A Hundred Years Is Too Long to Wait

Today is the anniversary of the Civil War’s opening shot. On April 12, 1861, Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter, beginning a bombardment that would launch four years of slaughter. That war did not erupt because America had settled its deepest racial contradiction. It erupted because the country had postponed it — and postponement, in America, has a way of becoming a habit.

America has settled into a troubling rhythm: roughly every hundred years, the nation makes a major formal advance against racial injustice — only after long resistance, bitter struggle, and blood. The Declaration of Independence in 1776 gave us the principle. The 13th Amendment, ratified in 1865, abolished slavery. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 dismantled segregation and legal discrimination. None arrived cleanly or uncontested.

Start with the Declaration. Americans rightly celebrate it as the nation’s statement of human equality. But even at its creation, the promise was narrowed by political cowardice. Congress deleted Jefferson’s passage condemning slavery and the slave trade — in part to satisfy South Carolina and Georgia, and in part because northern commercial interests were implicated. The founding document offered a universal creed while shrinking from a full confrontation with human bondage. The first great American statement against inequality was compromised before the ink was dry.

Then came the century of evasion, rationalization, and bloodshed. Defenders of slavery wrapped themselves in the language of property, local control, and constitutional restraint. But the historical record is unambiguous: secession was driven by the determination to preserve slavery. Confederate vice president Alexander Stephens said so plainly — the Confederacy, he declared, rested on slavery and white supremacy as its cornerstone. Even emancipation was denounced as ruinous, lawless, and socially catastrophic. Yet the 13th Amendment, ratified in 1865, abolished slavery nationwide. It was a giant step, but one taken only after war, slaughter, and years of arguments designed to make justice seem impossible.

A century later, the country had to fight again over whether Black Americans would enjoy rights already promised on paper. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed segregation in public accommodations, addressed employment discrimination, and promoted school integration — but it did not emerge from consensus. It came after years in which Southern states and local authorities met civil rights demands with arrests, beatings, police dogs, fire hoses, and organized obstruction. In Birmingham, police attacked young demonstrators with dogs and high-pressure hoses. In Mississippi, Freedom Summer volunteers faced beatings, arrests, bombings, and murder. In Selma, state troopers brutally assaulted peaceful marchers on a bridge the whole country watched. The law passed, but force was used again and again to delay, block, and punish its moral logic.

That is the real pattern. America does move — but only after making the targets of injustice endure another generation, or three, of excuses. The 1770s gave us the promise. The 1860s abolished slavery. The 1960s dismantled legalized segregation. We should take hope from that progress, but not comfort from its pace.

A hundred years is too long to wait for another leap forward. We should not resign ourselves to hoping that the 2060s will finally bring the next great breakthrough. The pattern has repeated twice. A country that has already postponed justice through slavery, segregation, and generations of excuse-making forfeits the moral right to postpone it again. Refuse to let the pattern repeat a third time. Demand change now — not after another century of delay.

Bits and Blocks – AI of a Different Sort

The AI here is Adopting Incrementalism. We continue to talk about “moonshot” projects and “complete and total” geopolitical victories. Don’t get me wrong. We need big ideas and bold moves. Some situations require a black-or-white, all-or-nothing outcome. But most advances come in smaller bits and blocks, each building on the last.

Freakonomics Radio rebroadcasted In Praise of Incrementalism the other week. It was first out in 2016 and worth a listen. Ed Glaeser, an economics professor at Harvard, had a couple of memorable lines:

“…once we start thinking that there’s a silver bullet, … we lose the fact that we need to be working day by day, over decades, to affect change.”

“The more that you just think that the right answer… will magically fix anything, the less that you actually pay attention to what really matters, which is the nit and grit of everyday decision-making, of everyday governance.”

This prompted me to review a few thoughts of my own on this subject going back to 2011. It started with a general revulsion of mutual exclusivity. We don’t need a divide between big ideas and incremental steps; we need vision and execution, large goals and little objectives, and short-range and long-term views.

Public relations and advertising agencies never receive RFPs for little ideas. Boards of Directors don’t select CEOs for their promises of small improvements. Politicians don’t get elected on a platform of incremental steps. We’re conditioned to expect the big idea, to go big or go home, to swing for a home run, to throw the Hail Mary for a touchdown. But that’s not the way to solve most large and complex problems.

It’s worth remembering our country is nothing but a timeline of incremental advances. Many in the Continental Congress wanted to abolish slavery, while others insisted it remain. There would be no United States of America unless they could agree. So, the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Constitution in 1787 were compromises. They were steps. We had to wait and fight nearly a hundred years for the Emancipation Proclamation and then another hundred for the Civil Rights Act.

This applies beyond our politics and social ills. In the world of medicine, for example, Cy Stein, M.D., Ph.D. and Chair of Medical Oncology at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center said, "One advance leads to another. Although the advance might be incremental, it's a step beyond. If we are only interested in revolutionary therapies, patients will miss out on the improvements in care that smaller advances offer.”

This holds for the humanities, too. Friedrich Nietzsche said, "Artists have a vested interest in our believing in the flash of revelation, the so-called inspiration... shining down from heavens as a ray of grace. In reality, the imagination of the good artist or thinker produces continuously good, mediocre or bad things, but his judgment, trained and sharpened to a fine point, rejects, selects, connects... All great artists and thinkers are great workers, indefatigable not only in inventing, but also in rejecting, sifting, transforming, ordering."

Some may feel incrementalism is akin to settling – a poor compromise.  Well, we’ve all heard Voltaire’s “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” And legend can teach us, too. When order was collapsing in Camelot, King Arthur (according to T.H. White) said, “Merlyn approved of the Round Table. Evidently, it was a good thing at the time. It must have been a step. Now we must think of making the next one.”

Small strides can sometimes add up to a completed marathon. We should embrace and celebrate the completion of each step along the way.


Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

Camelot Wisdom: 10 Leadership Lessons from King Arthur’s Court

I am sharing 10 bits of “Camelot Wisdom” to commemorate the publication anniversary of Camelot, Inc.: Leadership and Management Insights from King Arthur and the Round Table. Not all of the actions and words from Camelot were examples we should follow, of course; there were many instances of what not to say or do. But this collection of 10 quotes from the legends (of the 150 in the book) holds strong relevance for us today. As Winston Churchill said, “The further backward you look, the further forward you can see.”

“He favours the young knights, and tries to help them win the spurs.”¹ Help others realize their potential. Coaching, teaching and mentoring must not be an optional activity for leaders.

“Learn why the world wags and what wags it.”² Having empathy - understanding and feeling what others feel - delivers competitive advantage. People want to advocate, work or vote for those who take an interest in them, and feel their pains and successes.

“But when men be hot in the deeds of arms oft they will hurt their friends as well as their foes.”³ Without maintaining calm and perspective in times of crisis, a lack of clear, considered thinking leads to poor decision-making and unintended consequences.

“I didn’t want to be conscious of it. I hoped that if only I was not quite conscious of everything, it would come straight in the end.”⁴ We must confront the hard, awkward issues. Denying reality may sometimes be required to maintain sanity but move past the anticipation and anxiety to address problems and opportunities.

“The destiny of Man is to unite, not to divide. If you keep dividing you end up as a collection of monkeys throwing nuts at each other out of separate trees.”⁵ It can’t always be all-or-nothing; we should celebrate incremental advances. Communicate and engage with others to find common ground and compromise.

“I don’t think things ought to be done because you are able to do them. I think they should be done because you ought to do them.”⁶ There is importance in declaring your Mission, Vision, and Values; define and articulate objectives, direction, and principles. We can do well AND do good.

“Merlin made the Round Table in tokening of the world…”⁷ Round was more than a shape; the Table became a brand. It was a symbol of excellence. It enhanced communication and collaboration, and hosted a diversity of old and new – those with institutional knowledge and fresh ideas. Value was placed on the "roundedness" of people and teams.

“…many speak behind a man more than they will say to his face.”⁸ Behavior matters. Gossip leads to rumors, which lead to a breakdown in trust and organizational culture. Ensure the flow of good, timely information. Set an example and have the character and ethics to correct others.

“…you couldn’t get unless you gave. And you had to give without wanting to get.”⁹ One must not think of helping, contributing or doing good as a zero-sum game. We need a mindset, a culture of helping others to succeed – it strengthens everyone.

“Only fools want to be great.”¹⁰ Greatness is not an objective; it’s an outcome of planning, doing, giving and achieving. Leaders know the audiences/stakeholders they serve are the judges. They further those agendas above their own, and must have the vision to unify purpose and people.

There’s much more in the book, of course, but it’s clear that the trials and tribulations of Arthur and his court have much to teach the people, corporations, institutions and governments of today.

This article also appears in Medium. I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

1.     T.H. White, The Once and Future King, (1939-1958); Ace Edition (1987), p. 554.

2.     Ibid., p. 183.

3.     Ibid., p. 416

4.     Ibid., 579.

5.     Ibid., p. 231.

6.     Ibid., p. 246.

7.     T. Malory, Le Morte D’Arthur, (1469); Modern Library Edition (1999), p. 691.

8.     White, The Once and Future King, p. 347

9.     Ibid., p. 464.

10. Ibid., p. 180.

Why Personal and Political Pivots Are So Problematic

Successful businesses know the advantages of flipping the aphorism “If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It” to “If It Ain’t Broke, Fix It Anyway.” Management guru Peter Drucker warned, “The enterprise that does not innovate inevitably ages and declines.” People know this, too. The hazards of “resting on your laurels” need no explanation. But changing an organization is one thing – changing ourselves is another.

While many companies have started in one place and ended up in another – morphing through competitive, economic and societal influences – it’s much harder for people to evolve their thinking and behavior. We are who we are, right? We need to stay true to our own character.

And that’s the false choice many of us believe we have to make – that we must somehow abandon who we are in order to change or to accept (or even acknowledge) the views of another. We’re thinking too small if we give in to the mutual exclusivity of “if you’re not with us, you’re against us.”

Sadly, though, many of us take challenges to our positions much too personally. Honest feedback and new ideas may be viewed as disloyal or an attack on one’s core values. This is no more true than in the current political environment. Change is seen as weakness; you’re branded as a flip-flopper. And almost any whiff of compromise attracts a potentially ferocious, ad hominem response.

A New York Times editorial [The Donald Trump Pygmalion Project, April 26, 2016] focused on Donald Trump’s behavior and how “Mr. [Paul] Manafort’s ambition is to turn this Eliza Doolittle into a candidate more acceptable to decent society, in time for the general election.” However, Mr. Trump may not agree. He said, “I sort of don’t like toning it down.”

While Mr. Trump still has time to pivot from fiery agitator to energetic statesman, the Democratic insurgent, Bernie Sanders, missed his chance. An explanation may be found from the insurgent candidate of 2004: Howard Dean. In an NPR interview [Campaign Mystery: Why Don't Bernie Sanders' Big Rallies Lead To Big Wins?, April 26, 2016], he admitted, "I couldn't change. And I knew I had to. But the crowd pulls you back. They're dying for you. They're bleeding for you. And it's very hard to do."

The cheers and accolades from a self-selected audience can be intoxicating; it feeds the ego and induces a craving for more. We don’t want to hear what plays well now may not play well later or with others. It seems obvious but we need the strategic vision and the courage to make the shift or, more dramatically, jump the tracks. Temperament, demeanor and behavior really are big deals in building relationships. It’s also crucial in leadership. Carl von Clausewitz, the brilliant 19th century military strategist, noted it is “…the more all-encompassing than the narrowly focused mind, the cooler rather than the hot-tempered mind that we should more readily entrust in war with the well-being of our brothers and children, and the honor and safety of our country.”

Yes, we should stick to our principles but let’s push back against this noxious atmosphere before it actually becomes the new normal. We’re adaptive creatures, after all, and our massive capacity to learn, grow and relate is being stunted. The political or personal pivot (as long as it’s not pandering) should be viewed as nothing more than our natural – though sometimes tumultuous – progression.

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

Big Ideas versus Incremental Steps is a False Choice

A key takeaway message being reported from yesterday’s Democratic Town Hall in Iowa is the divide between big ideas and incremental steps. In general, I don’t like mutual exclusivity. (I’ve addressed this before in my book, Camelot, Inc.) Of course we need big ideas and bold moves. But small things can be out-of-the-box and innovative, too. The answer is we need both vision and execution, the large goals and the little objectives, and the short-range and the long-term views.

I know it’s hard for politicians to get elected on a platform of incremental steps. We’re conditioned to expect the big idea, to go big or go home, or to swing for a homerun. But it’s certainly not going to happen with our largest and most complex problems.

This applies beyond our politics and social ills. In the world of medicine, for example, Cy Stein, M.D., Ph.D. and Chair of Medical Oncology at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center said, "One advance leads to another. Although the advance might be incremental, it's a step beyond." And, "If we are only interested in revolutionary therapies, patients will miss out on the improvements in care that smaller advances offer.”

As we approach another Federal election, it’s worthwhile remembering that our Founding Fathers were believers in the proverb “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” Our country is nothing but a timeline of incremental advances. Many in the Continental Congress wanted to abolish slavery, while others insisted it remain.There would be no United States of America unless they could agree. So, the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Constitution in 1787 were compromises. They were steps. We had to wait nearly a hundred years for the Emancipation Proclamation and then another hundred for the Civil Rights Act.

Small strides can sometimes add up to a completed marathon. We should embrace and celebrate the completion of each step along the way.

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

Our "Big Idea" Obsession

Why We Should Embrace Incrementalism 

Public relations and advertising agencies never receive RFPs for little ideas. Boards of Directors don’t select CEOs for their promises of small improvements. Politicians don’t get elected on a platform of incremental steps. We’re conditioned to expect the big idea, to go big or go home, to swing for a homerun, to throw the Hail Mary for a touchdown.

That’s why President Obama was criticized last month for talking about hitting “singles” and “doubles” in his foreign policy efforts. But he did say, “Every once in a while we may be able to hit a home run. But we steadily advance the interests of the American people and our partnership with folks around the world.” And then admitted, “That may not always be sexy. “That may not always attract a lot of attention..."

He was right and his critics were not happy. Maureen Dowd, in her New York Times opinion piece entitled, “Is Barry Whiffing,” told the President to “stop whining.” Ms. Dowd wrote, “What happened to crushing it and swinging for the fences? Where have you gone, Babe Ruth?” And then, “It doesn’t feel like leadership. It doesn’t feel like you’re in command of your world.” 

My readers, clients and students know I hate this type of mutual exclusivity. (I’ve addressed it before in this blog and in my book, Camelot, Inc.) Of course we need big ideas and bold gestures. But small things can be out-of-the-box and innovative, too. The answer is we need both vision and execution, the large goals and the little objectives, and the short-range and the long-term views. If we can’t always strike that “grand bargain” what are the alternatives?

It’s the same line of reasoning used to block investment in solar or wind energy because it would only be a drop in the bucket compared to our overall energy needs. Or the strengthening of background checks on gun purchases because the effect on violence can’t be fully quantified in advance. Or, it could be taxes and the deficit. The so-called millionaire’s tax can’t get any traction because, the logic goes, it would do so little to cut into our national debt.

But we need to start some place, some time. We’d like to get to the goal line in one play but we can’t. It’s certainly not going to happen with our largest and most complex problems. We’ve all heard Voltaire’s “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” Well, incrementalism is hard to accept but, in so many cases, equally hard to forswear.

I’ll remind the politicos that our country is nothing but a timeline of incremental advances. Many of the Founding Fathers wanted to abolish slavery, while others insisted it remain. So, the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Constitution in 1787 were compromises. They were steps. We had to wait nearly a hundred years for the Emancipation Proclamation and then another hundred for the Civil Rights Act.

As I wrote in another piece, “Compromise and incremental success may not seem satisfying, but it’s the way most things operate and succeed. Baby steps can sometimes add up to a completed marathon. We need to reject the all-or-nothing mentality and reward the smaller but still important measures. We need to learn from the past, not live in it.”

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

P.S. After posting my blog, I came across an article on the Celgene web site, Paving the Way for Cancer Breakthroughs: Small Steps Make a Big Impact on the Lives of Cancer Patients and Our Understanding of the Disease. They warn against "holding out for those large steps" and ignoring the reality of cancer's complexity. Cy Stein, M.D., Ph.D. and Chair of Medical Oncology at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center commented, "One advance leads to another. Although the advance might be incremental, it's a step beyond." The article concludes, "If we are only interested in revolutionary therapies, patients will miss out on the improvements in care that smaller advances offer. In the end, these advances can help us transform cancer into a chronic, manageable disease."

The Incremental Excuse

Aurora and the Rejection of Small Steps

In the aftermath of the tragedy at the Aurora, CO movie theater, the pundits, politicians and lobbyists were at it again with all of the typical arguments about gun control in full force. Both sides of the issue dusted off the same statements they’ve used following the shooting of Gaby Giffords, and the massacres at Fort Hood, Binghamton, Virginia Tech, Columbine and on and on. We weep, we mourn, we do it again.

At the core is the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America (ratified in 1791): A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

One the one side:

·     The Second Amendment has been ridiculously over-interpreted. (The Fox show Family Guy took a satirical jab at the subject.)

·     We need to limit the number and type of guns available for sale to the public, especially those designed for combat.

·     We must ensure that those who own them do so legally after appropriate background checks and registration.

·     Ammunition that is designed to inflict maximal damage and penetrate body armor should be banned, as should high capacity magazines.

On the other side:

·     Our freedom is threatened and the country is undermined if the individual right to bear arms is in any way curtailed.

·     The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm whether or not it’s used in connection with service in a militia.

·     If we lived in a more moral society, we would not see people misusing guns.

·     Gun laws won’t stop the insane from finding ways to kill people.

Personally, I have a difficult time with the last four points but the last is particularly irksome – the rationale that inaction is the best option. The line is that stricter gun laws won’t cut down on violence. It might cut down on gun violence but the violent will find other ways to fulfill their intent.

It’s the same line of reasoning used to say that we shouldn’t invest in solar or wind energy because it would only be drop in the bucket compared to our overall energy needs. Opponents to the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) want it replaced or repealed; there’s nothing to negotiate. Or, it could be taxes and the deficit. The so-called millionaire’s tax can’t get any traction because, the logic goes, it would do so little to cut into our national debt.

Enough! We have to start someplace. We’d like to get to the goal line in one play but we can’t. It’s not happening. “Whatever axiom you want to use – half a loaf is better than none or Voltaire’s “The perfect is the enemy of the good” (originally, Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien) – incrementalism is hard to accept but equally hard to forswear.” That’s what I wrote in my book, Camelot, Inc., and it seems appropriate to repeat it here.

We should remember that our country is nothing but a timeline of incremental advances. Many of the Founding Fathers wanted to abolish slavery, while others insisted that it remain. So, the Declaration of Independence was a compromise. It was a step. We had to wait nearly a hundred years for the Emancipation Proclamation and then another hundred for the Civil Rights Act.

Of course we must cherish our individual rights but we are one nation. Those who love the Constitution should think deeply about its first line: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Please note the words “We” and “general welfare.” And notice also “union,” “Justice” and “domestic Tranquility.” The Founding Fathers would be in tears if they could see how we’ve misused and abused their words, and became one of the most violent societies on earth.

Compromise and incremental success may not seem satisfying, but it’s the way most things operate and succeed. Baby steps can sometimes add up to a completed marathon.

Congress and state legislatures across the country should take note. Indeed, we need to elect leaders with the courage and conviction to move the country forward. We need to reject the all-or-nothing mentality and reward the smaller but still important measures. We need to learn from the past, not live in it.

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.