Brown Nosing and the Destruction of an Organization

Where is the line between enthusiasm and brownnosing? It is like the quality of a great painting. It is difficult to define but we all know it when we see it. A big part of the impression comes from what we think of the individual’s personality. People that are not well-liked are construed to have ulterior motives just because we don’t like them. It is fuel for the fire. But what is it that tips the balance? Is it one act or a series of smaller things? Most people who develop the reputation, at least in my observational experience, set a pattern but it is usually one event that seals the deal. There is a common measure of what is expected in a co-worker. All jobs have some inherent unpleasant things which need to be done. It is the nature of work. People expect that. Most people want to get the job done and go home where the enjoyment is located. The brownnoser is different. An extra duty, particularly a “face time” event where it is generally considered a pain to participate finds the brownnoser overwhelmingly excited to be able to attend. That is one of the recognizable differentiating factors which identify the individual. Another identifying factor is the desire of those individuals to stop at any moment and tell anyone at great length how valuable the brownnoser’s efforts are and how the organization would be doomed without those efforts. Other co-workers contributions are recognized but one gets the sense of a grudging acceptance and feigned over-enthusiasm rather than real enthusiasm. In order to make themselves part of the “in-crowd”, the brownnoser always speaks to others in a “just between us people in the know” attitude in order to give the impression that they are part of the inner circle. This usually involves dropping names of the powerful in the organization. This sucker fish approach to riding on the coattails of power is an attempt to leverage the brownnoser into a position of more power in the organization. In Washington, DC, the saying is “The appearance of power is power”. That is because if someone thinks you are powerful, they will treat you with the proper deference, and therefore you are powerful because you get what you want. The brownnoser uses name-dropping to associate themselves with the powerful in order to appear to be part of that group.

The error in this approach with a smart boss is that the experienced intelligent boss also recognizes brown-nosing for what it is. Unfortunately, brownnosing often works. I remember an engineering job years ago where a peer that was universally regarded as a weak performer by his entire group of peers, with good reason, was rated number one in potential by management primarily on the basis of his organizing golf tournaments which had nothing to do with his job. That is a recipe for poor morale and disgruntled employees. A number of excellent engineers left the organization because of that situation. Communism was ultimately doomed to failure because it flew in the face of human nature. If there is no incentive to work harder, why would anyone do it? The brownnoser does the same thing to an organization. If the brownnoser succeeds preferentially, the other employees stop performing because they recognize their legitimate efforts are in vain. Their only defense is to begin brown-nosing as well and you end up with an organization consisting of two factions: the competing brownnosers and the disgruntled employees doing the minimum to maintain their jobs. Unfortunately, most of us have been in an organization like that at some point. The only way to maintain your drive is to find another place to work. In fact, the most likely people to leave are the best performers because they are in the best position to get better jobs. You cannot work for long for people you don’t respect and those who unwittingly respond to the brownnoser are not respected. Therefore, to maintain the quality of an organization, managers must recognize the brownnoser and not allow their actions to reap favoritism. Only by avoiding that mistake will productivity and morale be sustained.

Leadership Skills

What has happened to leadership skills? I’ve noticed a great tendency toward non-confrontational leadership recently. There is a widespread philosophy of what I call “Punish the innocent for the offense of the guilty”. I noted this process a lot in the military, particularly during my time with the Marine Corps, but it is also present in the Navy and in civilian settings as well. The scenario is usually like this: 1) Something happens which causes some angst for the boss or gets noticed; 2) a knee jerk policy is put in place to prevent anyone from making the same misjudgment even though only one of 10,000 people did it. A more specific example: A large group of military members goes out in town in a foreign country. Of the huge crowd, one or two, misbehave. Therefore, leadership doesn’t allow any else to go out, punishing the 99% who behaved responsibly for the crimes of the one or two who didn’t. Another example: One person abuses a phone privilege. Therefore, no one can use the phone. Once again, punish the innocent. Last example: A specific individual makes an obvious error in judgment or omission. Therefore leadership states, “It is a process problem” and appoints a team to study the process and make recommendations, instead of confronting the specific individual.

Why does this happen? The first reason is laziness. Rather than investigate and hold the specific individuals accountable, it is easier to make a blanket policy despite it being the wrong course of action. The second reason is to avoid uncomfortable confrontation. I am not sure whether people are scared or wimps but sometimes leadership means getting in someone’s face and calling them to account. The R. Lee Ermey style in Full Metal Jacket is extreme but you get the picture. Wimps are terrible leaders, particularly in the military. Individual responsibility is a key to success. I find it ironic that the Marine Corps, which does individual responsibility better than anyone, uses the mass punishment a lot. By using these techniques and a “one strike, you are out” policy, our society creates a group of never make a decision, never take a chance, always form a committee leaders who are ineffective. They are always late with decisions because they run them past everyone who will listen before a decision is made. The decision is usually issued with disclaimers in case anyone doesn’t like it. I heard someone say once, “I am not sure what the path to success is but the sure path to failure is trying to please everyone”. People like Ulysses Grant, William Sherman, George Patton, etc. who were politically incorrect would not do well in today’s leadership models.
Leadership positions are lonely and involve pissing people off on occasion. I look at it this way: You can either occasionally take a turn taking on the responsibility for driving the bus or you have no right to complain when it shows up someplace you didn’t want to go. Authority and responsibility go hand in hand. One cannot be held responsible for something one has no control over. One cannot have power and not be held accountable for actions taken with that power. It is not enough to walk around with a business card that says you are a leader. The skills must be exercised daily. You don’t have to tell people if you are a leader, they will know by watching you.

Fooling Them Most of the Time

An interesting Zogby poll came out in the last couple of days which shows some of the influence of the main stream media and in some ways how it causes results it doesn’t desire. While the networks and cable outlets have been trashing the Bush Administration for years and managed to get the approval rating for the President down to the lower 30s, the approval ratings for the Democrat-led Congress they favor is down to a historically low 18%. The House of Representatives under Nancy Pelosi has effectively done nothing and the Senate is the same under Harry Reid. Both leaders spend all their time making speeches about how bad the current administration is but never seem to offer more effective alternatives. In the public’s view, the Democratic Party is determined to lose the war without regard to consequences and they plan to lose it as a way to gain political power. This is clearly not the way to win in November 2008. The latest stay up all night and debate Iraq stunt was seen for the inane political theater it was and the public does not seem to be pleased. I have no idea who is advising Harry Reid but, whoever he is, his former career as a grocery bagger seems a safe bet in the near future. Reid, one of the two Senators from “the state which shouldn’t even be a state” (almost all federal property), is the poster child for inability and distasteful politics. The best thing for the Republicans to do between now and November 2008 is to have Reid and Pelosi on television as much as possible. By constantly giving coverage to these two shrill whiners, the networks have created a result they clearly don't want.

The other interesting item from that poll is how about 60-70% of people polled were quite content with their personal finances. However, despite all-time record high stock market closings, low unemployment, record home ownership, etc., only 20% thought the US economy was doing well. Let’s see if I have that straight: most feel they are doing well, almost everyone has a job and has a place to live, stocks are booming but the economy stinks. That demonstrates the mainstream media in action. They rave about how good the economy was at the end of the Clinton presidency, which was not nearly as strong as today’s, but at the same time say today’s economy stinks. These are the same people who lambaste Fox News and claim that they themselves have no political agenda. There are a lot of ill-informed and gullible people in this country but I don’t think there are enough for the Democrats to pull this off. At least I hope not.

The Real Culture of Corruption

I find it really interesting that the sex offender and convicted perjurer, William Jefferson Clinton, is still the most popular person to the Democrats. The Democratic Party constantly talks about the Republican Party as having a "Culture of Corruption". In examining history though, that conclusion may not be so obvious.
1) Rep. Mark Foley, Republican from Florida, sent some clearly inappropriate (horny) emails to Congressional pages. There was never any indication that he engaged in any sexual activity with those pages. There was a national uproar which led to the ousting of Rep. Foley from the House of Representatives. By contrast, Rep. Gary Studds, Democrat from Massachusetts, was actually caught in the act of having sex with an underage Congressional Page. Did the Democrats scream for the pedophile predator's expulsion? Did the Democrats wail about ethical standards in Congress? No. They made him a committee chairman and supported his re-election to three or four more terms.
2) When Rep. William Jefferson, Democrat from Louisiana, is caught red-handed with $90,000 in cash in a freezer in his house, he is not investigated by the Ethics Committee. He is given a committee chairmanship by the Democratic leadership. Just for completeness, the same Rep. Jefferson was recently indicted on nineteen counts of corruption. There is still no uproar from the Democrats in Congress.
3) Sandy Berger steals classified documents from the National Archives to cover up what the Clinton Administration knew prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States and only has to pay a fine. Despite being neither indicted or accused of anything, the Democratic Party calls on Karl Rove to resign during the Patrick Fitzgerald investigation. The hypocrisy is astounding.
4) Senator Harry Reid, Democratic Majority Leader, makes hundreds of thousands of dollars from real estate he does not own. In his defense, I suppose it is impossible to be elected in Nevada without having connections to crooks, given the history of the state.
5) The most obvious example, however, is how despite abusing his power as President to have sex with a White House intern and being convicted of perjury, William Jefferson Clinton continues to be the most popular Democrat in the party. The Democrat's argument about his perjury at the time was "It is only about sex". Apparently, in the Democratic Party, individuals are free to choose which subjects they are allowed to perjure themselves about. A question was asked at the Democratic Party debate about how to use former President Clinton in a new Democratic administration. All of the candidates had grandiose plans for him. Not one candidate has the nerve or moral fortitude to call him to task for his past actions and to not hold him up as a superb leadership example.
The party that owns the true "culture of corruption" is obvious.

Pardon controversy

This whole Lewis Libby sentencing thing is becoming very intriguing. Thirty months is a long time to spend in jail when you are Libby's age. I am generally not a pardon aficionado but this case does have some interesting factors:
1) The judge said that someone in as high a position in the government as Libby's should be held to a higher standard and, therefore, the sentence would be stiff. I suppose it is redundant to point out that the President of the United States was convicted of the same offense a few short years ago and only had his law license revoked and served no jail time. It is clearly adverse and impractical to try a President while in office but it could have been once he left office. It is obvious that position is not a factor given this comparable case.
2) The Special Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, knew specifically that Richard Armitage was the definitive source of the information about Valerie Plame very early in his investigation. With this knowledge, he a) continued the investigation, and b) not only allowed, but encouraged speculation that that others (Karl Rove, Vice President Cheney, etc.) were involved to keep press coverage intense. This strikes me as prosecutorial misconduct.
3) Fitzgerald also continued the investigation after testimony under oath by Victoria Toensing, the individual who authored the law in question, that it specifically and clearly did not apply to Valerie Plame. Therefore, the "crime" he was investigating could not have possibly been committed.
4) Knowing that there was no crime and who the leaker was, Fitzgerald continued the investigation for at least another year.
The only conclusion I can draw from this is that Fitzgerald, a Clinton appointee, wanted to "get" higher profile targets and is taking out his frustration on Lewis Libby. Given the bogus nature of the investigation, many argue that Libby shouldn't have even been prosecuted. While the investigation was bogus, I still believe if he actually lied under oath, there should be a penalty. Sandy Berger paid a fine for stealing classified documents. Bill Clinton had his law license revoked for perjury. Thirty months just seems excessive.

The Pinnacle of Hypocrisy

In the past on TV, there was a sort of unwritten rule that one network never mentioned another network, as if they didn’t exist. For example, a television actor promoting their show on the Tonight Show would never state the name of the network on which the show appeared, if it wasn’t NBC. I can’t help but notice the recent coordinated effort on the part of the liberal news media to collectively try to make the Fox News network look biased and disreputable. Everyone knows that Fox News was originally created because of the liberal bent of the mainstream news media so it shouldn't be surprising that the network would be more accomodating to conservative viewpoints.
It is nauseating to see a smarmy ideologue like Keith Olberman, who does not have a reputable cell in his body, interviewing a host of an Air America program about Fox News. If Olberman had another nerve cell, he could make a connection. Air America, the ultra-liberal talk network which went bankrupt because no one watches it, is a competitor of Fox. That is like interviewing Target about how great WalMart is doing. Olberman called the people at Fox “idiots” on the air. The Air America host said that the Fox News network is a part of the Republican Party. No matter your political persuasion, that is not journalism of any quality, whatsoever. I suppose they are just upset because CNN’s viewership is at an all-time low and the six or seven people who watch MSNBC are insignificant. Fox News now has three times the viewers that CNN does. It would be a bigger deal if anyone actually watched Olberman’s show but since hardly anyone does, he can spread his rants without much consequence.
Along the same lines, CNN is another pot calling the kettle black. Lou Dobbs does a show that is supposed to be a news show but he makes biased comments about every story and never presents both sides of any story. It is like they hired him to do a one hour diatribe every night and pretend to be news. On Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room, I know Jack Cafferty is a liberal ideologue but I can’t say recently how bad he is since I started muting the television every time I see his image now. He is the most whining harpie on television and, since he never had anything resembling useful information to say, I no longer waste my time listening to his spewing. He always reinforces his rants with poll questions like “Do you think the Bush Administration should continue to starve the American people?" It is always a “Do you still beat your wife?” type question.
Don’t misunderstand. I actually like to hear both sides of a debate but I want to hear facts on the news with commentary and analysis correctly labeled as such. Even CBS, which historically is one of the most liberal networks, had Eric Severeid come on with the label “commentary” when he appeared. News is fact and commentary is opinion. They should be kept separate.
I find that when two opposing sides give information, the truth is usually somewhere between the two. That is why I like both sides to explain their views. Calling the other side names and yelling does little to clarify debate and expose truth. But since Air America, CNN, MSNBC, and the like are fading like cheap wallpaper in the sun; I guess they feel they have nothing to lose by compromising journalistic standards and whining about declining viewer numbers.

Intolerance and the Inane Media

This latest flap in Nevada about the Democratic Party not wanting to debate on Fox News reminded me of the intolerance of ideas in America. It is similar to the rhetoric post I made earlier in some ways. The same people at liberal arts universities who scream for anti-war, abortion freedom, gay rights, and entitlement program “freedom of speech”, will not allow anyone of contrary views to even make a speech. What an incredible double standard. Without taking a side on any of those issues, it is easy to see why it is just ludicrous to support that. Freedom of speech was first and foremost put into place to protect political discourse (not strippers, sorry). Liberals, conservatives, libertarians, socialists, communists, or anyone else should be able to discuss their own views with anyone who cares to listen, as long as it is not something illegal like inciting violence or creating an unacceptably dangerous public environment. The Founding Fathers knew that representative government works best with an informed electorate who are free to exchange ideas and attempt to influence others to their point of view. A group can never achieve consensus if none of the members ever communicate with the other members. The world is a Bell curve. There will always be people on both sides of any issue. To say that the other side cannot even express their views about the issue revives the specter of totalitarian societies. Ann Coulter is obnoxious in presentation to liberals but she has the right to speak. Bill Maher clearly has brain damage to conservatives but let him talk. People who make no sense, make moronic statements, or have nothing of clarity to say expose themselves by speaking loudly. It is the best way to ferret them out. It is better to have them expose their inconsistencies and errors in logic than to have people assume that their arguments are credible because their name is familiar. If you disagree heartily, you don’t have to attend a speech or you can use the ultimate weapon, the remote control. If you think about it, why would political candidates trying to reach the voters not want to appear on the most-watched cable news channel? It is going to be your own words that are broadcast. Conservatives appear in front of liberal political fronts like Tim Russert and Chris Matthews. Liberals appear with staunch conservative Sean Hannity. If your ideas have merit, you will be able to defend them.

Along those same lines, I am tired of the news media assuming that I am stupid. When I watch the State of the Union speech in January, I don’t need someone to come on immediately after the speech and tell me what the President said. After all, if I am tuned in to that channel, I listened to the speech. If you want to analyze program changes, spending initiatives, diplomatic initiatives, etc., okay, but I heard what he said. I also don’t need to hear the requisite two political hacks: the incumbent party representative talking about the second coming of Abraham Lincoln in the speech, and the opposition party declaring every program, even ones not yet thought of, “dead on arrival”. I also do not care about the staged “standing ovation” count or how many times each side stood. It is scripted and stupid. Why report on it other than to demean the artificiality of it? It is not news if it means nothing. It is an offensive and insulting waste of my time. Therefore, for major speeches, CSPAN it is. I pity those without cable television who are subjected to that nonsense each time.