None of This is New

October 31, 2011

Those commenting on national affairs keep saying that our political processes are too polarized to get anything done; but political parties were every bit as divided in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries as they are today, and public debate was even more strident than the lack of civility we see today.

The grilling of Supreme Court nominees, Wall Street bankers and British Petroleum executives can seem sensational, but this has been nothing like the early 1950s when Senator McCarthy of Wisconsin conducted hearings into Communist sympathies of employees in government and Hollywood.

It is almost laughable to assert that modern political debate is disintegrating.  Heck, in 1804 our nation’s vice president, while in office, challenged a critic to a duel.  And shot him dead!  Now that’s discord!

My point is that the political process didn’t break recently.  If it’s broken, it’s always been broken, always contentious and acrimonious – from the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, to the War Between the States, until today:  corrupt politicians, polarized political parties, bitter debates, contentious elections.

None of this is new, except for the increased media coverage.  None of this alone is to blame for today’s inability to solve problems.  And all of this together is not to blame for today’s problems.

Perhaps closer to the heart of the problems today in Michigan and our nation is a lack of heart in “we the people.”  A lack of passion, principle and – most of all – common vision and purpose.

Maybe we’ve just had it so good for so long that we’ve forgotten to dream for better days and fight for a better future.

Maybe these tough times will refresh our dreams and reignite the fight.

Permission to Disagree

February 17, 2015

An organization leader who is doing a good job works hard to provide the organization’s board of directors all the history and detail necessary to make good decisions. Questions and concerns are anticipated, and addressed in advance.

As a result of this good leadership, meetings usually run with efficiency, decisions are made without long discussions, and debate is infrequent and never contentious. Votes usually reflect unanimous agreement.

While these are traits of good organizational leadership, a tradition of great organizational dynamics is disagreement.

If the board is always in total agreement, then management is not bringing the board tough enough topics. The subjects are not serious enough. They are operational more than strategic; they are transactional, not transformational.

Among the current topics of school sports in Michigan are two upon which there is certain to be disagreement: (1) the role of 6th-graders in school sports and the MHSAA; and (2) out-of-season coaching rules. We see the lack of consensus at the local level and the league level and between different coaches associations. And we expect the Representative Council will lack unanimity if these topics ever arrive for the Council’s action.

These are large topics, worthy of our time because of the disagreement, not in spite of it.