Dan Erwin

Should Trump Go to Jail?

A few weeks ago, when my houseman was cleaning for me, we engaged in a conversation about whether Trump should go to jail. Now I should say that my guy has worked for me for years and I have a terrific amount of respect for his insights. He graduated from St John’s prep school, an institution for which I have a lot of respect. Which means he knows how to analyze and think.

He asked whether I thought Trump should go to jail. I was very thoughtful about my response, responding rather slowly—out of verbal character--and saying, “I don’t know. I’m not sure.” An obviously unexpected response, he jumped in and said that he thought Trump should be made accountable for his crimes. I responded, “I agree, but I’m not certain that he should go to jail.” He stopped vacuuming, raised his eyebrows, rather surprised, and asked, “why not.” My answer was again slow, but direct: “I don’t know what the consequences might be. I’m fearful of the consequences of jailing him.”

It's always political
Given my background in history and political science, I’m well aware that political actions, like jailing an ex-president, always have multiple consequences. But lots of ordinary behaviors also have multiple consequences. And there will always be political considerations. Remember, whenever any decision will impact two or more people, then the decision is political. Even in your family. So, here’s a simple family narrative that, hopefully, explains unintended consequences and my concerns about political process..

Political Intelligence Is a Lot More Important Than Emotional Intelligence

There’s no question but that the psychologist, Daniel Goleman, has had a great run with his emotional intelligence. The fad struck a chord among business people and has shown itself to be fairly useful. Furthermore, the constant emphasis on the emotional response of empathy has sometimes resulted in better business relationships, all of which makes for better team and cross-disciplinary relationships. When, that is, people have the soft skills to use the emotional insights surfacing. But that, of course is a more complicated, but very learnable and coachable set of issues.

However, it should be very clear that political intelligence is a lot more important for personal and organizational success than emotional intelligence.  By political intelligence in business, I refer to the ability to gain buy-in and/or support from people with differing or potentially differing agendas to achieve one’s own personal objectives and enable others to achieve theirs. The unstated fact about teams is firstly, that they hold together because they have a common interest in survival and success, and secondly, because they practice politics—not because they agree about “fundamentals” or “principles” or some such vague notion. That bottom line can, admittedly, be pretty dark. But bear with me. This is the kind of expertise that is often talked about in derogatory terms. And you may not recognize its real value and necessity until you have more responsibility than just taking orders and following through.

Far and away the most appropriate analogy for politics is sexuality. They are both activities with a number of unstated objectives that make more formal discussions unnecessary--and sometimes undiscussable. Granted, sexuality is a more widespread activity than political action. But the person who can live without either is either inhumanly sterile or an alien from another planet. Furthermore, in contrast to emotional intelligence, the basic characteristics of both politics and sexuality are absolute necessity and unpredictability. In addition, both politics and sexuality are activities in which the range of conduct is far greater than what we are willing to engage. But they both must be carried on to some degree or else both organizations and humanity will cease to exist..

Sometimes Life is Beyond Our Control

I regularly enjoy conversations with seven or eight friends, retired university faculty, social workers and businessmen. Recently, I’ve become aware that a couple of them are profoundly alarmed and emotionally upset by Trumpism and the Ukrainian invasion and their impact upon themselves. They talk about both quite often and seem personally frightened. I’ve intended to tell them just to take a good stiff drink, do what you can do, and go on with your life. But I’ve come to realize that won’t work for them...

I certainly don’t disagree with their politics. It’s fairly obvious to me that our past president was an evil, greedy bastard who, thus far, has evinced little interest in the common good. Yet human personal and political reality is never that clear cut. Most of us know that good people can do bad things. But my friends seem unaware that sometimes bad people do good things. The current situation seems to bode fairly well for financially and physical secure guys like them, although not for the lower-middle and lower classes. So, what’s really intriguing to me is why some of these guys get so profoundly alarmed by the situation.

The issue, I realized a few months ago, is what’s referred to as locus-of-control...

Hitman, Saint, and Also Seriously Human

A questionable ethic? This is not the kind  of stuff that's usually talked about openly. But get an important executive in a corner, telling him or her that you'll not identify the source, and he'll agree with this messy strategy.

A few years ago, after developing a relationship with the CIO of a major American corporation and successfully working with a number of his subordinates, I was faced with a challenge. Another consultant, call him John, was edging into my info tech territory from corporate marketing. As soon as I saw what was happening, I set up an appointment with the CIO. I assassinated John with truthful rhetoric and precise data. It was a barrage of sophisticated, critical, agitating rhetoric by which I intended to maintain control. By no stretch of the imagination did I wear my usual nice-guy hat. The next day, the CIO canned John’s ass.

While hard to accept and admit, on occasion it’s necessary to become hitmen because of threats to our career by others. Indeed, plenty of people go into business unprepared for a larger reality that can be supportive, constructive and fun, but occasionally requires them to work with somebody who is dangerous to their career. They may be highly deceptive rivals, indifferent and lazy assholes who won’t carry their weight on a project, or clueless incompetents who need to be brought to their senses.

Religiously ethical?
But my consulting experience reveals that a surprising majority of people hold an ethical and/or religious commitment to life that plays havoc with their feelings. Feelings that certainly would keep them from becoming the mean and calculating hitman suggested below.

As an ordained minister, a former parish pastor and seminary professor, it’s imperative to point out that these quaint religious ideas often sabotage not only your career, but also your life. And even more significantly, these “nice guy” feelings lack a rich understanding of what it means to be fully human. In short, the baseline of normalcy in the “religious” reality structure is often profoundly dysfunctional and false. A serious confusion exists between what people think they should be and what actually is. And it’s understandable that many haven’t come to terms with those differences given the predominant, though skewed, religious perspective.

While hard to accept and admit, on occasion it’s necessary to become hitmen because of threats to our career by others. Indeed, plenty of people go into business unprepared for a larger reality that can be supportive, constructive and fun, but occasionally requires them to work with somebody who is dangerous to their career. They may be highly deceptive rivals, indifferent and lazy assholes who won’t carry their weight on a project, or clueless incompetents who need to be brought to their senses.

Religiously ethical?
But my consulting experience reveals that a surprising majority of people hold an ethical and/or religious commitment to life that plays havoc with their feelings. Feelings that certainly would keep them from becoming the mean and calculating hitman suggested below.

As an ordained minister, a former parish pastor and seminary professor, it’s imperative to point out that these quaint religious ideas often sabotage not only your career, but also your life. And even more significantly, these “nice guy” feelings lack a rich understanding of what it means to be fully human. In short, the baseline of normalcy in the “religious” reality structure is often profoundly dysfunctional and false. A serious confusion exists between what people think they should be and what actually is. And it’s understandable that many haven’t come to terms with those differences given the predominant, though skewed, religious perspective.

WHAT HAPPENED TO AMERICAN CONSERVATISM?

In a recent article in The Atlantic, the New York Times opinion writer, David Brooks, asked what happened to American Conservatism? A spot-on question. I've only voted for a Republican presidential candidate once in my voting life of 65 years. I voted for Richard Nixon--and for the wrong reason. I thought--at the time--that I didn't want a Catholic in the White House. That was a serious mistake for that reason alone. I left that prejudice years ago. And teaching at a Benedictine University was not the only dagger to put an end to such personal naivete. But I am perturbed by the fact that the majority of Supreme Court justices are Catholic. The notion that their faith doesn't impact their rulings is utter nonsense. With my Protestant background, I disagree on a number of faith issue that seriously influence their rulings. I have enough psych background to understand that religious neutrality in the practice of the law is nonsense. 

Still, I had a lot of satisfaction with many espousing a conservative judiciary, Republican legislators and governors for whom I did not vote, until--that is--McConnell took over the senate. It wasn't just Trump and Trumpism. I flirted awhile with Libertarianism until I realized that it was utterly pagan and totally irresponsible--a stupid stance. I've been a middle-of-the road Democrat with an occasional infatuation with progressive ideas. Unlike many older people, I haven't gotten more conservative over time. But I thought David Brooks' article spelled out the kind of Republican conservatism that managed the state of Michigan very well in my early years.

Much of my readership is too young to have experienced that healthy conservatism, so here's some Brooks' insight and commitment that made the two party system work for years--even though I disagree with some of his Burkean thought. But here some of his insights from the Atlantic article (January-February 2022).

The setup is that "the rich philosophical tradition I fell in love with has been reduced to Fox News and voter suppression....I fell in love with conservatism in my 20s. As a politics and crime reporter in Chicago, I often found myself around public-housing projects like Cabrini-Green and the Robert Taylor Homes, which had been built with the best of intentions but had become nightmares. The urban planners who designed those projects thought they could improve lives by replacing ramshackle old neighborhoods with a series of neatly ordered high-rises."

But Brooks came to his conservatism uniquely. .

Deception and Lies Can Be Okay, But . . .

big whoppers will always catch up with you. Deception is not only inevitable in business, but sometimes necessary or strategic. If you track “deception” or “lying” on my blog’s Google search, you’ll find a number of blogs dealing with the issue. See, for example, my blog, Powerful people are better liars.

Clearly, I seriously question the notions of authenticity and truthfulness for all situations. My mind always dredges up an interaction with a very close friend, an ordained minister who was also an astute psychologist. As a professor, he had taught students to be open and authentic. But he told me years afterward that he had changed his mind. Those behaviors, he said, assume an inherently fair and just world—a naïve perspective that could sometimes lead to career destruction. It was a decision I had made long before him, but never shared. Indeed, there are plenty of reasons for deception. But before you engage in the behavior think seriously about the issue and its implications.

On the one hand humans don’t naturally seek the truth, but tend to avoid it. Sure, people instinctively accept information they’re exposed to, and sure, they have to work hard to resist falsehoods. And yeah, they cherry-pick data to support their own perspective, and certainly, as the Nobelist Daniel Kahneman has pointed out, they’ll steer clear of facts that might force them to think and work harder. Some of us were even taught to lie. It was often the only resource for avoiding undeserved punishment. All that just might suggest a role for some deception in business—and in life.

Negative personal impact
But unless you’re very careful about deception, you’ll negatively impact your personal reputation. Liar or deceiver is not a tag that you’d want to be labeled with. There’s extensive research demonstrating that most people respond best to people whom they both like and respect. Respect, built on expertise and trust, goes a long way in careers. It makes managing and leading simpler. It can provide you with better opportunities, better salaries and faster promotions. And it also can make it easy to access information and resources from others, needed commodities in today’s business world. So, you want to keep a positive reputation relatively intact. 

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...