Category: Leadership

Follow-up – "One man’s Military-Industrial Complex"

McCaffrey And Rumsfeld , New York Times, December 3, 2008 , Pg. 26

To the Editor:

Re “One Man’s Military-Industrial-Media Complex” (front page, Nov. 30):Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey makes much of his opposition to former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Whatever General McCaffrey or other unnamed individuals may believe, though, I am unaware of any decision to “cut off General McCaffrey’s access to the Pentagon’s special briefings,” as stated in the article.We held briefings for former senior officials who served presidents of both parties, think-tank specialists from across the political spectrum, and many others. Divergent views were often expressed, sometimes strenuously.Secretary Rumsfeld never suggested to me, the official responsible for the program, that we stop holding the meetings, or disinvite people — including General McCaffrey — because they didn’t agree with our policies.General McCaffrey actually enjoyed special access by virtue of his relationships with senior military officers, yet it seems he benefits from brandishing the bloody shirt of alleged maltreatment by Secretary Rumsfeld.Lawrence Di Rita, Potomac, Md., Nov. 30, 2008The writer was special assistant to the secretary of defense from 2001-06. He also served as acting assistant secretary of defense for public affairs.Editor’s Note: The article referred to appeared in the Current News Early Bird, Nov. 30, 2008.

Financial Crisis: Background – Systems Perspective

POST: Bankers, you have nothing to gain but your chains! by Thomas P.M. Barnett on November 29, 2008

A good rendition of the argument that says we’re at the end of an extended period of deregulation that has logically run its course.

ARTICLE: A short history of modern finance: Link by link; The crash has been blamed on cheap money, Asian savings and greedy bankers. For many people, deregulation is the prime suspect,” The Economist, 18 October 2008.

It would be a mistake to argue that, had politicians rather than bankers been in charge, policy would have been more prudent. Indeed, politicians encouraged banks to make riskier loans. This was particularly true in America, where a series of measures, starting with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, required banks to meet the credit needs of the “entire community”. In practice, this was social policy: it meant more lending to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government-sponsored giants of the mortgage market, were encouraged to guarantee a wider range of loans in the 1990s.

The share of Americans who owned their homes rose steadily. But more buyers meant higher prices, making loans even less affordable to the poor and requiring even slacker lending standards. The seeds of the subprime crisis were sown, and the new techniques of securitisation allowed banks to make these loans and then offload them quickly.

Could the crisis have been avoided or minimized? Can the next crisis be prevented?   I believe the answer to both question is  yes but a new paradigm is needed. 

Retired Generals …

One Man’s Military-Industrial-Media Complex, (New York Times)…David Barstow, Nov 30, 2008.

…Through seven years of war an exclusive club has quietly flourished at the intersection of network news and wartime commerce. Its members, mostly retired generals, have had a foot in both camps as influential network military analysts and defense industry rainmakers. It is a deeply opaque world, a place of privileged access to senior government officials, where war commentary can fit hand in glove with undisclosed commercial interests and network executives are sometimes oblivious to possible conflicts of interest. Few illustrate the submerged complexities of this world better than Barry McCaffrey.

Joint Chiefs Chairman, President-Elect Meet

Joint Chiefs Chairman ‘Very Positive’ After Meeting With Obama (Washington Post)…Karen DeYoung, Nov 30, 2008.

…There was little talk of exiting Iraq or beefing up the U.S. force in Afghanistan; the one-on-one, 45-minute conversation ranged from the personal to the philosophical. Mullen came away with what he wanted: a view of the next president as a non-ideological pragmatist who was willing to both listen and lead.

…. Obama has been careful to separate his criticism of Bush policy from his praise of the military’s valor and performance,.

Obama’s expected retention of Robert M. Gates as defense secretary and expected appointment of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state and retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones as national security adviser have been greeted with relief at the Pentagon.

In an October survey by the Military Times, nearly 70 percent of more than 4,000 officers and enlisted respondents said they favored McCain, while about 23 percent preferred Obama. Only African American service members gave Obama a majority.

Even as the Iraq war continues, Defense officials are far more worried about Afghanistan, where they see policy drift and an unfocused mission.

One of the biggest long-term military issues on Obama’s plate will be the defense budget, currently topping 4.3 percent of gross domestic product once war expenditures are included. Obama has said he will increase the size of the Army and the Marine Corps, finding savings in the Iraq drawdown and in new scrutiny of spending, including on contractors, weapons programs and missile defense.

Tibet: "Middle Way" Policy Not Working

Exiled Tibetans gather in India to discuss new way, By Tim Sullivan, Associated Press, Nov 12, 2008

For 20 years, the exile movement has been guided by the Dalai Lama’s “middle way,” which rejects demands for outright independence but calls for limited autonomy for Tibet. Until very recently, the Dalai Lama had insisted on conciliation, repeatedly telling Beijing that progress for Tibet could come only through talks, and insisting he did not want independence.

Conciliatory talk, though, brought little but disdain from China. Instead, Beijing derides the Dalai Lama as a “splittist,” saying he really wants a Tibetan nation. For years, talks between Beijing and the Dalai Lama’s envoys have ended in stalemate.

In October, the man who turned patience into an art form appeared to finally grow impatient.

The Dalai Lama said in a speech that after years of pursuing the middle way “there hasn’t been any positive response.”

“As far as I’m concerned I have given up,” he added.

Now, nearly everything is on the table for discussion. Starting Monday, exiled Tibetans from around the world will gather in Dharmsala, called together by the Dalai Lama for a six-day meeting that could end years of carefully moderated policies toward Beijing

Summary of some key points in the article:

The Stakeholders and their positions:

China: Issue has been settled. 1.3 billion people (vs 6 million); world’s largest army. China continuing to move thousands of ethnic Han Chinese into Tibet.

Dalai Lama: Middle Way Policy — limited autonomy and not independence, conciliation. Middle Way not working, time for new leadership.

Tibetan Youth Congress: … one of the more militant activist groups …

Prime Minister – Government-in-exile: Samdhong Rinpoche – need to identify a way-ahead.

Policy Options: Autonomy or Independence, More protests, angrier protests, boycotts, more pressure on Western nations, sabotage of China’s infrastructure … patience and “hope for a time when changes in China will lead to meaningful change in Tibet.”

Other (western) Countries.

National Security Advisor

General Would Bring Polish To Security Post, (Arizona Republic (Phoenix))…Robert Burns and Richard Lardner, Associated Press

The national-security adviser doesn’t require Senate confirmation, nor does the job come with the muscle of a large federal agency. But in that role, James L. Jones may well be the last voice the new president hears before making crucial decisions on security. Observers say Obama has chosen wisely.

Criteria: Transformation Leadership

POST: Transformation Leadership. Aditya Birla Group, India’s First Global Corporation

One of the best descriptions of transformational leadership has been penned by Prof. Bernard Bass, a renowned exponent of the idea. He says succinctly,
“Leaders are truly transformational when they increase awareness of what is right, good, important and beautiful, when they help to elevate followers’ needs for achievement and self-actualisation, when they foster in followers high moral maturity, and when they move followers to go beyond their self-interests for the good of their group, organisation or society.”

The first lesson is that transformational leaders are able to set out a bold vision. But that’s not enough. They are also able to project their dream and put extraordinary communication skills to use to drive it across to a large number of people. Also, far-reaching as the vision may be, it is usually expressed in a simple and direct manner. When we get to the core, we see something very basic, often strikingly obvious. With hindsight, we might almost wonder how we could have missed it!

A second lesson is that transformational leaders are skilled at marshalling the intellectual and emotional equity of their people. They work hard to gain their trust and commitment because, no matter how appealing the vision, if others don’t buy into it, it won’t get implemented. And the most potent way to get everyone on the same wavelength is to set an example. A leader has to be true to the beat of his own drum, and there cannot be any inconsistency between word and action.

There is a third lesson — which relates to “individualised consideration”. This implies caring for the individual at the highest level, understanding and factoring in his or her unique circumstances, but at the same time, being dispassionate and not letting it cloud one’s sense of judgement.

The fourth lesson is the ability to mind the mind. Transformational leaders will not let the storms of the heart cover the sun in the mind. They leave behind the regrets of the past, and will take forward the lessons instead, into the future. They are far from egocentric, quick to recognise that they are wrong and change track accordingly. For them ego, E-G-O connotes edging goodness out.

The fifth lesson is that transformational leaders stoke the spirit of intellectual courage to ferment constructive dissent, which has a huge positive impact on the quality of team building and decision-making. They are quick to recognise good ideas and have the intellectual honesty to give credit where it is due.

The sixth leadership lesson is about the imperative of institutionalisation, in order to ensure continuity without disruption. They focus on building an institution, which is enduring and lasts far beyond the leader and his individual contribution, and continues to thrive and to serve the larger interest of the group.

And finally, the seventh lesson pertains to the leader’s willingness to move away from his conventional role and take on an entirely different mantle, maybe even hanging up his boots. Such an act caps true leadership, representing as it does, wisdom and the grace to pass on the baton.

Concluding remarks
To conclude, I’d say that transformational leaders are few and far between. They emerge from the times and circumstances — and all too often, from the ashes strewn around them. Commanding leadership and easy times rarely go together.
The idea however is to hearken to the message they hold out for us, and distil their leadership wisdom to our contexts.”

Dalai Lama – Transformational Leader

POST: Transformation Leadership. Aditya Birla Group, India’s First Global Corporation

One of the best descriptions of transformational leadership has been penned by Prof. Bernard Bass, a renowned exponent of the idea. He says succinctly,
“Leaders are truly transformational when they increase awareness of what is right, good, important and beautiful, when they help to elevate followers’ needs for achievement and self-actualisation, when they foster in followers high moral maturity, and when they move followers to go beyond their self-interests for the good of their group, organisation or society.”

The Dalai Lama is a leader of an altogether different mould. He has no overt base of power; he holds no political position; neither does he command an army; and he has no control over mighty economic resources. Yet, he strikes a powerful chord. In a world driven by material progress, and the incessant thunder of conflict and strife, he offers the message of peace and humanity.

What makes the Dalai Lama so interesting and influential? Why do people around the world care about a simple Buddhist monk who 50 years ago was forced to leave his country, and who for years has headed an unrecognised government-in-exile, a ‘virtual’ nation of 6 million Tibetans?

I believe it is entirely appropriate to speak of him as a transformational leader. Why? Because, while his basic message is spiritual, his work has ramifications that are entirely down-to-earth. What exactly is the difference he has made, and what are the dimensions of what he has achieved?

Contracting Government: Waste, Irony and Humor

Government By Contractor Is A Disgrace, (Wall Street Journal)…Thomas Frank, Nov 26, 2008.

The irony if not the humor is that the same people who are perceived as not being capable of being “innovative, efficienct and flexible” are the ones that write and/or manage the contractors. The contracting system typically favors the contractors.

When government is “forced” to compete for work via A76/MEO, they win the majority of the times.

We don’t lack solutions that can be applied to continually improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government service (Baldrige critiera comes to mind); Leadership has always been the key.

Many jobs are best left to federal workers.

Back in 1984, the conservative industrialist J. Peter Grace was telling whoever would listen why government was such a wasteful institution.

One reason, which he spelled out in a book chapter on privatization, was that “government-run enterprises lack the driving forces of marketplace competition, which promote tight, efficient operations. This bears repetition,” he wrote, “because it is such a profound and important truth.”

And repetition is what this truth got. Grace trumpeted it in the recommendations of his famous Grace Commission, set up by President Ronald Reagan to scrutinize government operations looking for ways to save money. … Turn government operations over to the private sector and you get innovation, efficiency, flexibility.

What bears repetition today, however, is the tragic irony of it all. To think that our contractor welfare binge was once rationalized as part of an efficiency crusade.

As the George W. Bush presidency grinds to its close, we can say with some finality that the opposite is closer to the truth.