Want Power, then Sacrifice Listening

Most people would say that they would like more power. More precisely, they would like to be more powerful. This would appear to be especially true among young people, who are confronted with such intense life challenges.

And you can become more powerful. Here is how. But there is a catch. The more you focus on becoming powerful, the less you will be able to listen.  Now consider Mr. V. Putin. He is no doubt a “powerful” man. How well do you think he listens? Consider how well he would take to an objective assessment of Russia’s prospects in the next decade.

When I say X, I mean Y!

I just got off the phone with a colleague. She was on the way to a meeting to try to work out a conflict. I got the background, but not much detail. All I needed to hear was that there is a “communication problem”.

These things happen all the time. It is surprising, therefore, how frequently we fail to deal with communication breakdown when it happens.

Let’s be blunt for a moment. Not all communication has equal value. So when I hear, “let’s talk.” I start getting nervous. Why do we need to “talk”? Is there a problem? Of course, there is. And if there is a problem, it will affect how well we can communicate. At that moment, we should be on our guard. We are likely to start talking trash. And that just makes the underlying problem worse.

So a lesson to be learned — learn when not to listen. You stop listening to substance when you are confident that it has no value in coping with underlying problems.

The Echoes of Conflict

For the last several days, the headlines have been focused on a terrible terrorist attack in Paris and its aftermath. As I write, two killers are surrounded by French police and apparently ready to be killed as “martyrs”. There is a palpable tension in the air.

People react to these moments in many ways. In this case, some have reaffirmed their support for the journalists who were brutally gunned down. There is a sense of being “under siege”. That is understandable.

At the same time, it is much more difficult to fathom how this type of barbaric crime could have taken place. How could people have gotten so caught up in radicalism that they would kill in cold blood? At least one commentator noted that those fomenting  this type of violence hope to radicalize all sides — to empty out the middle. To force a civil war in Europe between Muslims and Christians.

It is a nightmare scenario and I do not believe it will happen. And yet, it is not so far fetched to discount that some would push for it –  that it would become a strategic idea to suck peaceful people into violence.

Well, when these types of strategic ideas take hold, many innocent people become swept up in the chaos that ensues. To see how, we don’t have to look far. Just consider the story of Petr Khokhlov in Ukraine.  it starts off like this

After their father died and their mother fell into drink, Petr Khokhlov and his brother, Sergey, were sent to an orphanage in Novouzensk, a small, dusty town of low-slung Soviet-era apartment blocks on Russia’s border with Kazakhstan. The two boys had only each other. Petr was quiet and well behaved, scolding other students at the orphanage when they addressed their teachers with the familiar ty, rather than the more formal vy.

Sometimes, it gets harder and harder to pull back from the violence. And that is a strategic problem for those who are int interested in violence.

When Things Slow Down

One of the underlying dynamics of conflict is to slow things down. That may be in the form of a “distraction” (like a lover’s quarrel) or a “shootout” (where there is blood on the floor) or even a “nuclear event” (where everyone gets hurt). But everything else has to adjust to a problem in making things happen.

On the one hand, this can be productive. Getting people to stop may be critical to identifying a problem that is not generally seen. And I think that Steve jobs (a master at creating conflict) was very focused on getting people to see things in a fresh light. So it is not surprising that he generated a lot of conflict.

On the other hand, it can be destructive. Going nuclear is the most obvious example. Getting into shootouts also has long term effects. Screamers take note! But more pernicious are frozen conflicts. These cause people to lose hope.

The weird thing is that it can be very difficult to tell if a conflict is about principles (that may be worth fighting about) or if the principles are used as an excuse just to throw sand in the machine. And high minded conflicts have a way of degenerating to the point where the original principles at issue are forgotten.

For that reason, conflict managers need to be very sensitive to how principles are employed during conflict. Are they really just a distraction? Is there something else going on that elevates their relative importance? There often is. .

A History Lesson: Russia/Ukraine

Professor William Polk offers a potted history of the Russian people in order to show the origins of the Russian fear of being encircled by perceived enemies. This is an interesting story, and we are indebted to Professor Polk for sharing it.

The professor, however, wishes to teach us as lesson about current policy thinking as well. He argues that one of the major themes of the modern era is how short sighted and ignorant policy making led to escalations of conflict, for example, in the cold war

At base was the conviction of each side that the aim of the other was its destruction. Each side furnished the other with ample reasons for this assessment, and neither made serious and sustained efforts to delve into the “mindset,” deep fears or legitimate concerns of the other.

Prof. Polk suggests that we not follow a similar path now

As we poise now on what appears to be the danger of a return to the dark days of the Cold War, the judgments of that time are being revived. In this paper, I have assumed that we well understand our own and have aimed to show those of the “other side.” I argue that we would be foolish simply to repeat to one another the clichés of the media. Perhaps the most urgent question before us both — the Western world and the Russian leaders — is whether or not we have matured and can bring intelligence, understanding and goodwill to guide our actions.

I do not take issue with Professor Polk’s historical account — though it does tend to gloss over the fact that Russia remains the last land based empire in Europe (and as such is an anachronism). But difficult questions do arise about the relevance of that historical account to current policy making with respect to Ukraine.

On the one hand, if current Russian policy makers are following historical precedent to resist encirclement, they pursue the agenda of an old fashioned expansionist power — a type of power that is inherently destabilizing in modern Europe. Understanding Russian expansionist urges does not make them disappear. Nor does it reduce their negative effects on European security.  The simple fact is that times have changed and Russia must change as well, whether the Kremlin likes it or not.

On the other hand, the good professor appears to assume that the policy decisions that have been made in the Kremlin are based on the above historical concerns. It is at least as likely that they were made for other reasons altogether. For example, the desire to prevent populist democracy from evolving in Ukraine. Why? Because it could easily spread to Russia and overthrow the powers that be in Moscow. In other words, the Kremlin may care nothing about history and everything about staying in power. If this is true, once again, understanding Russian history is not particularly helpful in coping with the rash decision making that led  to a violation of a basic principle of security in Europe. One, by the way, that Russia had agreed to.

My point — we do not and cannot know precisely what drives current thinking in the Kremlin. We do know what minimal standards are required for stability to be maintained in Europe. And if we value that stability, we must be prepared to stand up for our values.  Russian history, as interesting as it may be, does not help us maintain our resolve.

One last point. Much of the professor’s story is based on ancient thinking about who is the “enemy”.  After the cold war, considerable efforts were made by the west to change this rhetoric and befriend Russia. It was Mr. Putin who revived the rhetoric of enemies. And it is  Mr. Putin who has made it a central theme of his domestic political messaging. He opted out of friendship for whatever it is that we have now. Ignoring this very recent change for the purpose of maintaining “friendship” is an invitation for further abuse of friendship.

We might take this a step further. Mr. Putin is betting that his rhetoric about historical enemies will sell with the Russian people. So far, it has. But that rhetoric is messaging from the top down.  It  seeks to stoke nationalist feeling, rather than respond to a genuine swell of patriotic fervor over Ukraine. Consider, for example, that Russian military dead are brought home secretly. If Russian passions were so favorable to this military intervention, you would expect the dead to be brought home with full honors. Whether the Russian in the street will maintain his and her loyalty to Mr. Putin’s messaging as events unfold is far from clear. And it is as likely as not that the Russian in the street cares less for Mr. Putin’s version of history than a chance to live a decent life.

Why do I think so? Living near Russia, I meet Russians who come out of the country to vacation. These are not oligarchs, but middle class folks with family. When these people come, they are not full of rage or anger or fear. To the contrary, they have other things on their minds — like pursuing a good time. Admittedly, this is a very small sampling. But it is a real one. Perhaps the average Russian is less trapped by history than one imagines.

Summing up, there is quite a lot that we do not know at this point in time. But we do know one thing. There is no option but to face down the Kremlin’s expansionist gambit that we are witnessing in Ukraine.

Can Russia adapt to this? Well, consider that there was a time when US policy makers thought it reasonable and even necessary to invade and absorb Canada into the United States. Attempts were made more than once. The US failed each time and eventually it moved on. The US is no longer likely to pursue that idea anymore and it has not lost any national pride as a result of the change in policy.  These things do happen.

Re-Thinking the First And Second World Wars

The 20th century gave us many great things, the consumer society among them. It also gave us two world wars. in terms of sheer destructiveness, these wars were unlike anything ever seen before.  They also contributed directly to the prolonged cold war that lasted all the way to 1991, when the Soviet Union broke apart.

The conventional wisdom is that the first world war (from 1914 to 1918) was a senseless bloodbath. It was the stupid war. The second world war (1939 to 1945) was the virtuous war to overcome fascism.

Over the holidays, I watched a rather provocative video from BBC by Sir Max Hastings.  He argues that it was necessary for Britain to join in the war and win it. Why? It has to do with the way Germany was run at that time. On the domestic front, Germany had a sophisticated welfare state. But when it came to foreign affairs, Germany was a bellicose dictatorship, intent on domination. BTW, a key reason for this was the unstable personality of its Kaiser, Wilhelm. You can see this rather clearly in a second video.

Indeed, Churchill argued that the second war was the one that could have been easily prevented. But the great powers of Europe were asleep at the wheel when Hitler rose to power.

Why does this matter? We are in the midst of a debate about European security again. How should Europe react to a newly assertive Russia, grabbing territory in Ukraine? Understanding how we got to where we are helps us put the current debate in perspective.

Putin in 2015

As we exit 2014, we are left with a number of hot conflicts around the world. One was a war of choice started by Mr. Putin in Ukraine. When Mr. Putin invaded Ukraine, it was not so easy to predict how things would turn out. Now it is a bit more clear. The war is starting to impact Mr. Putin’s political fortunes in Russia.

Mr. Putin is still popular.  But the signature event in Russia now is its economic crisis. So far, Mr. Putin has managed to sell the story that this has been caused by hostile outside forces in the west. A key question for 2015 will be whether this continues to sell.

I do not believe that the Russian people will suddenly blame Mr. Putin for the mess they are in. But when things get bad, people start getting angry about it. And when they are angry, they start listening more closely to stories that confirm their anger. Like stories about corruption and incompetence. These stories may create an opening for new voices inside Russia to be heard.  Vox has an interesting story along these lines already.

I suspect that this will be one of the more interesting stories that will unfold in 2015 – whether the Kremlin can sustain the control of the political messaging in Russia from the top down.

Sony and Powerful Corporations

One lesson learned from the Sony mess has to do with corporate power. We tend to think that corporations are powerful. After all, they have access to huge amounts of capital and talent and physical resources. They are connected. They add value to society. That is all power, right?

Well it is if you think of power as something based in the rules that govern its activities. Within the rule framework, corporations can do many things that individuals cannot.

But with the Sony mess, we see the limits of corporate power. Corporations are reluctant to risk capital for principle. Sony’s defense of its backing down to hackers is “hey, it is not our fight. After all we are only a corporation!” My how the mighty have fallen.

This is something to remember when libertarians trumpet the great benefits of a society without a public sector. They mean a society where corporations call the shots. And we see with Sony that they are likely to do so based on their own interests.

Sony’s Defense: “Who, Me?”

I have been watching Sony trying to wiggle out of the criticism that it has faced over withdrawing the film “The Interview” undre pressure from “hackers”.

The argument is that Sony — surprise, surprise — is a corporation. As if we did not know! As a corporation, Sony has primary responsibility to its shareholders! Therefore it cannot indulge itself in the emotions of the masses. It must protect itself! You can find this idea in the All In interview of a former Sony executive, 

It is not a new idea. Slave traders made a similar argument – that they were answerable only to their investors. Polluting companies as well, have argued that they must fight regulation in order to protect their investors.

But the fact is that “protecting investors” is a slippery concept. Companies protect investors by building loyalty to the brand as well as just existing in the market. In this case, I don’t think anyone would say that Sony has built loyalty to its brand in the way it has acted. Is it protecting investors by taking legalistic positions in the face of a serious assault on public values? Well, let’s see.

But I can see a plot for a new satirical movie — about the executives of Sony that approved this film for production and then ….  well, we know how this played out.

Sony Backs Down

You have probably heard the story, so I won’t go into details. After an unprecedented theft of internal and highly sensitive data in Sony’s computer system and more, and after threats to theaters that show the move “The Interview”, Sony has pulled the movie from distribution.

Many have spoken out angrily, arguing that this paves the way for further hacking and threats to curb our freedom of expression. I am reminded of the decade long threats to Salmon Rushdie after publication of “The Satanic Verses” and the hullabaloo over publication of cartoons in Denmark that depicted he who cannot be named or pictured.

My point is that we should not be surprised that persons would seek to snuff out media content that they find offensive or dangerous. It is a fairly regular occurrence. What is unusual here is that this fairly regular occurrence affects a main source of entertainment in the US – the movies.

What should Sony have done? Well, Sony made a booboo long ago. It is in the entertainment business but in this case it has created a political satire. Political satirists know that they will be attacked and prepare for it. Sony blundered forward without thinking that something might be amiss when they create a film about the assassination of a real person in power. A person who has at his disposal weapons to strike back and who apparently has employed them. Ooops.

But having stuck its toe in the world of political satire, Sony has now acted like an entertainment company again, saying  in effect, “well, we were just having fun and all of this nasty stuff just isn’t worth it. ” Sorry, once you are in the soup, you are soupy. Fred Wilson has a good point — Sony can let everyone see the film online and judge for themselves what this is all about.  But I think Sony is just hurting itself more here by trying the ostrich defense.

Lawrence O’Donnell (as usual) just made a good point. Sony cannot give over DVD copies or digital streaming rights to this film without exposing itself to further hacking threats. And the FBI has probably advised Sony and others that those threats are real. Thus, we are not likely to see this film online anytime soon. Sad but so it goes, it appears.