OF CARTOONS AND PORTS

I've noticed that most newsletters out there in the leadership world have tended to shy away from the above. I don't think if leadership is to stay relevant to our world and its challenges, we have that option. Moreover, there are numerous leadership lessons to pluck from both of the above controversies.

THE CARTOONS

Most of the conversation here has been beside the point. Rather than take issue with much of what's been making the rounds, let's just look at certain key facts and some important insights.

First, there are three issues here that must be kept distinct. One, the right to publish offensive matter. Two, why Muslims find these cartoons particularly obscene. Third, the nature of the demonstrations and outrage expressed. By entangling these three issues, we cannot have a sane conversation here at all, as accusations and counter-accusations just get lobbed like grenades over well fortified conceptual perimeters.

Let's dispense with the first issue. All but the most extreme will concede that free societies imply a right to offend. What people take offense at, and the magnitude of offense they register, is often inscrutable. Hence, to put up as a standard, that you can't offend groups of people, would decimate the very idea of free expression. Moreover why 'religious sentiments' should be a particularly protected arena of expression is also unclear. If we can mock politics, family, sexuality, values, why not religious beliefs?

But here the matter is not so clear. As one eminent cartoonist (yes there are such people) in the US opined, cartoons are not just meant to be provocative for the sheer fun of it. They are intended to make a point, to shake up arrogance, or to ridicule institutionalised folly. These particular cartoons by equating Islam's prophet with terrorism seem simply to be a stick in the eye. There was no additional 'point' being made that I can discern. Nor has anyone been able to share one with me.

To Muslims this does seem like 'hate speech,' akin to during the sex scandals of the Church, someone depicting Christ personally being involved in such villainous behaviour with young children. On the BBC show HARD TALK, the interviewer asked the Danish publisher if he would publish a cartoon depicting a rabbi in a Nazi outfit. A deafening silence followed.

Civilized people are aware of each other's sensitivities. We have many rights we choose not to exercise. We self-censor all the time and seek to provoke hopefully when there is a reason big enough to do so.

Re the second issue. In Islam images of venerated figures, particularly the Prophet, are banned to avoid idolatry. The ban on graven images is similar to that found in Judaism.

Given that, it is in fact ironic, and quite anti-Islamic to call portrayal of the Prophet 'blasphemy.' The real definition of blasphemy is: A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity. A secondary meaning is to claim for oneself the attributes of God.

The Prophet Muhammed is revered as a Prophet in Islam, not extolled even above other Prophets. As per Islamic tradition, he was the conveyer of 'the final word' (of a tradition that according to Islam included the Old Testament and culminated in the Quran). But he is not to be considered sacred. That is for God alone according to Islamic teaching. Hence it is strange that in protesting these cartoons in the intemperate way that was done, many are guilty of the very idolatry the ban on depiction was aimed at.

That said, it is primarily the fanatics and death-mongers who would like to persuade Muslims that their extremism is legitimized by Islam. Moderates are seeking to argue that such acts are anti-Islamic and that the West has no antipathy to Islam, but that all of us have to be united against terrorism. But when such cartoons equate Prophet Muhammed with the terrorism, the only people who win are the extremists. They find a political platform, not just a religious platform, and can argue that they were right -- the West considers the Prophet himself a cosmic pimp (one of the cartoons had to do with a suicide bomber being denied access to heaven due to a 'virgin shortage') and a mass murderer.

For a part of the world chafing under regimes often propped up by Western powers for our own gain, very frequently the only viable vehicle of protest, or self-expression, indeed of identity has been the mosque. As we seek to enroll the billion or so Muslims toward progressive modernity, we may wish to question what free speech we choose to deploy, and reconsider supplying ammunition to the very people most opposed to an enlightened reformation of Islam.

Re the third issue, every intelligent, humane person has to condemn the violent protests, the loss of life and the destruction of property. Period. Let's not contaminate this conversation by seeking to justify that. By the way, a lot of the mainstream press in many Muslim countries have condemned the violence.

We should note however that this hysteria over a clash of intrinsic values is just bogus. Less than 1% of the global Muslim population was out in the streets. It is hard to therefore argue that this is a representative mass movement that should have all of us shuddering under our beds.

Frustration does often spill over into violence as happened in the US during the civil rights movement. That by itself doesn't render those who participate, barren of civilized instincts. It just says that on that day they made a bad choice, or that they were incited and inflamed. Anyone who looks at the Muslim countries where violence occurred over this, will see politically motivated mullahs and extremists organising crowds and coming prepared to instigate violence. That the violence did NOT happen spontaneously has been commented on by the local press in virtually all these affected countries.

Leadership lessons? First, it's important to identify the real issues as I've tried to do above. When in leadership or the life of an organisation we try to take on issues that are too large and undifferentiated (customer service, the market, innovation, R&D, talent issues) without focusing on the key enablers, irritants or aspects, we end up speaking in either dead abstractions or histrionic generalisations.

Second, facing reality means facing its different facets. So when tackling an issue we have to ask if we have consulted different perspectives, constituencies, viewpoints. Leadership does not mean giving all of them equal weight, but it does mean that we make a decision by leveraging insight and knowledge, not by wallowing in self-chosen ignorance.

Third, leaders have to model the insight that we all have to exercise our empowerment, our freedom, our latitude wisely, with an eye to what Stephen Covey would call 'the end in mind.' Sheer expression is not a virtue in leadership or in life. Choosing the best expressions for our purposes is what leadership demands. That doesn't mean some external body should censor us or decide for us. No, the struggle has to be a private one, but engaged in with an acute awareness of the stakes -- and when dealing with human beings we wish to enroll for our vision -- often the sensitivities as well.

ACTION POINT: Pick 2-3 BIG areas facing your business. What are the real issues there? What are the different viewpoints? With your leadership team get alignment at least on the relevant factors to consider and look at various scenarios that might unfold.

Then decide which scenarios we should vote for with our leadership energy and commitment given our overall vision, strategy and corporate values. You will likely find a major breakthrough awaiting you if you can dispel the confusion and heighten the clarity relative to the key issues in a number of central challenges and opportunities in front of you and your team today.

PORTS

This has been quite fascinating. Many have called it global ethnic profiling, 'borderline racist,' the 21st century version of the Communist scare. On the other hand, Congress and key mayors have berated the Administration for not unveiling this sooner and for being remiss with certain security measures that are supposed to take place in the case of foreign investment in the US.

However, sadly, the lessons we extolled above in the cartoon discussion have not been applied, and again in this case, we have ended up speaking about everything but what we really should be.

We have gotten into a debate about whether a UK company having management of the ports is the same as a UAE company doing so. Clearly, in public perception, there is a major difference, exacerbated by the majority shareholding coming from the royal family of the UAE not private investors whose allegiance may be more straightforwardly capitalistic.

We should just admit that in the US, with long historic ties and partnership with the UK, it will not be the same thing, particularly after 9/11. It may be unfair, but that perception has to be engaged. We can't just wish it away. We have to show its unfairness with some empathy. This is why Dubai Ports have agreed to postpone their management of the ports until US concerns can be allayed. They are doing the right thing by seeking to show people they have nothing to fear. Demonstrating that should be where the energy goes, not debating the irrationality of the fears per se.

Of course for those in the shipping industry, or those looking at this rationally and not with rampaging emotion, it begins to seem quite 'fishy.' Shipping has been globalised for some time. Cargo comes to the US from all over the world, including from ports already managed by this self-same company! The port manager is not in charge of security, the US coast guard and customs and border authorities will be. The fact that we don't X-ray any but a minute fraction of the cargo coming in, has nothing to do with this company. US longshoremen will still unload the cargo, irrespective of who is now paying their salaries. Finally, the UAE company has offered to X-ray all cargo at their end that heads to the US and to have their security procedures subject to American review.

However, if all this is indeed so, then we should make that case, and make it clearly and unambiguously until it is clear that all we have left is spasmodic xenophobia. It is in everyone's best interests to verify this is the case, for the sake of everyone as well as future deals of this type.

Instead of focusing almost exclusively on this we also hear about the UAE's terrorism credentials. As someone with an office in Dubai, this is just silly. Yes, there were few banking regulations in the UAE pre 9/11 and so terrorist funds were laundered through there. But if you look at the US and Europe and most of the world pre 9/11 in terms of banking, visas, security checks and much more, the UAE was far from being distinctively lax. Since then, they have tightened up controls, they have turned over apprehended Al Qaeda operatives, and have at their own ports a very significant number of US naval vessels and carriers. No one seems worried about the national security implications of that!

Moreover, the UAE is one of the most liberal countries in the Arab world. Dubai in particular is a place that hosts concerts, sporting events, has locals and foreigners mingling in pubs and bars, has women journalists and senior business executives, hosts global conferences that bring in people like Rudolph Giuliani and Tom Peters and Lou Gerstner and Bill Clinton, and much more. It is not utopia and has many shortfalls as a society, but then which society doesn't?

While we satisfy our security concerns, why not also showcase the admirable strides made by the UAE, as a model for the Arab world, acknowledge the uncontroverted global professionalism of this company, and clarify what role they will actually play rather than hyping up 'the Arabs are taking over our ports'? We really don't want to send a message, "Don't bother to progress or modernize, we STILL won't trust you." Happily Japan and Germany are where they are today, at least partially because we found the character and conscience to pave another way forward after World War II.

Let's also concede though that it's election year for the US Congress. Having been trumped by President Bush on the security issue over and over, the Democrats are now taking the same low road and attacking a relatively unpopular and therefore vulnerable incumbent and his party on the basis of his not consulting Congress (on that they're right and this may just have been the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back) and in terms of putting economics before national security (largely a chimera in this case but it plays well in Peoria). Congressional Republicans fearing an electoral lambasting are breaking ranks with a President whose buccaneering attitude towards Congressional oversight (for example the wiretapping debate) has left them both miffed and exposed. They fear they cannot concede the security card in this instance to the Democrats, so they too are engaging in intemperate posturing.

Bottomline: Let's ensure the deal was properly vetted by the numerous agencies it passed through. Let's clarify what guarantees will be provided and use this as an impetus to tighten port security in the US. That and not invading hordes are what's really relevant here.

Second bottomline: If we keep consuming oil as we are, all kinds of regimes far less savoury than the UAE will continue to hold the aces when it comes to capital surpluses. Not surprisingly they will want to invest those surpluses. We are setting them up for this ownership with our energy choices. It's high time we found the will to break this vicious cycle and therefore also provide a stimulus to those societies to grow the productive capacity of their citizens. That's the best security of all for everyone.

Leadership lessons? When faced with tough choices, make sure your review, your standards, your ethics, are above reproach. Otherwise, when people find an opening, a vulnerability, they will arrange a showdown with you even when not merited. Demonstrate that you are assiduous in placing bets that have widescale repercussions, involve others, bring them on board. You don't need perfect consensus (also an illusion), just meaningful consultation.

Secondly, when challenged by others, at times perhaps unjustly, don't take the rhetorical bait. First, defuse all the claims factually, logically and substantively. Then, with that high ground established, tackle any of the allegations or confusions as constructively as you can. Remember you may want these people's talents and commitments and you don't want to undermine their passion and concern. They may be wrong this time, but they may well alert us to very important things we've overlooked in the future.

Third, make sure your corporate priorities, your investments, your strategies are not causing the very problem you're facing, or laying the foundation for it at the very least. We have to make sure our priorities are congruent with our behaviours and values-in-action.

ACTION POINTS: Pick an area of controversy and ensure that you have reviewed it thoroughly. Demonstrate this by speaking to the facts. Then engage the emotion behind the issue and link back what you are proposing to the larger aims of your team and/or organisation as a way to channel this emotion.

Look at issues within the company that demoralise or whittle away at our credibility. Pick a few of these and remove them this quarter, or at least this year. There are some of these in every culture. As these get tackled and transcended, extraordinary passion, esprit de corps, commitment will be liberated. I remember a key client who tackled, quite courageously, an outdated HR and compensation system and revolutionised how this was approached by his organisation. His team rallied overwhelmingly in response!

SUMMING UP: We all have a stake in building community between and with the progressive and creative talents around the world, both actual and potential. This is true at a national level and at an organisational level.

We need to therefore continually learn to communicate, to hone our ability to engage each other with compassion rather than condescension, to challenge the real issues, to offer imaginative ways forward, and to remember what ultimately we are seeking to achieve. It has to be bigger than our fears and it has to deliver on our biggest dreams.

That is the essence of real leadership.

Omar Khan,
Senior Partner, Sensei International

230 Park Ave, Suite 864,
NY, NY 10169, USA
Phone: (1 212) 295 2191
Fax: (1 212) 295 2121

Intl Phone: (9714) 295 9992, Fax: (9714) 295 9994

e mail: omar@sensei-international.com