Stanley Cup vs Superbowl: Peyton’s walk of shame

all the controversy about Manning walking off the field only highlights the difference between hockey and football culture

Football is full of “me me me”: TO, Ocho Cinco, trash talking:  juvenile

Hockey is about the team AND respect for the other teams, all of them, who pushed you beyond what you thought were your limits:  Your opponent is respected fro their effort that made you go thru their fire.

Hockey’s tradition of handshaking is planned for, expected, and is for me the highlight of a yearlong honorable quest, even better than the skating of the cup, when you get to see the players  acknowledge each other after the competition: its what makes us civilized again, right after the supreme competitive effort.

That’s why Cindy Crosby’s snub of Nick Lidstrom last year was so telling; Crosby lacked the maturity and poise to do the right thing, being so caught up in the moment; That’s what boys do, men  remain centered

American football culture cant wait to crown the winners and discard the “losers”. To even think in those terms tells you whats wrong with football culture that cant make time for the acknowledgement of the other.

If Peyton were a hockey player, with his respect for the game and his intensity, he would have been the first in line to congratulate, because he honors the traditions. But because he is a football player, he did what football players do: he acted like a loser and cleared the stage.

Football would be better if it were more like hockey.

Football would be better if it WERE hockey

Coaching & mentoring: can you do both at the same time?

In one of our weekly leadership discussions, the question was posed: can someone be both a coach and a mentor to someone at the same time: the concern raised wa that the two roles could cause conflicting signals:

i think its pretty hard to be a mentor to someone with whom you already have a formally defined professional relationship, especially if you are in their performance evaluation “chain”.

The mentor might wonder  about how genuine the request is, or it may appear like extra-favorable treatment to others who aren’t being mentored. Or, the mentee may feel pressure to accept career advice since hey might worry about the consequences of not following the advice.

i think thats why Michelle’s insights are important about mentors mostly asking questions or in helping the mentee explore 2d and 3d order effects

This is a reason i have deep concerns about “requiring” senior Army leaders to develop mentoring programs, since it puts the locus of control with the seniors and not the juniors.

I’ve tried to give good career and personal advice to my subordinates, which includes helping them find a mentor.  And i have been open to being a mentor to officers and NCOs outside the chain of command. Its gratifying to see students coming thru our college in the rank of Major that i commanded or was a mentor to when they were Lieutenants 10-15 years ago.

is there a difference between coaching and mentoring?

Here are the differences I see between coaches and mentors:

1. to me coaching is about improving performance first and the person second. I see mentors focused on individual growth, holistically, rather than specific or particular performance.

2. I think the coach gets his power or authority from the formal position that he holds on the team or organization and his role is generally well understood and standardized, whereas a mentor I think shapes his role in consultation with his partner.

3. I think coaches are taking specific looks at improving performance on a particular task and usually as a member of the team whereas I think the mentor is considering positive personal growth that spans a career or an entire life.

4. I think mentors get chosen by the junior partner whereas coaches are assigned to a team in your on the team so that your coach and perhaps the only choice you have is whether or not to join the team.

5. I think coaches have standardized templates of high-performance that’s related to specific tasks whereas mentors develop the agenda for growth after consulting with their junior partner.

6. I know a lot of people that don’t have mentors and yet seem to do just fine, whereas I cannot imagine a team that would do very well without a coach

7. I think there are many times when coaches can be directive and authoritarian, whereas a mentor just about has to be Socratic to be effective since everything is about the inner life of the junior partner whereas in coaching it’s about the team

Forked tongue, 2 faces and a ton of debt

Out of one side of his mouth:

“When times are tough, you tighten your belts,” Obama said, according to a White House transcript of his appearance Tuesday at a high school in North Nashua, N.H.

“You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage,” Obama said. “You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you’re trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices.”

out of the other side of his mouth: a budget with 1.6T in deficit spending and a proposal to freeze spending at these inflated levels, while simultaneously spending the TARP funds in an unconstitutional manner

Being a UN diplomat means never having to say you’re sorry

Being a UN diplomat means never having to say you’re sorry… or responsible. And yet you can demand that nations comply with your policies

In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said it would be hypocritical to apologise for the false claim that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035, because he was not personally responsible for that part of the report. “You can’t expect me to be personally responsible for every word in a 3,000 page report,” he said.

a reflection on critical pluralism, pragmatism, & politics

my take on critical pluralism is that it is a form of scholarly pragmatism, in the following sense:

Pragmatism could be a shortcut around doing “due diligence” if it becomes a habit to satisfice, and avoid doing deep analysis and comparisons between perspectives , solutions, methods.  there are some situations where we can do better than satisfice; without the due diligence of “critical pluralism” we might prematurely avoid deep theoretical waters for immediate satisfaction of action that seemed ok at the time.

the “critical” element is the willingness to thoroughly examine each time.  the “pluralism” is the willingness to cast a wide net for alternatives.

I am uncomfortable with lazy pragmatism which says “been there, done that, and good enough is good enough”, despite the fact that it quite often is

an uncritical attitude will cause you to miss the moments when something more is available

On politics: i think a great practical primer is Perry Smith’s “Assignment Pentagon”. He makes the case for a professional, ethical, moral attitude towards navigating the political bureaucracy that is the Pentagon

Many find their first assignment there off-putting; and from the outside it looks like Hesse’s glass bead game with meaningless ritual and insider politics playing games with the defense of the nation.
Smith takes the time to explain how the game IS played, WHY it is played, HOW it came to be that way, and what an ethical professional approach would look like.
In the Pentagon, officers are usually appointed as  as an action officer, which means  to be an effective advocate of the program you have been assigned. You are faced with competing values all the time: to your nation, to your service, to your boss, to your subordinates, to your program, to your sense of duty; and you are immersed in a sea of grey and  murky waters

He describes a values-based framework that allows you to play the game honorably and selflessly; this is an increasingly important issue as the size of the military-industrial complex grows and the purpose of military force is examined. Action officers are called upon to exercise judgment in defense of the nation and to do the right thing as they see it.

“I am the President: you MUST trust me” Newspeak anyone?

RealClear Politics highlights an obvious issue; obvious unless you are a journalist or a true believer in government in general or Obama specifically:

Would President Obama and the Democrats’ legislation allow government to come between citizens and their choice of doctors and insurers? Obama promised it wouldn’t. Republicans said it would, and this was one of the aspects of the legislation that led them to characterize it as a government takeover of health care – the same characterization that Obama chastized the GOP for today.

SOTU doublespeak. Sad clown is sad.

In the same breath, Obama chastises Republicans as the party of “No” while simultaneously calling for a spirit of  bi-partisanship and an end to acrimony.  If he were self aware, he’d see the irony, It is a measure of his disconnectedness that he can make those statements without blinking. Perhaps he is more concerned with the pronounciation and imagery of the speech he reads from the teleprompter, leaving content, meaning and interpretation to others.

More importantly, his hubris in criticizing the Supreme Court (and then mischaracterizing it) is evidence of his unreadiness to lead. Undermining the rule of law and separation of powers is beyond his teleprompter’s understanding apparently.  Sad clown is sad.

Apple, design thinking, nationbuilding

Mike Roberto discusses Tim Brown’s book on Design Thinking here, and thinks aloud about Apple’s application of the idea. I am a big fan of his work.

The unfocus group’s insights become more important to the extent that the Long Tail phenomenon applies to that market/line of business.

We are big fans of Tim Brown’s book at the Command & General Staff College as we try to examine our assumptions about nation-building and campaign design as a prior condition to conventional military planning

Dr Michael Roberto’s work is outstanding in the area of problem-finding (an essential element of design), problem framing, and decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. I have his lecture series on critical decision-making from The Teaching Company: it’s a great blend of theory and practice

More from Dr Roberto at:  

• Overview of Dr Roberto’s work: 
• Here is his blog:  
• Here is his profile:  
• Here is his book:

The business of war

A crucial part of force generation is developing, maintaining and supporting industrial base capacity to research, develop, produce and perform life cycle maintenance on crucial equipment.

The Defense Business Board just made a series of recommendations on how to approach this issue. Examine the composition of the board and try to predict their policy recommendations.

The concern is: what is the appropriate role between the public and private sector in maintaining a tehcnological edge in such a capital intensive enterprise?

Does it make sense for the US to underwrite the technology and production of war materials in order to exert global influence on any other country which cannot compete economically in war production and must therefore align with us in order to have access to the toolsof war?

Does that lead us to institutionalizing a permanent war-focusd economy?

There are a lot of people globally who attribute just such an intentional policy to the US. What’s the evidence that they are wrong?

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4473225&c=AME&s=TOP But the Pentagon wont prop up poorly run busineesses;  but WILL help companies communicate better with the department (gravy train)