Dan Erwin

It's Even More Important Now to Keep Your Friends Close and Your Enemies Closer

When I first wrote this back  in 2012, it was just fairly relevant. Given the status of our culture today, this article is extremely relevant. People aren't talking to each other about their differences. They are not just marching, but sometimes they are rioting over their differences. The issues that divide are numerous: politics, science, education, religion, pandemic, etc. The list is seemingly endless. Now, more than ever, people are just ignoring those they know differ with them, and sometimes behaving like irreconcilable enemies.

So why should you keep your friends close--and your enemies closer? It wasn’t the Godfather’s Michael Corleone who first uttered this well-known dictum. Actually, it came from Machiavelli in "The Prince," the definitive primer for how to be a dictator. You’d think that with my easy-going optimism, I’d never write a blog on this subject.  But, au contraire!

As a manager or leader it is inevitable that we’ll want to add to your knowledge base, try to sell ideas, get people on board and even change the direction of our organization. One of the involved persons just might be your enemy. That’s my basic rationale for acting on Machiavelli’s instinct. In my first vocation, the Christian ministry, I worked diligently to stay close to parishioners who disagreed with my orientation. The consequence was that unlike many in the congregationalist polity I maintained significant support not only from those of my ideology, but also those of more rigid, fundamentalist ideologies. They could have been "enemies" and capable in our polity of creating a lot difficulties. But over an eleven year period, that never happened because I was close to those who differed--and worked to make "adjustments" without compromises.

In the business setting, I refer to “enemy” as a person you have to interact with, someone who’s competing for your resources, who doesn’t follow through on his commitments, whom you don’t trust, with whom the “chemistry” isn’t there, or who disagrees with your perspective from the ground up. These are also people whom you’ll need in order to get your own personal and organizational objectives met. As both a manager and a consultant, I’ve found a number of people who fit in that same box. In short, I’ve found Machiavelli very useful for my own success.

But there are a number of exceedingly important reasons for keeping your enemies close...

So why should you keep your friends close--and your enemies closer? It wasn’t the Godfather’s Michael Corleone who first uttered this well-known dictum. Actually, it came from Machiavelli in "The Prince," the definitive primer for how to be a dictator. You’d think that with my easy-going optimism, I’d never write a blog on this subject.  But, au contraire!

As a manager or leader it is inevitable that we’ll want to add to your knowledge base, try to sell ideas, get people on board and even change the direction of our organization. One of the involved persons just might be your enemy. That’s my basic rationale for acting on Machiavelli’s instinct. In my first vocation, the Christian ministry, I worked diligently to stay close to parishioners who disagreed with my orientation. The consequence was that unlike many in the congregationalist polity I maintained significant support not only from those of my ideology, but also those of more rigid, fundamentalist ideologies. They could have been "enemies" and capable in our polity of creating a lot difficulties. But over an eleven year period, that never happened because I was close to those who differed--and worked to make "adjustments" without compromises.

In the business setting, I refer to “enemy” as a person you have to interact with, someone who’s competing for your resources, who doesn’t follow through on his commitments, whom you don’t trust, with whom the “chemistry” isn’t there, or who disagrees with your perspective from the ground up. These are also people whom you’ll need in order to get your own personal and organizational objectives met. As both a manager and a consultant, I’ve found a number of people who fit in that same box. In short, I’ve found Machiavelli very useful for my own success.

But there are a number of exceedingly important reasons for keeping your enemies close...

No-Asshole Policy at the White House

Bob Sutton must be enjoying this. I certainly am.

At the virtual swearing in of his political appointees, Biden essentially told his appointees that if he catches “anyone of them treating someone else poorly, he’ll drop-kick them off the roof of the White House.”

Here’s his statement. “I am not joking when I say this, if you are ever working with me and I hear you treat another colleague with disrespect, talk down to someone, I promise you I will fire you on the spot,” No ifs, ands, or buts. Everybody, everybody is entitled to be treated with decency and dignity. That’s been missing in a big way the last four years…. I’m confident you have the capacity to do it. We’re gonna be judged. We are gonna be judged whether or not we restore the integrity and competency in this government…. I need your help badly. We have to restore the soul of this country, and we’re counting on all of you to be part of that. It’s not hyperbole. The only thing I expect with absolute certitude is honesty and decency—the way you treat one another, the way you treat the people you deal with. And I mean that sincerely,” he said.

He clarified that even further with a letter to his staff, telling them, “I would like to take a moment to make something clear to everyone. I do not expect nor do I want any of you to miss or sacrifice important family obligations for work. Family obligations include but are not limited to family birthdays, anniversaries, weddings, any religious ceremonies such as first communions and bar mitzvahs, graduations, and times of need such as illness or a loss in the family.” Trump, on the other hand, expected aides to skip important family functions to sit in the residence with him while he binge-watched Fox News...

Russian Trolls and the Information Wars

Surprisingly, the most powerful source of false information is neither Trump nor the Russian trolls. It’s a unique American business model that drives the false information.

With all the hullaballoo about false information, the Russian trolls and Trump's ritualized falsehoods on Twitter, I’ve been at a loss to understand the reality and the actual facts behind all that’s going on. So I was delighted to see the data and insights in an article by Vera Tolz in the December 3 issue (“Shortcuts”) of the London Review of Books. Tolz holds an endowed professorship in Russian Studies at the University of Manchester (UK). My review is indicative of a slight bias toward Brit scholarship on issues like this.

The data presented and the resulting conclusions offer a far better background for our understanding of fake information and Russia’s supposed role in it. In addition, given the Washington riots of January 6, which happened after the article was written, we now have a far richer understanding of the role of the internet.

As Tolz argues, Trump’s November 5 press conference in which he claimed he won the election and there had been massive voter fraud are indicative of the fact that we had learned nothing from the election of 2016. The left claimed the press and broadcasters were indulging the right. In contrast, the right claimed that the media hadn’t indulged them enough.

Russian trolls?
By that time, there was a strong liberal consensus that much of the internet misinformation had come from Russia. Pro-Trump Russia wants to disrupt elections, create chaos and interfere with balloting. Tolz points out that both the States and the UK have fallen into the trap of believing in this “information war” paradigm. The paradigm assumes that the main threats to both countries come from the outside. A fact the data does not support.

It’s true that a history of Russian trolls attempting to

“Setting” Boundaries Versus “Negotiating” Boundaries

Is there a substantial difference? Or are they just two words for the same thing? And does it really matter? Prior to the 1950s, they would have been just two words for the same thing. That is, if anyone ever used the term “negotiating” boundaries. The practice of “negotiating” boundaries comes primarily out of the 1980s with the flattening of business hierarchies and the strong orientation to women’s rights. With the exception of sales negotiation, it was rare to talk about negotiating relationships until the mid-1980s. And since then there has been tons of research and some training solely in the practice of negotiating interpersonal boundaries. In simple terms, setting boundaries is one individual determining boundaries for others. Negotiating boundaries is two or more creating a workable agreement on the boundaries between them.

So, there’s a significant difference between setting and negotiating boundaries. Major business leaders as well as many community leaders recognize these differences even without distinguishing between the two terms. But, ask the right questions and they can clarify immediately. I’ve learned, sadly, that these same professionals are typically incapable of using the negotiation competence in their family. Shifting competencies from one context to another without training is highly problematic—even for top business school grads. Similarly, lower level bureaucrats, patriarchal families, pastors, the Roman and Evangelical churches, small and medium-sized privately held owner-firms lack insight to the distinctions and sometimes have a lot of resistance on their hands as a result of their ignorance.

Creating still more difficulty, my psychologist colleagues have no rhetorical format for negotiation. Common formats provide the means for improving, changing or even rejecting former ways of communicating. Without a common format, they’re always attempting to reinvent the wheel, a strategy which readily results in failure or limited success. They talk a good talk about “setting boundaries,” but lack awareness of the extensive implications of differing boundaries. This is surprising, because the counseling profession knows that ignoring or flagrantly setting boundaries is one of the major causes of family breakdown. And there are plenty of other people and organizations in the dark and looking at abject failure because of their ignorance and unwillingness to operate on the basis of negotiating boundaries.

The role of power
Although I’ve never heard anyone make the distinction between setting and negotiating, it’s time to start using the rhetoric much more carefully. Why? Because, the distinctions are primarily about power: who’s got it and what are the most effective ways to use it.

In business organizations power is traditionally viewed from three perspectives: vested, expert and network. Simply put, vested power is the legitimate power given to an individual to run teams, projects or disciplines within an organization. Expert is the power conferred on an individual who has the necessary knowledge others require for success. And network power is that of a person who knows a terrific amount of people who are capable of providing the necessary support and insight which individuals or groups require to succeed. Obviously simplistic, but occasionally useful clarity.

However, as a result of the unique work of the French academic, Michel Foucault, we understand that power is a lot more complex than the above little model. Foucault emphasizes that where there is power, there is also resistance. So, it’s all the more important to understand that successful power has much more to do, for example, with how a person or an organization chooses to organize ideas, make comparisons, and locate new ideas, often metaphorically, within highly respected old ideas. To an obvious degree, knowing what to say, how to say it, and what not to say in a given culture can be powerful negotiation strategies. That kind of expertise is usually necessary for successful boundary negotiation, which at its core is a matter of interaction around “I’ll do this if you’ll do that.” Simple relationships can sometimes be negotiated in three minutes, while major organizations or nations may take ten to twenty years to negotiate their differences in order to achieve mutual goals...

Is It Just Possible That Trump and Trumpism Have Been Good for Us?

I suggested to one of my daughters just yesterday that Trump has actually been good for us, an idea that has crossed my mind over the last six months. Actually, it's an approach that any rhetorical critic understands: to argue against a case, you have to understand the opposing case in spades. And it's especially helpful if the opposing case can be clarified by experience and behaviors on the ground. In my comments to my daughter I explained (poorly) why Trump just might have been helpful to the nation. 

So it's fascinating to see an opinion article by Nicholas Kristof in today's Times making the same point. But he does a far better job of arguing the case.

Our nation is a mess, but overlapping catastrophes have also created conditions that may finally let us extricate ourselves from the mire. The grim awareness of national failures — on the coronavirus, racism, health care and jobs — may be a necessary prelude to fixing our country...

Must-Read (and View) on Today's Conflicted World

A blueprint to actually fix America's police. In this article by a professor of law, a former deputy chief of police and a criminology professor, the three argue very intelligently that we know what to do to stop police violence, but there's not the will to do it.  https://bit.ly/2A8aGc0

How the world can avoid screwing up the response to the next covid-19 again. Begley and Branswell, two of our very best science writers, lay out a highly useful and informative strategy to avoid getting caught with our pants down. They avoid the magic stuff, like "invent a vaccine." https://bit.ly/3eZnz6O

What does the shocking unemployment report really mean? The Atlantic's Derek Thompson writes that no one is sure whether this is a dead-cat economic bounce or the beginning of a glorious summer of economic recovery. He tries to figure it out for himself, gives up, and turns to especially thoughtful economist who talks about the answer to his question with two unusual terms: suppression and recession--a unique analysis that sounds accurate. https://bit.ly/374Sjka

James Mattis denounces Trump. He finally breaks his silence, tells you why he opens up and then explains our presidential predicament. https://bit.ly/37i2zWF 

With protests, the 'bright side' and 'dark side' of America are on display. With two straightforward conclusions, the sociologist, Harvard's Orlando Patterson, explains our historical predicament: the background for Mattis. https://on.msnbc.com/3eUQcCk

For the Coronavirus Chaos: by Einstein

Albert Einstein seems to have an endless supply of relevant quotes.This one is especially pungent for all that's going on in especially religious contexts today:

"Science without religion is lame: Religion without science is blind."

"Better to be six feet apart..."

"than six feet under," says Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan. Although I'm quite certain that the virus will rebuild the value of science and scientists, I also suspect that it's also hardening anti-science perspectives. 

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) vigorously defended her continuing stay-at-home order Friday after thousands of protesters converged on the capital, Lansing, and four northern Michigan sheriffs said they would not strictly enforce it.

“You know what? I can take it,” Whitmer said during an appearance on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “If it makes people feel better to take their frustrations out on me, that’s fine. All I ask is let’s not get overly political here. Let’s focus on the public health. … I know that there are a lot of businesses and people that are hurting right now. But the fact of the matter is it’s better to be six feet apart right now than six feet under.”

Whitmer has faced hundreds of maskless protesters in Lansing, along with the refusal of at least four Michigan sheriffs to support her authority. She has shown herself to be a very capable state leader.

Currently, Michigan is the fifth deadliest state for coronavirus. Some people have difficulty looking reality in the face.  There are a lot of covidiots out there. Where there are intelligent rules, there are always people to break them. Plenty of people never seem to understand that smart safeguards, designed by specialists, save lives.

So, Pete Buttigieg Annoys His Competition

I find that amusing. Especially when his competitors immediately go to his lack of Washington experience. There is absolutely no necessary correlation whatsoever between experience and expertise. That’s a well-researched conclusion.

My wife, an elementary school teacher, came home one day with an anecdote from a teachers’ workshop. The speaker told the story of someone wanting a position as elementary coach because she had twenty years of elementary school experience. Her principal refused, but later in an aside to his assistant commented that actually she didn’t have twenty years of experience. She just had twenty years of first year experience.

And still others will say that Mayor Pete...

Actually, Alligators Are Great

That's the last word from Douthat's Sunday NYTimes opinion--and that's the argument, Douthat says, that the Republicans will be making.

When Trump Gets His Alligator

...

In the Ukraine scandal, the guardrails protecting the president from his worst impulses broke down. Makes complete sense.

Photo from The Economist

And of course he wants alligators and poisonous snakes on the Rio Grande border. The Economist totted up the cost of his schemes. The total, including water pumps, electrified flesh piercing spikes--and shooting migrants in the legs--would add up to approximately $30 bn...

Better Schools Are Not Enough (Part One)

My wife, who consulted and taught in both upper-middle class schools (Littleton, Colorado) and numerous inner-city schools (Detroit and Minneapolis), was the source of many insights that would never have crossed my mind or appeared in policy articles. One of her deep-seated insights was that merely fixing the schools could never heal many children’s educational problems, much less significantly impact achievement. And she had the breadth of experience and political wisdom to support her conclusion.

Seven years after her death, her conclusion has finally surfaced—in two intriguing places. The first was an indirect statement out of the mouth of Mayor Pete in the August Democratic debate. Ezra Klein called my attention to it in his analysis of the August debate. Coming after a lengthy section in which the candidates debated different health care plans, decriminalizing unauthorized border crossing, and a series of gun control ideas, none of which have the slightest possibility of passing in a Republican controlled senate.

At that point Buttigieg spoke up to say that this was the conversation that we’ve been having for the last 20 years. Of course, these policies are all true and needed. But when he proposes the actual structural democratic reforms that might make a difference—and make the policies possible--people look at him funny, as if this country was incapable of structural reform. Buttigieg’s basic understanding is that when the middle class has to hold down two or three jobs just to exist, children cannot get the kind of support and family education they need. He’s applied that insight to all kinds of situations. But significantly, I suspect he understands, since he’s married to a smart teacher, that schools with lower poverty rates tend to have higher scores, while schools serving large numbers of poor students have a different perspective on what achievement looks like. That’s all a reflection on the long-standing and well-documented connection between a schools’ poverty rate and achievement.

Education isn’t enough
But the most thoroughgoing analysis of this issue was written by Nick Hanauer and appeared in the July issue of the Atlantic. He sets up the problem uniquely, admitting that he used to think that better schools could heal the country’s ills. But, he acknowledges, he was wrong.

The common view is that both poverty and rising inequality are largely consequences of America’s failing education system. And, Hanauer admitted, he’s supported that view publicly and in the establishment of organizations, embracing education as both a philanthropic cause and a civic mission.

The typical reasoning is that if we improved our schools, modernized curricula and teaching methods, increased school funding while eliminating poor teachers, then low-income and working-class children would start learning again. That would result in better graduation rates and increased salaries, eliminating much of today’s poverty and inequality.

In contrast, Hanauer finds that American workers are struggling because they are underpaid, not primarily because of poor education. In fact, Americans are more highly educated than ever before. Despite nearly record-low employment, most Americans have seen practically no wage growth since 2000. He puts it rather clearly: educationism is tragically mistaken. Why is that? “Even the most thoughtful and well-intentioned school-reform program can’t improve educational outcomes if it ignores the single greatest driver of student achievement: house-hold income.”

(See part two for Hanauer’s rationale and data.)
**The Atlantic, July 2019.