All Posts in Leadership

|In: Business Ethics|Last Updated:

How can a commentator not write about Charlie Hebdo?

My first impulse was to publish caricatures of Mohammed, Moses, Jesus (of Nazareth, not the Mariners’ Jesus Montero), Buddha, and perhaps Ganesh, Zeus and Odin so polytheists wouldn’t feel left out. That would show ’em!

I’m less sure what exactly it would show ’em. Probably, it would have shown how easily I’m manipulated. That’s all anyone shows when they react predictably to a provocation.

In any event, I doubt it would show ’em anything at all. It would just be posturing. Because while I do have a few members of the clergy as subscribers (!) to the best of my knowledge leaders and adherents of radical Islam don’t read KJR. Why would they? The last thing they have in mind is keeping anything running.

I say “radical Islam,” not to avoid offending anyone. I say it because most Muslems condemn both the attack and the mentality behind it.

A letter-writer to the local newspaper asked why the Imams have been silent instead of roundly condemning the attack. If you’re wondering too, a little bit of Googling reveals that the Imams haven’t been silent. Other than those who preach radical Islam, many have been quite vocal and roundly condemning. Strangely, the American press appears to have, shall we say, under-reported this aspect of the story.

And if you’re among those who figure this sort of violence to be intrinsic to Islam because the Quran says something or other that seems to encourage it, consider this:

At other times in history, Islam was the world’s bastion of religious tolerance while Christianity was busily instituting the Inquisition. Neither of their religious texts have changed at all. Something that hasn’t changed is unlikely to be the cause of an effect that has changed — an unoriginal but important point to consider in this debate.

Another letter-writer pointed out that the First Amendment protects the newspaper’s right to use the n-word in print, asserting that newspapers don’t do so, not because they can’t, but because doing so would offend lots of people, and not only those to whom the n-word refers.

I sure hope that isn’t the reason. Not publishing (or saying in public) something because it might offend someone is a poor decision for quite a few reasons, the most important of which is how easily many people manage to become offended. Not saying something because someone might take offense is just another way of taking a vow of silence.

The difference between trying to avoid offending anyone and deciding to not be offensive isn’t a fine distinction. It’s the difference between cowardice and class.

A newspaper using the n-word as a routine adjective would be entirely lacking in class. The proper response would be to read a different newspaper. Publishing it as part of an exact quote is a different matter: Not doing so would be a failure to accurately depict the individual being quoted.

Blazing Saddles is worth mentioning in this context. When Mel Brooks first released the movie there were plenty of people who condemned it for its promiscuous use of the n-word in its dialog, just as there are still plenty of Americans who would prefer to ban Huckleberry Finn from school library shelves because children might read the name “Nigger Jim” and think that makes the n-word okay.

Personal opinion: Sanitizing either work would insult its audience while greatly reducing its very clear anti-racism message. That neither Mark Twain nor Mel Brooks received death threats probably needs no mention here. In any event they didn’t, and shouldn’t have.

Does this have anything at all to do with business leadership, IT leadership, or any other dimension of management in all its forms?

I think so, and it has to do with how we respond to public criticism.

The perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo massacre were punishing people who, they thought, had ridiculed and criticized their prophet.

Meanwhile, here in the U.S.A., it’s routine for managers to terminate employees who, on their own private time and publishing venues, criticize or ridicule their employers in public.

Sure, there are differences: Murder is illegal, firing an employee is not. Murder is unconscionable, termination is, depending on the employee’s circumstances, somewhere between inconvenient and devastating.

What isn’t different: Criticism is an opportunity to learn, as the same managers point out to employees when providing it in performance reviews.

For business leaders, reading and learning might not just be a better response to public criticism.

It might reduce it.

Comments

|In: Industry Commentary|Last Updated:

The modern world has killed travel, or has at least given it a painful injury.

Perhaps you’ve always wanted to go to Paris. It’s on your bucket list, and, not that it matters, but until Morgan Freeman explained what the phrase means did you know you were supposed to have one?

So you go to Paris. Maybe you go to the Louvre and admire the many masterpieces there. The art is overwhelming, but there’s nothing about being in the Louvre that helps you understand what Paris is about. You’re experiencing a museum, not the essence of the city.

You take some photos of Notre Dame, until you realize you’re probably the 405,672,972nd person to take the exact same photos from the exact same spots. You add a selfie, which is, at least, unique: All the other selfies taken from the exact same spot have different faces in the foreground.

Still no essence of Paris, although there’s no question, seeing Notre Dame in all its grandeur isn’t something even the best photo can capture. In that respect it’s close kin to the Grand Canyon, which, if you haven’t seen it in person, at dawn, should be on your bucket list because really, all you can do when you look out over its expanse is to say, “Oh.” And then, “Oh.”

You shop for something special to bring home as a keepsake. In every store along the Champs-Elysees you discover the curse of globalization: Their merchandise is no different from what you can find here in Minnesota at the Mall of America, and probably at the shopping mall nearest your home.

My wife and I will be joining my parents in Paris over the holiday. While we haven’t been to Paris often enough to be blasé, we’ve been there enough times to discover a few secrets.

One is that simply walking around is a marvelous way to get a sense of the place. We’ll be bringing our hiking shoes, along with dressier footwear for nights out.

A second is that, in many of the churches and cathedrals, there are concerts. Our last time there we heard Paul Rouger with a string quintet in Sainte-Chapelle. There was nothing about the concert that was less than extraordinary, and that it was there, and sounded like that, was in its own way the essence of Paris.

Then there was Chez Agnes (pronounced “an-YAY”).

For every restaurant in the Michelin Guide, there are another dozen where the food is outstanding. Our last time in Paris we were hungry well before Parisians tend to start thinking about dinner. So we left our hotel and wandered. Chez Agnes beckoned — who were we to turn away?

We entered an unprepossessing room that might have been able to seat 32 people at a time, along with a stove, oven, refrigerator and freezer.

And Agnes, with pots, pans, and English that was, if possible, worse than my French.

Those in France who have experienced my French would tell you that no, it really isn’t possible, but Agnes came close. And yet, as we were the only souls in the place that early, we managed a conversation in between the aperitifs she pushed upon us and the several courses of truly brilliant food she served us.

We heard about her dog who had recently passed on. We heard about the time Rick Steves paid her a call. We talked about life, the universe, and whatever came to mind … I don’t recall any of the specifics but do recall the three of us enjoying each other’s company as if we’d been friends for decades.

Agnes was, in a word, a character. She was also, in another word, an artiste — the food she served us was in every respect the equal of meals we ate in far tonier and more expensive venues.

And, if you’ll permit me two more words, Agnes was good people.

When we finished our repasts, we learned we hadn’t actually finished them, because Agnes placed our desserts in front of us. To be clear, we hadn’t ordered dessert because we had no confidence we’d have any place to put it. But there it was, and there was only one thing to do.

We ordered espresso. Sharon asked for hers avec crème.

“NON!” Agnes shouted, aghast. “Pourquoi?” we asked, nonplussed.

“Because,” she explained (in French and I hope you appreciate me for translating), “if you have cream in your coffee or espresso after 9 pm or so, it will ruin your digestion.”

“And also,” she continued, “if you do, everyone will know you’re tourists!”

Voila! We had discovered the essence of Paris.

* * *

That’s all for 2014. I’m taking the rest of the year off. Have a marvelous holiday season, whatever holiday or holidays you celebrate. I recommend holidays … there isn’t one of them that isn’t worth at least a grin no matter what your background is.

See you in 2015.

Comments