Arrogance Abroad

Was Amanda Knox guilty?  Was Amanda Knox innocent?
Maria Cantwell, the U.S. Senator from Amanda Knox's home state of Washington, questions the justice system of another country and declares that "anti-Americanism" may have been the cause of the guilty verdict.

The problem, as with many decisions or judgments, is in understanding the definitions of terms, as well as how a differing venue can change them.  Americanism.  Acceptability.

The American-produced post-verdict analyses of Amanda Knox's trial, show Americans saying "I look at her, and it could have been me." The truth is that the rest of the world could easily be saying, with disdain, "We look at her, and we see 'typical Americans abroad.'"

Europeans have told me that many Americans seem to think of Europe as just another "theme park." A "playground" into which Americans bring their vulgar behavior, coupled with disdain for others' culture and values. Attitudinal issues are not limited to Europe alone. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times has accurately described the U.S. view of Middle Eastern countries purely as "a gas station," overlooking those countries' cultural contributions to humanity or their potential as a highly educated work force.

Before we self-righteously declare "anti-Americanism" as some sort of defense, we need to look at ourselves from others' points of view.  Is the trial of Amanda Knox revealing something about ourselves for which we may feel guilt? and for which we may actually feel some shame?

For many Americans, Knox's actions (despite the acknowledged illegality even in the U.S. of smoking dope) apparently seem "normal" or "acceptable." The assumption by Americans that other cultures would adopt an American definition of "normality" or "acceptability" reflects yet an additional deficient element of "Americanism" -- a parochial world view. Any expectation that the world should play by our rules and our values (and then crying foul when it does not) is either the most basic form of stupidity or arrogance. The crux of the matter is not whether Amanda Knox's actions are accepted at home, rather it is whether her actions were "acceptable" in her host country.

Any citizen of any country is an ambassador of their home country when abroad, in most cases traveling without diplomatic immunity. Any actions in which a person engages contribute to the image of one's home country. The collective image that evolves over time, is and will be used by others as a frame of reference for judgment. Foreigners in the U.S. are equally stereotyped by the actions of their compatriots. Have we not seen judgment of a culture be based solely on a person from that culture whom one has met or perhaps has seen as depicted only in films? Can we, ourselves, unequivocally state that such a "framework" or "profile" of a culture has not influenced a judgment of an individual in our system of justice?

As I traveled abroad, well before Amanda Knox, I often was received in terms of a stereotype of "American women," which at the time assumed promiscuity and wealth. The saga of Amanda Knox has only contributed to that image. She is guilty, even if not of other crimes, certainly in terms of contributing to that repulsive stereotype of all women in our nation.  In this she is certainly not alone: films and music videos continue to project an image of American female promiscuity.

The "Americanism" of smoking dope and having casual extramarital sex are not values that all Americans support. Do we think that any person, anywhere, would wish their children to adopt these behaviors? Yet, the American "entertainment" industry continues to export that image as being representative of "American values." "Freedom" has been redefined in terms of self-centeredness and self-gratification, without the need for responsibility for the effects of one's actions.

If that image is "Americanism," then yes, I myself feel a sentiment of "anti-Americanism." Knox is a product of a culture that allowed her to believe in the acceptability of such behavior. She has thereby contributed to a depiction of Americans that is going to make them misunderstood before they even speak or act for years and years.  Who is guilty?  Perhaps Amanda. But the fault, dear Brutus, lies not just in Amanda, but in ourselves.

Don't become a cliche, or worse, a joke

Earlier this week, Seth Godin, business author and self-proclaimed "agent of change," published a short and sweet blog about decision-making.  A former colleague called my attention to statements Godin made in that post.

We agreed that Godin's statement "'no decision' is a decision" is absolutely correct.  However, Godin over-focuses on rapidly reaching the moment of deciding.  By doing so he implies that speed in deciding, and volume of speedy decisions made, are more important than thinking in advance about robustness or implications, thereby decrying these very important aspects of good decision-making.  To ignore them is extremely hazardous (at least if we are speaking of decisions having some import). Godin's attempt to preempt such a criticism with "it's risky and painful" is simply too blasé.  In fact, urgency in decision-making for all the reasons Godin suggests has already been soundly criticized by Thomas L. Friedman in his analysis of Bush's decision to go to war.

The call to "Doooo something.  Anything!" is not a particularly level-headed approach to decision-making.  And level-headed decision-making does not require inordinate lengths of time. Godin's statements are a somewhat binary view of thinking/deciding, that seems somehow connected to timing.  Implied are:  "One has to act, and act quickly, to have meaning, to make a difference."  "Thinking wastes time."  "Never mind the consequences."

Intended or not, such statements encourage a "shoot-from-the-hip" mentality.  To deem this approach "a rare and valuable skill" is just not true.  Rare?  No, indeed.  This attitude prevails.  Why do we think the altered phrase "fire, ready, aim" to describe this behavior became an overnight cliche? And valuable?  Does increasing risk and liability ensure enhanced value?

There is no question that Godin's statements will indeed have great appeal to many managers that most of us know or have known over the years.

Its allure will not be for any deep insights, but for its applicability as justification for potentially highly damaging behavior. It appeals to a sound-byte mentality that is prevalent throughout the business world, a world that is obsessed, at least in America, with speed.  "Swift" decisions.  "Rapid" conclusions.  Speed, now with the safety net of Godin the Business Guru's statements in one's pocket, will demonstrate that the decider is not rushing blindly, but has brilliance.

There have been other sound bytes that have traversed the business world over the past decades. "The data will set you free" was bandied about to counter the approach Godin has again promoted. The term "analysis paralysis" came into being to counter the prolonged searches for data that caused paralysis.  All seem to take "a turn in the barrel" of business aphorisms. Eventually these maxims find a place in a much more insightful arena.

Imagine for a moment we hadn't read this on Seth's Blog, but in Dilbert.

Who's whiffing now?
In a BBC article about Obama and his strategy for Afghanistan, Paul Adams reports on a small anti-war protest as "a whiff of the Sixties" with "some way to go."   Unfortunately, the main subject of his article is somewhat lost as he goes on to describe "elegantly coiffured Ms. Pelosi" and her "Senate colleague, the Majority Leader Harry Reid" who "put an avuncular - perhaps even patronizing - arm around her shoulder."

Ironically, the attempt to show sexism as alive and well in Washington was made in the first half of Adam's remark. In the comparison of the two, Pelosi is described in terms of her looks, Reid by his title.

Occasionally we can expect a relapse in perspective from the now-retiring or already-retired generations who needed awakening (yes, in the Sixties) to this type of verbal patronizing of women in the news.  But Adams is young, relatively speaking.  Astonishingly, it is both males and females of his generation that are perpetuating the demeaning of women's ideas and stature through frivolous reporting.

The Sotomayor hearings, as covered in the New York Times, fell victim to this same manner of reporting. Apparently some female reporters think they are still relegated to writing articles for the Style section: Kate Phillips': "Ms. Sotomayor wore a cobalt blue pants suit, a color often worn by Hillary Rodham Clinton." Sheryl Gay Stolberg's: "her flaming red jacket" and "her manicured nails painted a pale pink."

Judgments are decisions.  Decisions need to be made with facts that are relevant. Options, and even people, should be assessed against all facts deemed relevant.  Applying criteria to only some and not to others being judged is always seen as unfair.  It is the definition of "double standard."  It is also true for descriptors that cause judgment.  Not only are the judgments questionable, but the persons putting forth the case for and against are doubted as to their ability to be fair.

These reporters do not remember that this same issue, of having two standards for judgment based on gender, was brought forth during the Sixties. Overcoming this double standard allowed women reporters to move more easily from the Style section to the front page.  Reading this type of reporting...well, it is definitely a whiff of the Sixties, if not the Fifties.

It is impressive to see the financially pinched world of non-profits offering the commercial sector some valuable, spot-on thinking expertise, as found in a commentary on how the arts are surviving this current economic crisis. I particularly resonated with the description of "crisis thinking" leading to organizations becoming "even sicker."

An economist acquaintance of mine from Europe used to remind me that economic recessions were a time of cleaning house, making things leaner and better. A time of innovation. Of finding new and better ways to survive, in the long-term.

During tough economic times, the first things to be cut in many large businesses are personnel, training and travel. Also, though not often revealed, is the fact that activities related to long-term planning, are typically postponed or dispensed with entirely. The rationalization has been that these activities are "expendable" at a time when there is "serious fire-fighting" underway "just to survive." Contrary to the sage advice I was given, this "crisis thinking" does not bode well for innovation, or becoming leaner or better. What truly are the chances for survival following multiple cycle swings if this type of thinking dominates?

Economic cycles are reality. Tough times will continue to occur. Long-term planning, if done correctly, accounts for survival during present and future tough times. Tactics pursued for immediate survival, however, don't necessarily position for the long term.

Short-term thinking, because it is a problem-solving mindset, is typically reactive. Long-term thinking incorporates both reactions and proactive actions. It can be about survival, but it is also about positioning. If one's competition maintains this long-term view, it is the competition that will be ahead at the end of each downturn, when one is only regrouping and starting to "plan again."

Therefore, critical to the decisions one makes is a perspective in terms of time. Is one judging one's options in the context of the short-term or the long-term? The simple act of framing a decision in terms of time, would elevate the quality of judgments being made. Finding solutions that satisfy the short-term as well as benefitting the long-term position are better than those serving only immediate survival. And a separate exercise to think in this manner is not required.