each team member in order to accomplish these goals. Ideally, leaders act as teachers or facilitators of a working body of professionals, assuming the mantle of authority only to solve problems, arrange compromises, or break logjams within the group. They respect the concerns and demonstrate loyalty toward others upward, parallel to, or below them in the organization, even to the point of being the "loyal opposition."

11/15/04
Leaders are imbued with a powerful vision of the end result and are able to tap the best abilities of each team member in order to accomplish those goals. In order to ensure success, leaders must facilitate an environment that thrives on and encourages individual autonomy, learning, and courtesy. Ideally, leaders also inspire a working body of professionals through leading by example, living by a recognizable code of integrity, and working hard to accomplish the group's goal, even if that work requires performing tasks "below their station." Leaders should assume the mantle of autority only to solve problems, arrange compromises, or break logjams within the group. They should respect the concerns of, and demonstrate loyalty toward, others in the organization, even to the point of being the "loyal opposition."

12/1/04
Leaders should be imbued with a powerful vision of an end result and are able to tap the best abilities of each team member in order to accomplish that result. In order to achieve success, leaders must facilitate an environment that thrives on and encourages individual autonomy, learning, and courtesy. Ideally, leaders also inspire a working body of professionals through leading by example, living by a recognizable code of integrity, and working hard to accomplish the group's goal, even if that work requires performing tasks "below their station." Leaders should assume the mantle of authority only to solve problems, arrange compromises, or break logjams within the group. They should respect the concerns of, and demonstrate loyalty toward, others in the organization, even to the point of being the "loyal opposition." A good leader's commitment to excellence and personal respect should be reflected in his actions and in the attitudes of those whom the leader seeks to lead.

Again, an interesting set of comments. I recognize the attitudes because that's more or less how I tried to run ISDC. I can't say I succeeded in all those ways. For instance, there were situations where I wanted to give someone more autonomy, but I couldn't because I had no budget for them and thus no prescribed boundaries or "rules of engagement," which meant that I had to do a lot of things myself until the budget became clear.

I also know that I was not as courteous as I would have liked at all points. I lost my temper on a couple of occasions because people were not sharing information with me or things were not happening the way I had planned or was told they would happen.

However, those two examples aside, the conference itself ran very smoothly because I managed to get good people in the right positions. After the first couple days (of five), I found myself able to hide in a corner somewhere and let my team do their jobs. I was brought in--as expected--only when there were high-level problems. I found out about little things afterward, and they were little, for the most part. The last "executive action" I took during the conference was at the end of the last luncheon on the last day, when I had to calmly and jokingly direct people to the basement for a tornado warning ("Folks, much as I'd like to say I'm kidding...").

Are those sirens I hear?

So I suppose, as a leadership experience, ISDC was successful as I define leadership: the team did most of the work and I was there to make the ugly/tough calls. Anything I couldn't handle got kicked upstairs, which wasn't much. Bottom line: I suppose I learned a few things about leadership in seven years. That doesn't mean I like being the boss, but I at least have a consistent philosophy of how I should behave if I'm forced to be one.

Bart Leahy, Retired Conference Chair

So my three-year project is now finished. ISDC 2011, four and a half days of very hard but good work, is now over. I'm still a little fuzzy around the edges, having averaged 6 hours of sleep per night and 18 hours of work per day. Mind you, others got a lot less sleep (what IS it with IT guys that they insist on going 2-3 days without?), but it'll probably take a couple more days for my middle-aged body to recover.

But again: what great work! Consider: 857 registrants (budgeted: 400), around 20 companies and organizations in the exhibit hall, over 350 attendees at the job fair, maybe 100 total at the open-to-the-public author tracks.

My team of volunteers and NSS staffers did a fantastic job. No major hiccups, not a lot of complaints, lots of good things said. Eventually I became invisible, the operation became essentially frictionless, and attendees were free to focus on the content. And what, exactly, WAS the content? We were busy (perhaps too busy--I got a couple complaints about too many tracks, but nothing too fierce). The sessions I did see were at meals: Thursday dinner (Rick Tumlinson), Friday dinner (Robert Bigelow), and Sunday lunch (Deborah Barnhart). Rick was offering up his vision of humanity's vision in space. Bigelow was talking about his company's new inflatable space station designs. Barnhart was speaking about the future of the U.S. Space & Rocket Center.

I didn't see much of my own conference, truth be told, but then I expected that. I was running around a lot, moving stuff around, calling in audio-visual requests, and addressing minor room furniture changes. It's rather like working at Disney World (oddly enough). Any time I paused long enough to relax in a function room and watch some presentation, I'd get a phone call, so eventually I just took in my pauses with my team somewhere. It got embarrassing hearing people say I was doing a good job when I started feeling seriously useless around day three. One of the attendees offered up a useful analogy: "The most important job in the Army is the guy who stocks the toilet paper. If you're doing your job right, you're invisible and no one notices; but if you're not doing your job, all hell breaks loose."

In any case, if good leadership involves recruiting good people and staying out of the way when they're doing fine (and it does, in my world), then I'll accept the compliment. I've got a lot of self-sufficient friends, and that means they take initiative within reason before asking for help. The F.O.B.s and F.O.Y.s (Friends of Bart and Friends of Yohon) are a great bunch of people; they made my job easier and made me and Huntsville look good. SAAAAA-lute!

My favorite story from the conference has to be the luncheon on the last day. I was Master of Ceremonies, and things proceeded as normal until I was working on closing remarks. Debbie, the Media Queen, was reading off a list of people who had contributed to our silent auction (half the proceeds to go to NSS, half to go to the Red Cross of Madision County for tornado relief). Suddenly, Yohon is signalling me from stage left. He's whispering, "We've got a problem: we've got tornado sirens going off." I kept my expression unchanged or put on a Disney Smile and asked, "So, what?"

"We need to keep people here."

I nodded, returned to the microphone. "Folks, as much as I'd like to tell you I was joking, I'm afraid there are tornado sirens going off outside. We've been told to stay here."

Then Yohon ran up again and said, "No, we've got to go."

Back at the mike, I said, "Okay, folks, I was wrong. We need to follow the staff in an orderly fashion. We'll be going toward the basement. Thanks for coming to ISDC!"

And off the crowd went, moving in that aforementioned orderly fashion toward the door. Before I could retreat, an older couple oddly asked me to take their picture in front of the podium, which had the NSS and ISDC logos on it. Then off we went.

When I got downstairs, I heard, incongruously, a piano playing. Robert, one of my volunteers, had found one among the other stuff in the basement, and started playing show tunes. Very, very well. 

It was magic, of a sort. It set people at ease, and the mostly uncertain atmosphere became more like a cocktail party (one of my friends suggested opening up a bar). People were texting, taking pictures, and making movies with their various electronic devices, and the time passed convivially until the all-clear sounded and the staff told us it was safe to come out of the shelter.

If I learned anything from this conference about leadership, it was "Never let them see you stress." Sweating is fine, if you're looking busy. Look worried, and that worry spreads like gossip or illness. I wish I'd internalized that lesson earlier, but it really took until I was sure we had all our major program components in place before I was comfortable enough to re-install my "Disney software." It's the sort of software that allows a high-strung guy like me take a little time to lighten up and wonder jokingly if I've lost my marbles.

So I put on the new power suits (and the tuxedo on Friday) and did my Disney thing. It worked, so what the heck.

Eventually I'm going to write a book or a few blogs about nonprofit event management since most of what I learned was under fire. Reading "lessons learned" about the details from previous conferences does little good if you're still struggling with the basics. So expect more thoughts when I'm more fully awake.

In the meantime, I can rest easy for a few days (before I go back to supporting Science Cheerleader), happy and satisfied with a job well done. If I'm going to be a one-time ISDC Chairman (my signature block now reads "ISDC 2011 Chairman (Retired)), I might as well go out on top of my game.

Peace,

/b

An Introvert in Charge

Progress on ISDC 2011 continues. The major moving pieces are in place, or nearly so. Lots of little details still to be worked out, but the level of heck is subsiding, and I'm actually looking forward to seeing some of this stuff unfold in person, if I'm given the time.

My friends are surprised at how well I'm handling the pre-conference stress. I tell them my supply of "gives-a-damn" has gotten too low to get really spun up. And really, I had a thought today that brought a smile to my face: one month from today, ISDC 2011 will be done, over, and I can go back to being Bart Leahy, English Major and Geek. I also find the folks who ask me, "What are you going to do with yourself?" amusing. I'm ready to respond, "Dude, who CARES?!?"

Conference management is teaching me a lot about myself:

• I'm not particularly patient when people don't do what I ask or what they tell me they're going to do (who is?).
• I "hire" people based on the quality of their work, but also on their ability to get along with others. That might sound like a "no duh" to some, but I'm surprised when people expect to be recruited and aren't. Ability or seniority don't wow me as much as ability + sociability.
• I am not a micromanager, but I do want to know what's going on. Situational awareness: good. Telling everyone how to do everything: suckitude.
• I will willingly take on the uglier tasks (apologies, large-scale organization, asking for money) and pitch in where needed.
• I will ask for advice and, more often than not, take it unless I think the advice crosses some internal business rules I've set up in my head.
• I am more comfortable if I have a known organization, budget, and set of rules-of-engagement.
• I prefer precedent to automatically making up rules on the spot. Part of this is a natural conservatism, part of it is that I hate reinventing the wheel unnecessarily, and part of it is an effort to maintain consistency within a group.
• I like brief (<1 hour), activity-focused meetings. If we have nothing further on an agenda, I end the meeting because I hate wasting time.
• I don't yell very often, but when I do, I scare people because I don't do it very often, and  it's usually because I've allowed a bunch of little things to pile up. It is also entirely possible that I will yell because people have ignored me when I was being nice, polite, reserved, or deferential.
• I don't like yelling.
• I really, Really, REALLY dislike being in charge. It's not that I dislike making decisions. I'll do that. I just prefer to be in charge of my own work, not others'. That, and I prefer not being the "front guy." I'm a very happy executive officer.
• If a decision is still pending, I will try to get as much advice and input as I can; however, once a decision has been made, I lack patience with people who offer criticism when they either provided no input into the decision or did not contribute to the result. My general attitude is, "If you didn't have to do it yourself, be thankful."
• I prefer for-profit to non-profit management because the carrots and sticks are more concrete: do a good job, get rewarded; do a bad job, get fired.
• I prefer requests--particularly distasteful ones--in writing. I'm also more of a learn-by-reading than learn-by-listening person.
• I manage others the way I prefer to be managed: minimal supervision, respect for one's abilities, expectations clearly communicated unless the situation is vague. I don't have a great deal of patience with people who want a great deal of attention, feedback, direction, or encouragement. This is a problem when dealing with extroverts.
• I am perfectly happy taking on a project, doing it well, and then dropping it. The idea of staying in one place and "empire building" bores me. I am motivated by interesting work, not seeing how many people I can get reporting to me.

So there it is. While this whole thing has made me a little nuts, my manager put "event management" on my list of competencies. Oy. And while I'm doing this ISDC thing and various background organizational duties for Science Cheerleader, that doesn't mean I want to be known as an "events guy." The INFJ still wants to be left to himself in a cubicle somewhere, writing stuff. And after all this is over, I'll be quite happy to do so again.

Leadership in the Public and Private Sectors

One of the advantages of living and working in Huntsville, AL, is getting to meet or hear some of the bright bulbs in the space business. I've had the pleasure of meeting and listening to Rex Geveden, President of Teledyne Brown Engineering (TBE), and former Deputy Director of Marshall Space Flight Center and Associate Administrator of NASA. Today he was speaking at the Marshall Association's monthly luncheon, this time located at the Redstone Arsenal Officer's Club. Geveden's talk for today was about the functional, strategic, and performance differences and similiarities between leadership in the public and private sector. I found the comments most insightful, and a good reflection of life in the space business specifically.

Functional Differences
Geveden started by explaining the emphases of each type of leader. Government leaders, in his view, are concerned with maximizing/optimizing "mission value," that is, getting the most bang for your programmatic buck. A private-sector leader is more concerned (not surprisingly) with maximizing profit for the company or its shareholders. As he put it, "the business is about the business," sort of like Calvin Coolidge's comment that "the business of America is business."

Geveden recommended that government avoid "Total System Performance" or "Lead System Integrator (LSI)" contracts, where an outside entity/company is responsible for the overall performance of a program/project. His reasoning is simply that business leaders don't have the same interests or goals as the government (see above), and that those interests are incompatible. Also, if government turns over an entire program over to an external contractor (examples: Space Shuttle, Space Station), then the government agency overseeing things is adding little to no value and might as well just get out of the way. Geveden was even more specific: "That model does and will always fail."

By contrast, Geveden offered up the Ares Project as a good model for program management, as it allows the government to take responsibility for the final result, which offers a good compromise between government oversight and its needs (maximizing mission output) and private sector needs (performance and profit).

One of the advantages the private sector has is that the decision cycle time is shorter simply because the motivations are simpler (profits). One of the big challenges for government, Geveden acknowledged, is that it has to answer to multiple constituencies, so that every action and decision feels like an unsatisfactory compromise.

Strategic Planning
Government agencies have a specific burden that private-sector operations do not: they do not control the allocation of their resources. Any strategic plan becomes more like a "wish list," more often controlled by the President or Congress. "This is a brilliant model for government," Geveden said, "not strategic planning."

In the private sector, resources must be allocated in accordance with the strategic plan in order to ensure accurate/relevant measurement of performance. There are three ways companies can choose to focus their resources: economies of scale (e.g. Wal-Mart), product/service focus (e.g. FedEx), or product differentiation, as TBE is doing.

Performance
In the public sector, civil servants' performance is "nebulous," as Geveden put it, and "hard to measure." The private sector's performance can be measured easily, he joked: "Here's your check." In other words, all performance is tied to the bottom line.

Geveden closed by comparing the culture of NASA with the Russian space program. He believed that there was a common idealism and belief in the value of space exploration. That sense of community is not shared everywhere. For instance, Geveden did not believe that the idealism of space exploration held inside the Beltway, "where people scarcely know that Goddard Space Flight Center is nearby and that the International Space Station is still in orbit." Huntsville, he noted, "loves space," as it's part of what has made the town what it is.

Moving to the Q&A, the most important question Geveden answered, in my opinion, was, "What does NASA need to do to get the resources it needs to do its job?" I liked his answer, mostly because it's similar to my own view: "NASA needs to chose to do the very hard things. They need to look a little more toward relevance." The specific example he cited was energy independence and space solar power, suggesting that NASA should do a full-scale test mission of some kind.

I think Geveden's remarks deserve consideration, given his experience on both sides of the fence (public and private sector). If we are going to have a fully functional "space economy" in the future, we need to make sure that government is doing the sorts of things that best reflect its expertise and motivations, while the private sector should do things that will produce the best results through their profit motives. In my view, that means leaving "exploration" to government and "operations" to the private sector. We shall see what the future brings.

Character and Leadership

Whoever said "Character is destiny" had it dead right. People's personalities start to form and make themselves known early: a whiny child will often become a whiny adult; an adventurous child will often end up doing extreme sports later in life. So, too, I know that some behaviors I exhibited in elementary school have not left. Some have, which I'd like to consider "growth," but others have begun to harden and are unlikely to change no matter what classes I take or how many church services I attend.

This has come home to me more and more recently, as I've been leading HAL5's bid to get the NSS Board meeting here in Huntsville, on the way toward bidding on the 2011 ISDC. Slight quirks of behavior that create minor inconveniences when they affect my own work alone can be multiplied when exhibited in a group. I'll start with my strengths because I could use the boost and because I'll spend quite enough time on my weaknesses eventually.

Strengths

• Confidence. I have enough strength of character to feel that I can or should be in charge. This confidence also helps me represent the group. I'm relatively fearless (so I'm told) when it comes to speaking in front of groups or introducing myself for networking purposes. Good. We'll need that.
• Positive attitude: This is something that's relatively new. I still have my moments of pessimism (see below), but my default position is not a Charlie Brownish defeatism.
• Intelligence: Not to brag overmuch, but I've got a good memory and a good capacity for planning, strategic, and creative thought. Again, good things to have.
• Humility: I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong and will readily apologize for flashes of temper, sometimes even before someone else has taken offense.
• Experience: I've had a variety of experiences in the activities needed to put a convention together, including leading large and small groups, working in conventions and hotels at Disney, and attending good and bad conferences often enough to know what I want or don't want.
• Competence: I do my jobs well because I take them seriously and have a strong desire for, if not perfection, at least high quality.

Weaknesses

• Stress: It has been brought to my attention more than once that I don't hide my feelings well. When I'm not particularly happy, my face follows suit. I lose my happy-go-lucky attitude and get snarky. Not nasty, necessarily, just cranky. The side effect of getting stressed is that it interferes with my logic and ability to plan or maintain my positive attitude.
• Opinionated/Tactless: I often have strong opinions about things, usually backed up by facts or reasonable-sounding arguments. That doesn't mean they're right all the time, of course, and sometimes, when irritated, I will make some sort of smart-@$$ comment that hurts feelings or insults others. I usually do this in "off-duty" mode, when I think I'm "off stage." However, leaders are never off stage, unless to their closest friends and family. Everyone else continually judges them. Harsh language off-duty and happy talk on duty can and are perceived as two-faced. Best to keep my unvarnished opinions to myself.
• Limited Ability to Delegate: Being the hypercompetent type, I don't trust that everyone will do things as well as I would. As a result, I take too much upon myself, leading to overload and stress (see above). This was, a caring coworker told me gently today, is one of the worst characteristics a leader can have. Point taken.
• Impatience: This feeds a lot of different things, such as being deadline-driven (not always realistically). I don't suffer fools, unreasoning resistance, or petty arguing well. I'm better than I used to be, scary as that sounds, but I need to "balance my chi."

The same friend who took me to task for not delegating suggested that I focus on Servant Leadership, which I read back when I had too much free time at Disney. "You need to make it about them. If you demonstrate that they'll be able to fulfill their dreams by doing what you want, they'll be more willing to follow you. You make it about you, you're finished." Ow. 'Tis true, but I needed to hear it. Guess I'll have to pick up that book again, read it, and live it. Now I just need to figure out how to get my "stressing out" or "getting spun up" behavior under control. Hm.

Brief Blurb on Bad Leadership and Snobbery

This line of thought was spurred by a comment from a friend, not due to anything that's happened to me recently. My friend explained that she was ignored by some high-ranking suits on an elevator and then given suspicious looks when she got off the elevator on the "executive suite" floor with them, as if they questioned her right to be there.

There are certain traits that have always bugged me about people in positions of authority or high social status/position, which is why I try not to emulate them or get into positions of authority (I’m as susceptible as anyone—lead me not into temptation). The things I don't like include:

• Being ignored as a person because I’m not of the right rank.
• Being treated as a lesser person because of my position.
• Being bullied or pushed around unnecessarily simply because someone in authority wants something.

I accept the concept of, and need for, rank in organizations. I even understand the need to expect higher levels of service based on higher prices. However, I’ve always distinguished between the position and the person. It’s the difference between respecting the office of the President, for instance, and not respecting that person's behavior. Or the difference between accepting that “Rank hath its privileges” but that “All men are created equal.” Rank and status are limited social features of a representative republic. We have aristocracies of merit, money, talent, privilege, political power, and aesthetic beauty, but the saner among us realize that those aristocracies are (or should be) limited in scope.

Unfortunately, some people just let the rank go to their head (or worse, let others' ranks go to their head), forgetting that, once off duty, these people have to put their pants on one leg at a time and that, oh yeah, they have to deal with people who don’t know or care what their special rank or power is. I'm not anti-aristocracy, anti-management, anti-leadership, anti-merit, or anti-rank; I'm simply anti-snob.

A Cipher Speaks and McCain’s Running Mate

I just couldn’t bring myself to watch Barack Obama’s nomination acceptance speech last night. Instead, I did what I will probably do with McCain’s speech: I read it. That takes away the theatricals, the Greek temple, the voice, the man, the cheering, applauding crowds, and leaves you with just the words on the page. Still, you can learn a lot by reading; it’s a shame more people don’t do it.

Yesterday was Obama’s big interview with the country, as I’m sure he knows. Now here’s the thing about interviews: you don’t just want to know what this presidential candidate will do for you, though that’s the most obvious thing. You also want to know what he has done. A little background is nice—he’s got a wife and kids—but what you really want to know is what he’s done with his experience. What has he learned from it? What has he done in the last four years? We know he gave a speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. We know he has been a senator. He states that has voted against the war in Iraq, but the war began two years before he assumed office. Before he was a U.S. Senator, he was a state senator. What did he do there? What did he learn? Silence. He has been a lawyer and a community organizer. Doing what? How? With what sort(s) of people or organization? Unknown. He was a near-top-of-his-class student at arguably America’s most prestigious university. That’s a lot of hard work; certainly he can speak to that, no? I hear crickets chirping.

Who the hell is this guy? If you expected to find out during this speech, you were likely to be disappointed. And, again, as an interviewer, you’d have to be asking yourself, “This guy’s had an interesting past—why doesn’t he talk about any of it?”

So what did we get with this speech—five pages long at about an 8-point font? Three themes dominated:

• Barack Obama is not George W. Bush. This is hardly surprising, but one must consider that Mr. Bush is no longer up for election, and McCain is hardly his surrogate.
• America is suffering. He sprinkles the speech with a lot of little anecdotes that demonstrate his compassion, his superior understanding of what ails the country, and his willingness to fix it. Never mind that we’re still the richest nation on Earth, as he admits—people are suffering and it will be the sole job of his government to fix it.
• Barack will do a lot of things. This is the standard laundry list of political promises. Some of them are economically questionable, such as lowering taxes on the middle class when the rich pay the bulk of taxes and the poor pay none at all; others are grandiose and unrealistic without serious government micromanaging of the economy, such as getting America off of petroleum products in ten years. There's an awful lot of personal ownership going on--"I will..."

Going back to the interview, it is interesting to note the few places where he does talk about himself:

• “If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament and judgment to serve as the next commander in chief, that’s a debate I’m ready to have.” You forgot experience, laddie. But I suspect you already know that. Of course experience is what gives us temperament and judgment.
• “If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.” Not precisely. The more specific action you take is to stand back, and wait awhile longer until the candidate develops the record so you can have a better sense of who he is and what he has accomplished. That’s another thing missing from this speech: Obama’s accomplishments. What has the man done? Ted Kennedy, much as I dislike his politics, has a solid record of achievement there. I can probably name at least three laws he’s pushed through and several issues on which he is known to be an expert and ardent supporter. I cannot say the same about Obama.
• “I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office.” Wow. Then why should I hire you? This would be an excellent opportunity to explain that, Barack, but you didn’t do it. Your policies are what they are, and Joe Biden could sell them as easily as you could. We’re not just hiring the policies, we’re hiring the man, the mensch, and we know diddly-squat about him. Admitting that you’re not the likeliest candidate might be self-deprecating, but it might also be the truth. We just don’t know, and Obama does not follow up by explaining why the presumption of his unlikeliness is false.
• “I don’t fit the typical pedigree, and I haven’t spent my career in the halls of Washington.” Let’s start with the word pedigree, which is little more than another way of saying that he’s African-American. I find this notion offensive. Imagine an interviewee saying, “I realize you don’t usually hire blacks.” He’s insinuating that a) you’ve been a racist in the past or b) you are a racist if you don’t hire him now. That’s insulting, it’s blackmail, and quite frankly it’s rude.
  Earlier in this campaign (a year or two ago), I might have even considered, briefly, voting for this guy. And were I still a mushy moderate, I probably would. But in fact I don’t like his policies. I think they’re bad for the country. I don’t like the fact that he’s cagey and evasive about his past. I don’t think he’s got the experience—yet—to be president. That is not questioning the color of his skin, but the content of his character.
  Then there’s the matter of where he spent his career. As some folks like to remind us, Obama has had 143 days of experience in the U.S. Senate. His experience before that I’ve already mentioned above—but again, what has he done???
• “But I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the naysayers don’t understand is that this election has never been about me. It’s about you. It’s about you. For 18 long months, you have stood up, one by one, and said enough to the politics of the past. You understand that in this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result. You have shown what history teaches us—that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn’t come from Washington. Change comes to Washington. Change happens because the American people demand it – because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time. America, this is one of those moments.” I’m sorry, but the last 18 months have been all about Obama—whether he has the charisma and political personality people are willing to buy to vote for president. The lie is so emphatic, he has to repeat it twice to make sure people get the point. After all, if it was all about “you,” why is he asking “you” to vote for him?
  And I’ve said this before, but it still bears repeating: we’re going to get change no matter who is elected because Bush’s term ends in January. The question is, what types of change are the American public prepared to accept? Change will happen even if you don’t vote in November. And while we would also face unknowns with John McCain, we have a better clue into his character. “McCain-Feingold,” for instance, is practically part of the everyday vocabulary. We know more about him, from his pre-congressional life as a fighter pilot and prisoner in Vietnam to his previous runs for president and his willingness to battle his own party to get his way. I might not agree with him, but I feel that I at least understand him.
  Also, Obama’s ideas are not new; they are the Democratic Party’s standard talking points for the last 20+ years: soak the rich to subsidize the poor, regulate industry to protect the environment, reduce the military to encourage peace. The only things new about Obama’s candidacy are his age and his race. And when this speech was over, we still had no solid clue about the man wearing this age and race. Caveat emptor.

I did like a few lines from this speech, and they’re toward the end:

“You know, this country of ours has more wealth than any nation, but that’s not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military on Earth, but that’s not what makes us strong. Our universities and culture are the envy of the world, but that’s not what keeps the world coming to our shores. Instead, it is that American spirit—that American promise—that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.”

That section is almost Reaganesque. However, lofty words are not enough by themselves to get me to vote for Barack Obama, nor would his policies be, were I to favor them. He’s proven that he can give a good speech, but not that he can govern well or that he can lead. In short, while impressive in bearing and political presence, Barack Obama did not pass this interview with me to become President. I wonder what effect his speech will have on the rest of the public.
*
And speaking of the public, the McCain campaign did a masterful job of sucking up the oxygen Obama hoped to gain from his speech last night. I had to chuckle a bit when a couple of friends told me that selecting Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was an attempt to pander to or take the votes of Hillary Clinton voters. That might be the case, if there are a lot of people who would vote for Hillary solely because she’s a woman. However, from a policy perspective, Palin is not there to wow liberal feminists. She won't. She is there for one reason, and it’s a good one: to wow the conservative Republican base. It's a smart move. Brilliant, in fact. Surprisingly brilliant, considering some of McCain’s calls. Of course the MSNBC types now think McCain is no longer a "maverick" because he didn't pick a liberal (a maverick, after all, is a term of affection when it's a Republic going against his own party). He's being a maverick toward the media. He's smarter than some conservatives--including me--thought he was.

I first heard about Sarah Palin from one of my favorite conservative ladies, who’s actually from Wasilla, Alaska. She told me that Palin would make a good future president. She described Palin as much like herself: a gun-toting, environmentalist, God-fearing, pro-life conservative. So my friend sold me a few years ago. Now we’ll see how she wins over the country. Way to go, John. You just might pull this one out.

More on Europe, Taming My Inner Tyrant

The most recent post generated some good ideas from a couple of family members. From Cousin Susan:

• Buy air tickets at regular price, and then try to apply the Frequent Flyer miles to getting an upgrade. That'd work (if Delta/NWA does that). Suze suggested doing that by booking via a travel agent.
• On the subject of travel gear, she suggested one of the following for a decent rain jacket:
  SteepandCheap.com
  BackCountry.com
  Eddie Bauer
  L.L. Bean
  Land's End

None of these places is exactly cheap, but I'm going to be wearing said stuff for ~3 weeks, and it'd be nice to know that whatever I buy is going to hold up. So anyway, I've got some ideas.

Uncle Terry (one of the many traveling Irishmen in my family) and I talked last night. The first thing he recommended, after I'd plunked down $99+ for my "Rocket German" class were some free language classes via the British Broadcasting Company (BBC):

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/languages/german/lj/
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/languages/french/
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/languages/italian/

Well, maybe I can save money on my French and Italian.

Uncle Terry is also a big advocate of American Express. He'd convinced me to get an Amex card, which he said should offer the following benefits:

• No charges to me during a billing dispute
• Free medical insurance
• Prescription registration
• Lower/better currency exchange rates

I suggested that he be a salesman for American Express, as he's quite the advocate. "They don't want someone my age," was his retort. Huhrumph. Weird job market.

Anyhow, on the subject of booking, he strongly suggested booking online directly with the airline rather than going through additional middlemen (airline reservations, travel agents), each of which add their little surcharge onto the process. However, he did recommend calling NWA to figure out what I could get for my FF benefits. A phone call or two couldn't hurt, at any point.

*

One of the reasons I've avoided management positions for so long (much to my father's dismay) is that I know I have a tendency toward tyranny, especially when side discussions and arguments appear to be sidetracking progress. I'd like to think of myself as a benevolent Irish monarch, but there are times when even the chieftans brought out their swords and clubs and said, "By damn, man! Everything would be fine if you'd just do things my way!" This reaction toward personal tyranny is also why I don't run for public office.

But the funny thing is, if I'm in a position where I know I've got to compromise, I'm fine. I'm also fine if I'm in a position where I've been put in charge--until someone holds up The Plan. I can usually keep myself balanced as long as a few things pertain:

• There's not a lot of time pressure
• There's not a lot of money involved
• The basic premises of The Plan are not being questions, merely the details

However, inevitably, the longer one is in a leadership position, the longer one or more of the three conditions above is likely to be violated. And of course that's the real trick, isn't it? Leaders often work under pressure, with limited information, with a firm idea of what they WANT to happen, but with only a vague notion of the consequences of all possible decisions. And if they're wrong, they'll shoulder the blame and responsbility, and if they're right, they'll get only a share of the glory.

I've been studying leadership for years because the way people behave under all these variables is of great interest to me. I've tried to keep myself in structured situations that don't put me in a lot of danger of testing my leadership limits. People are funny animals, and I'm never entirely certain of my ability to work with them well. I'm also constantly in doubt about when it's time for democratic, group-based decisions and when it's time for individual, unilateral decisiveness by one person. Each situation is unique, and different individuals, groups, and situations require different types of leadership behavior.

Perhaps I've been such a student of leadership because I've seen what good things can be done through words and actions (Kennedy sending a nation to the Moon, King leading a nation toward equal rights for all), and I've seen what evil or stupidity can be unleashed by a petty tyrant (anything from simple micromanagement to Hitleresque evils). Leadership is a two-edged sword: a single person might make decisions more quickly, but that single individual isn't always right, and the suffering he creates increases exponentially by the size of the error and the number of people affected by it.

Hm. Well, I'm not going to solve the basic problems of human nature and group dynamics tonight. All I really need to do is figure out how to negotiate between conflicting demands over something as simple as organizing a meeting. The decisions only get tougher the higher you go in any organization. I can either get used to it, or quit trying to lead anyone. Unfortunately, that Irish chieftan always lurks beneath the surface--convinced that everyone will follow him if he's just sufficiently charming--and who can just as easily draw the club or sword if his plans are crossed.