We train kids to deal with teachers in a certain way: Find out what they want, and do that, just barely, because there are other things to work on. Figure out how to say back exactly what they want to hear, with the least amount of effort, and you are a ‘good student.'
We train employees to deal with bosses in a certain way: Find out what they want, and do that, just barely, because there are other things to do. Figure out how to do exactly what they want, with the least amount of effort, and the last risk of failure and you are a ‘good worker.'
The attitude of minimize is a matter of self-preservation. Raise the bar, the thinking goes, and the boss will work you harder and harder. Take initiative and you might fail, leading to a reprimand or termination (think about that word for a second… pretty frightening).
The linchpin, of course, can't abide the attitude of minimize. It leaves no room for real growth and certainly doesn't permit an individual to become irreplaceable.
If your boss is seen as a librarian, she becomes a resource, not a limit. If you view the people you work with as coaches, and your job as a platform, it can transform what you do each day, starting right now. “My boss won't let me,” doesn't deserve to be in your vocabulary. Instead, it can become, “I don't want to do that because it's not worth the time/resources.” (Or better, it can become, “go!”)
The opportunity of our age is to get out of this boss as teacher as taskmaster as limiter mindset. We need more from you than that.
Phi Beta Iota: A young man sought advice on whether to join the US secret intelligence world despite its many ethical issues and poor leadership. Below is the answer as provided to us by Robert Steele, to whom the email was addressed. The inquiring email is below the line.
To Anonymous:
This is simple. Continue with your plans to apply for a position with the US Government in secret intelligence. The easiest is via the military as an officer, and frankly, I recommend that because it gives you a unique grounding as a young leader, an understanding of the military mind-set, world travel, etcetera. Joining CIA directly if they take you (they are moderately desperate) has its prospects, but on balance, I would recommend that you invest four years as an officer on active duty, followed by four to eight years at CIA. Treat it as FUN, and a reality learning experience.
As simply as possible, as bad as they are, there is no substitute for the real experience and it is a privilege to work in secret intelligence, completely irrespective of how unethical and reality stupid its leaders might be.
I do NOT recommend the FBI, nor do I recommend the private sector. Think in terms of a 30-40 year career. Getting the clearances is much easier if you go in to government first, and they are worth $20K a year above and beyond normal salaries, should you choose to stay in the secret world.
Two key points:
1) One day we will create a Smart Nation, and those who fully understand both the benefits and the pathologies of secret intelligence will have an important role to play.
2) If you keep your own integrity, and treat this as a learning and observation experience, the loss of integrity by the US intelligence community leaders should not dissuade you from undertaking what is sure to be one of the most satisfying experiences of your life. Illusions and pathologies aside, secret intelligence is as cool as it gets, you will learn a great deal, and it will make you stronger for the future.
Happy to answer any additional questions. As long as you keep it in perspective, if you can get in, you should.
I recently had the distinct pleasure of participating in a fascination workshop on “Information and Communication Technology in Areas of Limited Statehood: A New Form of Governance?” The workshop was organized by the Frei Universität’s program on Governance in Areas of Limited Statehood and co-directed by Professors Gregor Walter-Drop and Steven Livingston.
. . . . . .
My colleague Gregory Asmolov made the link explicit during his excellent presentation on “Russian Wildfires and Alternative Modes of Governance: The Role of Crowdsourcing in Areas of Limited Statehood.” Here’s a summary:
“Because of it’s geographical size, high degree of corruption, and reliance on an extraction economy, governance by government in Russia is often weak and ineffective. Russian political expert Liliya Shevtzova goes so far as to claim that the current regime is an imitation of governance. The 2010 wildfires demonstrated the limited capacity of the state to provide effective emergency response. Information technologies, and crowdsourcing platforms in particular, fulfill the gap of the limited statehood. At the same time, however, the Russian government is also trying to use ICT to increase its claims to effective governance.”
Phi Beta Iota: This post is much more than a post. To the best of our (naturally limited) knowledge, this is the first and the best statement that clearly distinguished among “imitation governance,” spontaneous “self-governance,” and the role that information technology plays in making a mockery of the first and a reality of the second.
We either ignore your brand or we judge it, usually with too little information. And when we judge it, we judge it based on the actions of the loudest, meanest, most selfish member of your tribe.
When a zealot advocates violence, outsiders see all members of his tribe as advocates of violence.
When a doctor rips off Medicare, all doctors are seen as less trustworthy.
When a fundamentalist advocates destruction of outsiders, all members of that organization are seen as intolerant.
When a soldier commits freelance violence, all citizens of his nation are seen as violent.
When a car rental franchise rips off a customer, all outlets of the franchise suffer.
Seems obvious, no? I wonder, then, why loyal and earnest members of the tribe hesitate to discipline, ostracize or expel the negative outliers.
“You're hurting us, this is wrong, we are expelling you.”
What do you stand for?
Phi Beta Iota: Every officer that goes along with illegal and insane orders is not only allowing the US “brand” to be defined by systemic corruption and careerists gone wild, but is in violation of their Constitutional Oath to protect the Republic against domestic enemies as well as foreign. Get a grip, people! Stop drinking the kool-aid. Challenge authority–honor can be restored.
A bit more on that story we brought you earlier about the horrific killings in Afghanistan which followed lunatic Pastor Terry Jones' Qu'ran-burning stunt.
Those reactionaries within our own society who are pushing the Clash of Civilizations are mirror-images of the terrorists that inspire their hyperbolic fear; they're just as xenophobic, just as irrational and, ultimately, are just as great a threat to our security. Both have to be challenged aggressively before they give birth to another, even bloodier generation of culture warriors.
This latest spasm of bloodletting seems like a perfect example. Radical Cleric Terry Jones burns some Qu'rans in an intentional provocation, extremists in Afghanistan kill some people, which ultimately emboldens people like Terry Jones, and so on. A vicious cycle, with the vast majority of people in the middle.
But over at the must-read UN Dispatch, Una Moore, an international development professional based in Afghanistan, says that there's a lot more going on with this attack:
By Josh Rogin Friday, April 1, 2011 – Foreign Policy
Upon taking over as the ranking Republican on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Sen.Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) brought on a new staff director with no direct experience working on intelligence matters.
Martha Scott Poindexter has served on Capitol Hill for over 10 years. She has worked as the Republican staff director on the Agriculture Committee since 2005, and before that as legislative director in Chambliss's personal office.
SSCI Staff Director on Facebook
Previously, according to her LinkedIn profile, Poindexter was the director of government affairs at Monsanto, the agribusiness giant. She studied nutrition at Salem College and holds a Bachelors degree from the Mississippi State University College of Agriculture.
On Capitol Hill, a senior staffer's effectiveness is measured several factors: by their subject matter expertise, by their ability to get things done, and by their close personal relationship with the boss.
Phi Beta Iota: Penguin, who has served in the senior political ranks of Republican administrations, is not an intelligence professional and therefore has no way of knowing that the appointment makes perfect sense at multiple levels.
1) The SSCI is a side show with zero relevance to oversight of anything–the US Intelligence Community receives ZERO effective oversight and ignores whatever bleats it might deign to acknowledge.
What's Not to Like?
2) The SSCI is a side show with respect to appropriations and authorizations as well–many years have seen no intelligence “authorization” at all because the SASC owns the intelligence budget–at best, the SSCI is a small bleat extra for pork for the Chairman, and insights helpful to investments by the Members.
3) There isn't actually any real expertise on the SSCI–clerks trying to oversee executive clerks, all of them focused on spending the taxpayer dollar in ways that have absolutely nothing to do with actually serving the public interest.
4) Finally, apart from the Chairman having every right to appoint whomever he pleases to oversee his fiefdom–even a sideshow can be a fiefdom–there is a certain elegance in having an Aggie as Staff Director–who better to ensure the pork of interest to the Members gets properly monitored (2-5% kickbacks on new initiatives is a lot of money). The lunacy continues.
Friday, April 1, 2011 – Foreign Policy
