End of blog

My dear readers,

For much the same reason as the closure of my American Interests blog in 2009, the time has come to say goodbye ...

Without undue fanfare ...

Good bye and God bless ...

Otto

p.s. Email limk can be found on profile page

Querying Julia Gillard’s Political Identity

Well over a year on from the election that saw Julia Gillard installed as Prime Minister some remain puzzled about her political identity, her policy substances, her true ideological convictions, values and beliefs. Many elected leaders across the world subvert effective policy creation to opportunism and pragmatism, but the degree to which our Julia has done so both during her rise and, as Prime Minister defies logic and lends itself to questions of a paradoxical nature. We distinctively knew what Hawke, Keating and Howard stood for by the time they became leaders and mostly this was reflected in their policymaking during their tenure as Prime Minister. Conversely, Julia Gillard presents as a fluid, unconstructed persona, driven only by political opportunism, pragmatism and a misleading appeal to romantic sentimentalities.

Looking back, Julia Gillard was an active member, leader and editorial representative of the socialist forum. As a notable contributor, she espoused calls for totalitarian control via environmental activism, calls for re-regulating the exchange rate, a return to tariffs, reducing imports and duties on luxury goods and energy imports. Such social and economic prescriptions may appear ridiculous when appraised from a capitalist viewpoint but to the socialist who believes that the production and distribution of goods be substantially controlled by Government’s, and that private wealth generation and individual profit are dirty deeds, they are entirely proper.

Fast forward to 2012 and Julia is Prime Minister of one of the world’s top 10 capitalist economies alongside the U.S., Hong Kong and Singapore. I am willing to bet that at a sub-conscious level Julia Gillard is troubled about her political identity within a very capitalist market based economy, one defined by business, trade, monetary, fiscal, investment, financial and labour freedoms – common criteria deemed as principles of capitalism.

The PM’s uneasiness may partly explain her rhetorical genuflecting of the past few years. When for example, she addressed the U.S. Congress in early March 2011 she suddenly sounded like a Capitol Hill Hawk, a term ascribed to those who have a political stance toward aggression, by diplomatic and ultimately military means, against others to improve the standing of their own government, country, or organization. Whereas just a few years earlier she was akin to a peacenik dove which alludes to the more peaceful dove or Pacifism.

“You have an ally in Australia … An ally for war, peace, our values are shared, and our people are friends …” she told Congress.

While recalling her opposition to John Howard when he chose to support the U.S. in its response to 9/11 and, the war on terror, consider if you will, a few more lines from her address.

Your darkest days since Pearl Harbour were 10 years ago in Washington and New York.

And we were with you.

My predecessor John Howard was quite literally with you and he came to this Capitol when you met on September 12 to show you that Australians would be with you again.

And after 50 years, under a new prime minister and a new president, the ANZUS Treaty was invoked.

Within Australia's democracy, John Howard and I had our differences. But he was and is an Australian patriot and an American friend, a man who was moved by what he saw here in that terrible September.

When John Howard addressed you in 2002 we were already with you in Afghanistan.

And we are there with you today.

I want you to know what I have told Australia's Parliament in Canberra - what I told General Petraeus in Kabul - what I told President Obama in the Oval Office this week.

Australia will stand firm with our ally the United States.

Did I mention that Ms Gillard as a paid member of the Socialist Forum also played a role in drafting its constitution and amongst the proposals was a suggestion that the ANZUS treaty be scrapped.

During her address to Congress, the PM added that America – champion of capitalism – was indispensable to maintaining world order now and in future. As impressive and true as this is, how does it measure up with her socialist past?

Other inconsistencies leave us shaking our heads, like the moment she painted herself as a social conservative who defended the Bible even though she remains atheist. When interviewed on Sky News earlier in the year she baffled some by referring to herself as a “cultural traditionalist” who respects family values and, like Tony Abbott sees a place for the bible and its teachings within the national curriculum. This is interesting because during her time as Education Minister in the Rudd Government, the ALP influenced History and English curriculum fails to mention the bible. Once again, we ponder about whether she is being honest with the electorate about her views.

We continue to muse at her evolving self because our culturally traditional PM also described herself as a “socialist and feminist” in 1985.

It gets even more perplexing when we consider the PM’s address to the Sydney Institute in 2003. During her speech, she attacked John Howard in no uncertain terms, portraying him as a neoconservative whose social opinions were fuelled by “bile and venom”. Then a few short years later John Howard was again vilified for promoting social norms that were, according to Gillard premised on “unfairness, division and exclusion”. Here she was referring to his stance on gay marriage and euthanasia but forward to 2011 and she too, argues that marriage must be between a man and woman and that euthanasia is wrong. Thus when it suits, she embraces the very same views she attacked her Liberal Party predecessor for.

Julia Gillard can only blame herself for any electoral confusion about the “real Julia” Think about it, she came to the fore from the hard left and then exceeded Menzies, Hawke and Howard in her praise of America before the U.S. House of Representatives as only one of four Australian Prime Ministers to address the Congress. Moreover, how we chuckled when during that address she heaped praise on John Howard.

One wonders how an experienced HR recruiter would view a curriculum vitae that indicated a general disposition for American exceptionalism and all that this stands for in “war and peace”, the virtues of capitalism and elements of conservatism coupled with an active and professional history of embracing Socialism and Progressive values. Such unconcealed inconsistencies cannot and should not, go unnoticed.

For the Prime Minister, the window of opportunity has firmly closed. Julia Gillard remains an unknown quantity with Australian voters, and political pundits alike however, and as I alluded to earlier, I remain convinced she is one of the left at core. Therefore, she was in the least, insincere to the U.S. Congress and our voting public. More significantly and sadly, she appears to continue publically betraying herself.

Australian Politics 2012: A Sad State of Affairs

Newspoll, Neilson, Galaxy, Essential and the Morgan Gallop polls keep humming and each will show further erosion of the ALP vote until such time that Rudd is roused, indeed called upon …

Image courtesy of http://www.theage.com.au/

I was at the local shops this afternoon and overheard a couple of older women discussing Rudd and Gillard and, what they referred to as, “the sad state of Australian politics”. They said much, however it was two lines in particular that caught my attention, “Australian politics has never been here” and “even if Julia wins tomorrow Kevin will not leave her at peace”.

They hit the nail on the head as contrary to anything defenders within the Labor camp might say about the Peacock/Howard rivalries of the eighties and before them, Gorton / McMahon in the seventies nothing compares to the slinging match being played out in Canberra this week.

Australian politics is in new territory with the behaviour, antics of many of the most senior members of the federal Labor caucus having all but ratified the sick state of affairs permeating the party, and not a thing will change when Julia Gillard wins the caucus ballot on Monday.

Moreover, on the question of peace post the ballot, it is not going to happen. Julia will win and Rudd will go to the backbench and the issues will keep bubbling along. Newspoll, Neilson, Galaxy, Essential and the Morgan Gallop polls keep humming and each will show further erosion of the ALP vote until such time that Rudd is roused, indeed called upon, to challenge again and so the soap opera within Labor continues.

A sad state of affairs for what once was a progressive political force in this country even though it is far removed from my own ideals.

My concern is that it leads to vanity and other unhealthy forms of arrogance amongst Liberal party ranks thus, I say to members of the Party of which I am a proud member and especially Tony Abbott and his senior team beware the hubris bug. Labor is imploding but the Australian electorate is fickle and polls can do a 180-degree turn in the blink of an eye.

On tomorrow’s Labor caucus my prediction is: 

Rudd 37, Gillard 66

Worst case for Rudd: 27 – 76
Best case for Rudd: 45 – 58

Either result he loses or does he?

Update

Rudd strategist doesn't rule out another challenge down the track   

But one reflection on Tony Abbott's Press Club Speech

Tax cuts by the end of a first term, dental care within the Medicare safety net and closer government ties with the aboriginal community were just some of the highlights of Tony Abbott’s speech to the Canberra press gallery today.

Not surprisingly, Government frontbencher Bill Shorten labelled the speech a “diatribe of negativity” and “This is like groundhog day for Dr No”. But while it’s all too easy to suggest that Abbott is obstructionist and/or negative we need to understand that the job of the opposition and it’s leader is to hold the government of the day to account. I also feel compelled to address the hordes that suggest the speech lacked the required minutiae to warrant serious deliberation. Recall, Abbott and his senior staff have repeatedly said that they do NOT intend to reveal the full Coalition policy package and associated cost accounting ahead of the next federal election. Now if this hasn't sunk yet, read the last sentence again.

Central to his economic vision is getting government spending under control, lifting productivity to moderate borrowing and take indirect pressure off rates resulting in a reduced tax burden.

Also noteworthy was Tony Abbott's commitment to a National Disability Insurance Scheme. Here Shadow Minister for Disabilites, Carers and the Voluntary Sector, Senator Mitch Fifield has a few words to add.

Today Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott delivered a speech to the National Press Club in Canberra, in which he reiterated that a National Disability Insurance Scheme will be a priority for a Coalition Government.

I have attached his speech for your information, with the relevant section highlighted. He said in his speech:

“After all, the measure of a decent society is how it looks after its most vulnerable members".

Once the budget is strongly back in surplus, our aim is to provide the additional services that Australians yearn for but know can’t be built on debt. To be sustainable they have to be the social dividend of a strong economy.

The coalition strongly supports the Productivity Commission’s recommendation for a disability insurance scheme but, with an estimated price tag of $6 billion a year (roughly equal to the Commonwealth’s current interest bill) this important and necessary reform can’t fully be implemented until the budget returns to strong surplus.

It’s one of the reasons why it’s so important to return to surplus quickly. And it’s not the only important social initiative that would become deliverable once the budget is back in the black.”

Tony also responded to a question from a journalist regarding the NDIS, saying:

“There is a process which the current government has announced, and which the Coalition supports. There’s a scoping study currently underway. There are various studies and work being undertaken by the Council of Australian Governments, because this does have to involve both the states and the commonwealth, and let’s wait and see what comes out of that process. I think this is an important and necessary reform. I think it really is a test of our quality as a society - what we can do more and better for people with disabilities. But we do have to accept that in the end, everything has got to be paid for, and it would be so much easier to pay for important and necessary reforms like disability insurance if we didn’t have the waste and extravagance which we’ve seen almost every day from the current government.”

It should be noted that the current Government have not allocated a single new dollar to an NDIS over the forward estimates.

Regards

Senator Mitch Fifield

SHADOW MINISTER FOR DISABILITIES, CARERS AND THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR
MANAGER OF OPPOSITION BUSINESS IN THE SENATE
Senator for Victoria
Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Tel 02 6277 3666 Fax 02 6277 5758
42 Florence Street Mentone VIC 3194 Tel 03 9584 2455 Fax 03 9584 8347
www.mitchfifield.com| www.youtube.com/senatorfifield

Once again, today’s speech was designed only to communicate a broad vision, this was no secret.

As a final point it was no surprise that Channel 7's Mark Reilly put the hard question to Abbott:

Mark Riley, Seven Network. Mr Abbott, thanks very much for your address. I just want to take to your part of it… take you to a part of it where you talk about the Medicare-funded dentistry at $4 billion a year being an aspiration and not a commitment. People, I think, at the moment are finding it hard to believe government commitments. How can they believe in aspiration of $4 billion a year? It doesn’t just mean it’s unaffordable or is this a new way of ensuring that you can’t be held accountable for breaking a promise, you just don’t make it in the first place? But one promise that you have held there is the paid parental leave scheme in saying that you’re going to lower taxes and that business is doing it so tough. Why is it the right time for business to be hit with a $2.7 billion new tax?

Let's compare this to his question to Julia at her last Press Club address:

I think a few of us have been reflecting on this in the last few weeks and certainly in the last couple of days, very sharply, on our responsibilities. When we see a gentleman in Gladstone trying to encourage people to take up arms against the government, a woman in Melbourne being shoved out of a public meeting and harassed down the street to tears, you confronted in a shopping centre by people screaming and Liberal Party members calling you liar and then a radio station coming here and broadcasting all day on the first day back of Parliament to whip climate change opposers into a frenzy. How do you see our responsibility and the way that we should be reporting this matter?

It's clear it wasn't so much a question as an attempt by a Canberra journalist to prop up Gillard.

Pleasing it was to see Abbott's response to Reilly draw some laughter today.

Tony Abbott:

Thank you Mark for that question and it is good to see that the tough questions are being asked here at the Press Club, particularly by you ...

Unlike some 12 months ago, when Reilly literally ambushed the Opposition leader this time around Abbott did not come close to punching a journo in the gob. Recall my views on Seven's shame and Mark Reilly here ...

For those wishing to read Tony Abbotts entire speech to the press gallery click here.

Thank you Fairfax, ALP Spinners, The ABC, & wider mainstream for brilliantly elevating Tony Abbotts profile …

Via its overzealous media cohorts they – ALP spinsters – did quite nearly, pull it off by blaming it all on Tony Abbott … How perfectly shameful … Bolt sums it well in his Sunday post: 

And Labor nearly got away with it      

Here it is, Bolt’s post in its entirety, I feel certain Andrew would mind it’s reproduction here.

And Julia Gillard’s spinners nearly got away with painting Tony Abbott as the racist responsible for the riot they themselves had helped to create.

Opposition frontbencher Christopher Pyne:

We know that the Prime Minister’s press group were in the gallery on Thursday afternoon, telling journalists that Tony Abbott had been responsible for this riot.

No shame at all.

Professor Bunyip knows how close Labor came to setting the willing media dogs onto Abbott:


Lies being her stock in trade, Gillard’s non-explanation explanation at her Saturday afternoon press conference was suspect from the very instant that spigot of falsehood beneath the Pinocchio nose began to drip. Several hours later, Kim Sattler, directly contradicted the woman on behalf of whose office she sped to Humpytown with word of Tony Abbott’s incendiary racism.

That mad dash is what reporters should be seeking to have explained today. It is the only question, the hinge on which the door to the race riot’s disgrace swung open and the genesis of Team Gillard’s confident whispers in the immediate aftermath of her evactuation that ultimate blame could be pinned on none but Abbott.

That wasn’t true and Gillard’s paid liars knew it. Had it not been for Ray Hadley baring the truth on talkback radio—is it any wonder luvvies hate the medium so?—the strategy would by now be proceeding apace. Today’s papers would be larded with reflections on the Opposition leader’s divisive personality, his contempt for reconciliation, the intemperance of his rhetoric and, inevitably, how the riot was the predictable second chapter in the chronicle of incitement first opened at the carbon tax protests.

By Tuesday, tertiary slurs would have been slathered over news pages and opinion columns. Not just Aborigines, but women, refugees, trees and enlightened rationality itself would be presented as the targets in Abbott’s alleged crosshairs. Now the toadies are scrambling, frantic to find a narrative which re-channels the flow of commentary and reporting onto safer ground.

How depressingly, frighteningly true.

Indeed, see how many media outlets ran Labor’s “Abbott to blame” line, some even after it was clear that Abbott had been verballed and that if any political figures were to blame for inciting the riot, they were Gillard’s own staff.

The ABC yesterday:

Aboriginal Tent Embassy activists had rushed to a restaurant in Canberra after one of the protesters told them Mr Abbott was inside. They were enraged by remarks Mr Abbott had made earlier that day.

Sky News:

A PROTEST by indigenous people who were unhappy about calls by Tony Abbott to close down the Aboriginal tent embassy . . .

Yahoo! 7 News:

TIME for tent embassy to fold: Abbott.

The Advertiser:

They were incensed by comments by Mr Abbott that it was time the makeshift embassy was wound up.

Crikey:

Australia Day turned ugly in Canberra yesterday after comments by Tony Abbott incited Aboriginal Tent Embassy activists to protest ...

Ten news:

The protest was launched by Aborigines from the nearby Aboriginal Tent Embassy, sparked by Tony Abbott who said the embassy now in its 40th year, should be shut down.

The protesters:

Protest spokesman Mark McMurtrie this morning blamed Mr Abbott for inciting the crowd...

And among the most shameful, Alan Moir of the Sydney Morning Herald:

If Tony Hodges’ role in the riot had not been revelaed, he would have succeeded in making Abbott seem divisive, anti-Aboriginal and a danger to community harmony. Or so much of the media would have said.

Hodges would be a hero to his troops. A PR genius.

Yet now that the truth is out, he’s sacked and disowned. Just working on his own, we’re told

And the media? Not a sorry said to Abbott. And from the ABC and the Fairfax media, a profound uninterest in blaming guilty Labor for a race riot which they were so keen to pin on the innocent Abbott.

As Bunhyip so fittingly advocates: We most certainly need an election now

I found the following words from Bob Carr most appropriate:

I agree with Tony Abbott and think his remarks entirely sensible. The tent embassy in Canberra says nothing to anyone and should have been quietly packed up years ago. The “activists” who run it would be better off investing time in youth programs in indigenous communities. Every government in Australia is aware of its responsibilities to Aboriginal Australians. The debate is how you narrow the gap not whether you should and the debate is as serious within the Aboriginal community as between it and the white.

Anyway here we have again the bankruptcy of the old Leftist approach: throw a demo. Every time some respectable body does this – the ACTU or Unions NSW or a pro-refugee group – the same thing happens: on the street the extremists take over. The Trots love a blue, “the worse things are the better they are” and by radicalizing everyone and breaking heads it all hastens the World October, onto revolution, comrades.

Don’t look for logic.

Read the rest here

To gain a better understanding of my perspective try these quick links:

The Mistake of the PM’s Staffer: The Myth of the “Demo”

Journalism by numbers

It all makes for the grubbiest of politics but in this instance, to Tony Abbotts advantage ...Thanks again Trotskyists, Anarchists, Marxists and more generally, leftist simpletons ...

Metro Trains Melbourne

My employer made news earlier in the year for all the wrong reasons. The headlines were damning, not only for Metro and its CEO Andrew Lezala, but also for the State Government because, try as it might, it can never divorce itself from Melbourne’s railways. More specifically, The Hon Terry Mulder will be committing political suicide if strategy resorts to merely accepting that Metro and train unions will sort things out. After all, the Transport Ministers job is well defined:

As Minister for Public Transport, Mr Mulder oversees the effective delivery and management of Victoria's public transport services.

Recall former Minister of Transport Lynne Kosky's greatest mistake was to think that Connex would sort its own, well, the rest is history.

When MTR successfully bid to run Melbourne's trains in 2009, it understandably used its overseas record of accomplishment as inspiration for rebuilding Melbourne’s system, but has it gone right yet?

Essentially, it is nothing new, Victorian political culture, old guard bureaucracy, and above all, the … (I dare not write it) have all but guaranteed that Metro will struggle to implement the change it seeks to improve our metropolitan train system.

I suspect that past events covered in the media about slow drivers may escalate further before resulting in a “band aid” fix of sorts; hence, the underlying or root cause of Metro’s problems will remain; hindrances that have little to do with infrastructure, timetable and train maintenance issues.

As I wrote here, and in relation to what is truly amiss with our train system, I point you to an insightful piece taken from The Age on January 22, Taken for a ride: how Metro 'inherited a dog.

This article revealed the core problems of our metropolitan train services. It would be a brave person, be it the CEO, a politician or uncommon bureaucrat that attempts to tackle such issues directly, nonetheless it can be done.

Given the Hong Kong-based consortium's successful overseas record, if MTR cannot provide Melbournians with a better metropolitan rail network, then it is accurate to suggest that there is something fundamentally wrong with our system but more concerning, is that it appears nobody is willing, or able to address it.

I hasten to add, why might I have linked this blog entry to the collectivism, individualism and more significantly the ___________ labels?

UPDATE

Is Metro trying to compromise passenger safety by relaxing safety rules pertaining to the running of trains? On the bases of another recent article in The Age, one would think so.

Take the poll question that accompanies the article: Would you feel safe travelling on trains if Metro changed the fault-reporting criteria? Now let’s be clear, this question is calculating and represents a form of classic cognitive favouritism known as response bias due to the wording of the question. That's why it is hardly extraordinary that a question which reads, “Would you feel safe travelling on trains if Metro changed the fault-reporting criteria?” would yield the response it has, as 59% answered no compared to 41% with a yes.

So is Metro trains Melbourne really attempting to relax safety standards in a manner that compromises passenger safety? The straightforward answer is no, more accurately, Metro is engaging in common sense risk management designed to raise the operating efficiency of our metropolitan rail network.

Should senior managers at Metro be made to feel culpable for seeking greater efficiency? The piece seems to suggest that they should and this is wrong. The 4 faults cited as examples, while not minor would hardly be tantamount to “critical” in terms of train running.

The articles author, Clay Lucas, would be advised to interview Metro and seek their logic for the proposed changes to existing fault reporting systems. Or otherwise, the latter should put out its own press release detailing their argument.

On present course, Metro is losing the PR battle and needless to add, its spokespeople need to up the ante.

Up the ante you ask? Yes, take for example an email I received not so long ago from Aliyah Stotyn, who is unknown to me but apparently claims to understand me. He wrote:

My name's Aliyah and I'm a Journalism student writing a feature article on Metro Trains Melbourne.

The focus of my article is basically an exposé on Andrew Lezala's false accusations on train drivers, so I'm trying to get information on other things MTM are doing like tracking drivers work phones whilst on sick leave, and anything else I can find.

I stumbled across your blog and I was wondering if it would be possible to meet up for a chat when you're free?

I understand that drivers are bound by Metro's contract not to speak to the media regarding Metro matters, so if you prefer you can remain totally anonymous.

My interest is only in having the drivers' voices heard so that the public aren't brainwashed by Metro's accusations.

Even if you prefer not to meet, an email interview would be fine too.

Let me know A.S.A.P.

Cheers,
Aliyah S.

You will agree that the email was not exactly partisan to the interests of senior Metro Trains Management. Needless to add, my being bound to my companies directions prevented me from replying to the email, even though I would have had much to say. The line, "My interest is only in having the drivers' voices heard so that the public aren't brainwashed by Metro's accusations" is telling, and indicates that the author has concluded that Metro is the enemy.

This is clearly representative of the challenge facing Metro's media liaison team.

Elements of Leadership ... and Management

Recently I had a friend over who just happens to be the Group General Manager of a medium sized national company. During the ensuing discussions, we ventured down the path of critical management appraisal from a practical point of view. He was having some challenges, which obviously cannot be disclosed, and though definitive solutions evaded both of us, we both took heart from ideas generated by our general discussion of both management and its important cousin, leadership.

In today’s workplace, management per se, means so much more than simply giving directives in accordance with the rules of the organisation, it may have worked yesteryear but not so today. Contemporary management though perpetually evolving, entails the creative, as well as a systematic flow of knowledge that can be applied to produce results by using human as well as other resources in an effective way. Management is no longer limited to managing human resource; today, it encompasses financial management, strategic management, operations management, time management, crisis management, and in some cases, marketing management. Little wonder leadership comes into play.

Accordingly, for today’s progressive organisation, management has become increasingly important for developing and executing business policies and strategies to maximize profits or, in the case of service centred organisations, service excellence through a complex process that engages the direction of subordinates in order to adhere to a set of prescribed rules, systems and/ regulations.

At first, my friend failed to grasp the relevance or our broadly based discussion as did I however, by evenings ends he, more than I felt energised to explore different avenues for addressing the business challenges that lay before him.

During the exchange, reference was made to a 1999 article I posted on my original personal website on the subject of leadership. To my surprise; its content was also the subject of a recent meeting at my friends workplace.

The following day, I revisited the article myself and found it as interesting today as when I initially penned it in 1999. Thus, given it is no longer online, I want to share it on this site and hope that its astuteness will resonate with readers today just as it continues to do so with me all these years later.

Enjoy the learning and do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Otto Marasco

Elements of Leadership - "Calling all Current and Aspiring Leaders...Managers...Listen Up"!

In just over 21 years, I have worked in numerous roles across several industries. To be perfectly candid I have come across some very poor managers and the odd exceptional one. What roles you ask? There was Sales Consultant, Manager, 2IC, Territory Manager, Business Development Consultant, Advertising Representative, Shop Proprietor, Staff Training Advisor, State coordinator - Cellular Phones and not forgetting plain old (and hackneyed) Sales Representative role.

The industries included Retail, Government, Print Media, HR and currently Public Transport.

Incidentally, I feel compelled to point out that Management and Leadership are not the same, management says, "What can I/we do to best accomplish things, whilst Leadership says, "What needs to be accomplished"? If you want to explore this further yourself, check out chapter two, sub-heading ‘Leadership and management - The two creations in Stephen Covey's, "7 Habits of Highly Effective People.

Moving on, several years ago someone (I honestly cannot recall whom) handed me an article on the Leadership subject. Now being an avid sort of reader, I think oh yea yet another path down "Drake Review" lane. However, this was different, a treasure in fact. It was written by Dr. Oren Harari whom (I had since found out) was a public speaker, business consultant and professor at the University of San Francisco.

In the piece, the author presents lessons derived directly from Colin Powell's book "My American Journey". For those who do not know, Colin Powell is both a former U.S. General and Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs (Late 1980's -Early 1990's) and most recently (December 2000) appointed as the next Secretary of State replacing Madeleine Albright. In the context of its subject - Effective Leadership, Ms. Harari refers to Mr. Powell's work as "marvellous" and "a gem of wisdom". Readers are able to share the former General's advice presented in the form of quotations from the book after which she provides commentary. There are 18 lessons of which I will introduce you to my favourites. I present each exactly as written by the articles author; for me this is not a writing exercise, I simply wish to deliver a message and the good professor delivers it superlatively.

Management and leadership lesson 1

"Being responsible sometimes means pissing people off."

Good leadership involves responsibility to the welfare of the group, which means that some people will get angry at your actions and decisions. It's inevitable - if your honourable. Trying to get everyone to like you is a sign of mediocrity: You will avoid the tough decisions, you will avoid confronting the people that need to be confronted, and you will avoid offering differential rewards based on differential performance because some people might get upset. Ironically, by procrastinating on the difficult choices, by trying not to get anyone mad, and treating everyone equally nice regardless of their contributions , you will simply ensure that the only people you wind up are the most creative and productive in the organization.

Management and leadership lesson 2

"The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help them or concluded that you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership."

If this were a litmus test the majority of CEO's would fail. One, they build so many barriers to upward communication that the very idea of someone lower in the hierarchy looking up to the leader for help is ludicrous. Secondly, the corporate culture they foster often defines asking for help as weakness or failure, so people cover up their gaps, and the organization suffers accordingly. Real leaders make themselves available. They show concern for the efforts and challenges faced by underlings - even as they demand high standards, Accordingly, they are more likely to create an environment where problem analysis replaces blame.

Management and leadership lesson 3

"Don't be afraid to challenge the pros, even in their own backyard".

Learn from the pros, observe them, seek them out as mentors and partners. But remember that even the pros may have levelled out in terms of skills and learning. Sometimes even the pros can become complacent and lazy. Leadership does not emerge from blind obedience to anyone. Xerox's Barry Rand was right on target when he warned his people that if you have a yes man working for you, one of you is redundant, Good leadership encourages everyone's evolution.

Management and leadership lesson 4

"You don't know what you can get away with until you try."

Good leaders don't wait for official blessings before trying things out. They're prudent not reckless. But they also realize a fact of life in most organizations: If you ask enough people for permission, you will inevitably find someone who thinks his job is to say "no." The moral is, do not ask. Less effective managers endorsed the sentiment , "If I have not explicitly been told yes, I cannot do it, whereas good one's believed "If I have not explicitly been told no, I can. There's a world of difference between these two points of view.

Management and leadership lesson 5

"Keep looking beneath surface appearances. Don't shrink from doing so because you might not like what you find."

"If it isn't broke don't fix it" is the slogan of the complacent , the arrogant or the scared. It's an excuse for inaction, a call to non -arms. It's a mind-set that assumes that today's realities will continue tomorrow in a tidy, linear and predictable fashion. Pure fantasy. In this sort of culture, you won't find people who proactively take steps to solve problems as they emerge.

Management and leadership lesson 6

"Organization doesn't really accomplish anything. Plans don't accomplish anything, either. Theories of management don't much matter. Endeavours succeed or fail because of the people involved. Only by attracting the best people will you accomplish great things."

In a brain based economy, your best assets are your people. We've heard this expression so often that it's become trite. But how many leaders really "walk the talk" with this stuff? Too often, people are assumed to be empty chess pieces to be moved around by grand viziers, which may explain why so many top managers immerse their calendar time in deal making, restructuring and the latest management fad. How many (Leaders) immerse themselves in the goal of creating an environment where the best, the brightest, the most creative are attracted, retained and - most importantly - unleashed?

Management and leadership lesson 7

"Organization charts and fancy titles count for next to nothing".

Organization charts are frozen, anachronistic photos in a workplace that ought to be as dynamic as the external environment around you. If people really followed organization charts, companies would collapse. In a well run company, titles are also pretty meaningless. At best, they advertise some authority - an official status confirming the ability to give orders and induce obedience. But titles mean little in terms of real power, which is the capacity to influence and inspire. Have you ever noticed that people will personally commit to certain individuals who on paper possess little authority - but instead possess pizzazz, drive, expertise and genuine caring for team-mates and products? On the flip side non-leaders have little influence on others, apart from heir ability to extract minimal compliance to minimal standards.

Management and leadership lesson 8

"Never let your ego get so close to your position that when your position goes, your ego goes with it".

"To often, change is stifled by people who cling to familiar turfs and job descriptions. One reason that even large organizations wither is that managers won't challenge old, comfortable ways of doing things. But real leaders understand that, nowadays, every one of our jobs is becoming obsolete. The proper response is to obsolete our activities before someone else does. Effective leaders create a climate where people's worth is determined by their willingness to learn new skills and grab new responsibilities, thus perpetually reinventing their jobs.

Management and leadership lesson 9

"Fit no stereotypes. Don't chase the latest management fads. The situation dictates which approach best accomplishes the team's mission."

Fitting from fad to fad creates team confusion, reduces the leaders credibility and drains the organizations coffers. Blindly following a particular fad generates rigidity in thought and action. Sometimes speed to market is more important then total quality. Sometimes an unapologetic directive is more appropriate than participatory discussion. To quote Powell, some situations require the leader to hover closely; others require long, loose leashes. Leaders honour their core values, but they are flexible in how they execute them. They understand that management techniques are not magic mantras but simply tools to be reached for at the right times.

Management and leadership lesson 10

"Perpetual optimism is a force multiplier."

The ripple effect of a leaders enthusiasm and optimism is awesome. So is the impact of cynicism and pessimism. Leaders who whine and blame engender those same behaviours among their colleagues. I am not talking about stoically accepting organizational stupidity and performance incompetence with a "what, me worry?" smile. I am talking about a gung ho attitude that says " we can change things here, we can achieve awesome goals, we can be the best. Spare me the grim litany of the realist; give me the unrealistic aspirations of the optimist any day.

Management and leadership lesson 11

"Powell's Rules for Picking People"

Look for intelligence and judgment and , most critically, a capacity to anticipate, to see around corners. also look for loyalty, integrity, a high energy drive, a balanced ego and the drive to get things done."

How often do our recruitment and hiring processes tap into these attributes? More often than not, we ignore them in favour of length of resume, degrees and prior titles. A string of job descriptions a recruit held yesterday seem to be more important than who one is today, what she can contribute tomorrow or how well his values mesh with those of the organization. You can train a bright, willing novice in the fundamentals of your business fairly readily, but its a lot harder to train someone to have integrity, judgment, energy, balance and the drive to get things done. Good leaders stack the deck in their favour right in the recruitment phase.

Management and leadership lesson 12

Part 1: "Use the P=40 to 70, in which P stands for the probability of success and the numbers indicate the percentage of information required."
Part 2: "Once the information is in the 40 to 70 range, go with your gut."

Powell's advice is don't take action if you have only enough information to give you less than a 40% chance of being right, but don't wait until you have enough facts to be 100% sure, because by then it is almost too late. His instinct is right:
TODAY, EXCESSIVE DELAYS IN THE NAME OF INFORMATION GATHERING BREEDS "ANALYSIS PARALYSIS".
Procrastination in the name of reducing risk actually increases risk.

Management and leadership lesson 13

Have fun in command. Don’t always run at breakneck speed. Take leave when you've earned it: Spend time with your families. "Corollary: "Surround yourself with people who take their work seriously, but not themselves, those who work hard and play."

The late Anita Roddick of The Body Shop would agree:

Seek people who have some balance in their lives, who are fun to hang out with, who like to laugh at themselves and who have some non-job priorities that they approach with the same passion that they do their work. Spare me the grim workaholic or the pompous "professional"; I will help them find jobs with my competitor.

Copyright © 1999 Otto Marasco all rights reserved

Julia Gillard will be our Prime Minister at next election: Rudd

I firmly believe Julia is still in lots of trouble but this should ease some nerves, albeit temporarily.

Noboby should be in doubt about who will lead the Labor Party to the next election says Kevin Rudd. In a statement that should provide some provisional and much needed respite to Julia Gillard, the Foreign Minister firmly rejected any suggestion that he was once again seeking the Prime Minister’s job. Julia Gillard being one of the toughest women in politics will continue to lead us effectively with the full, unconditional and unequivocal support of the caucus, Mr Rudd told reporters this afternoon. Rudd joins other past and present Labor figures including Wayne Swan, Chris Bowen, Peter Garrett, Bob Carr, Peter Beattie and Bill Shorten who have previously publically backed Julia Gillard.

Now moreover, if you believe anything you have just read you will believe anything … OJ

Image of the Week - Malaysia Asylum Seeker Deal

No postscript necessary

Was Germany’s Nuclear Power Decision Hasty?

Fukushima certainly raised alarm bells in Germany, so much so that they have declared to phase out nuclear power altogether by 2022. Given that in the West power consumption continues to rise and, given also the concern about CO2 emissions one is compelled to ask, did the Germans think this through?

They have done well to reduce emissions since Kyoto, but what will replace energy production after 2022? As Dina Esfandiary explains below, ending nuclear power so soon is bad news for the environment.

Germany Says Goodbye Nuclear

Dina Esfandiary is a Research Analyst and Project Coordinator within the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Programme at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).

The triple meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear power plant has caused many governments to re-examine their own nuclear power programmes - not simply to ensure their plants’ safety, but to ask whether nuclear power in general is a safe source of energy. Two European countries have declared that they now plan to phase out their nuclear plants altogether: Germany by 2022 and Switzerland by 2034. Fukushima was a terrible event, but eliminating nuclear power is a knee-jerk response – and the wrong one.

Our energy consumption is on the increase, and the power has to come from somewhere. In Germany and Switzerland, nuclear power accounts for 33% and 40% of supply respectively. It is worth asking ourselves: if we stop using nuclear power, where will we get it from?

Renewable energy sources will not fill the gap any time soon. Yes, the accompanying initiative for the development of other renewable sources of energy is a good one, but installing the infrastructure for it will take time and money. At the moment, despite investments in wind power, turbines only produce 3% of Germany’s energy needs. A spokesperson for Lenz Energy in Berlin said: “If the (German) nuclear plants are missing, solar power can compensate for some of it but the question is can renewables really cope with all scenarios?" Energy produced from existing renewable technologies is also difficult to store, and provides a less reliable flow of energy. This means that more energy needs to be generated to account for the potential spikes in demand from the same number of consumers.

So what will fill the gap? Coal and possibly gas. Germany, famous for its efforts in implementing the Kyoto Protocol and aiming to reduce emissions by 40% by 2020, will undo much of its commendable work when it abandons nuclear power. Although the natural gas market has developed recently, it is still expensive and more importantly, a fossil fuel, which will not help reduce emissions. According to the Executive Director of the International Energy Agency, Nobuo Tanaka, gas is not a “panacea for climate change”. In the short term, Germany’s energy needs can only be met by a greater reliance on coal, which already accounts for about half of its energy supply. One industry professional explained that “In a year, in Germany we save 170 million tonnes of CO2 by using nuclear power plants. If we shut down the nuclear power plants, the only alternative is coal."

Germany will try to avoid an over-reliance on coal by importing its energy from abroad. In March 2011, electricity imports from its neighbours France and the Czech Republic doubled, and exports slowed considerably. According to the German Association of Energy and Water Industries, Germany now imports approximately 50 gigawatt hours (the capacity equivalent to one-and-a-half nuclear reactors) a day from both countries.

How do these countries produce their electricity? Both are nuclear-reliant: France produces about 75% of its energy by nuclear power, while the Czech Republic produces a little less than 40%. Should an accident occur in either of these countries, the effects of radiation would be unlikely to stop at their borders. Depending on the direction of the winds, both Germany and Switzerland could expect to be affected by radioactivity from such a disaster, as would the rest of Europe.

Fukushima was a terrible disaster, one that was caused by the force of nature disrupting power to the plant and impeding its cooling system. That is not likely in Europe where plants are built in areas that are much more tectonically stable. In the wake of Fukushima, ensuring a constant flow of power and cooling water to the power plants should be investigated. Nuclear accidents are terrible, because they are destructive, sudden, and scary. But rather than abruptly ending programmes that have been heavily invested in, governments should further secure them by updating plants and working with the IAEA to ensure that safety standards are implemented and respected. Bringing nuclear power to an end is bad for the environment, bad for energy security and bad economics.

The original version of this post was featured in french, in Le Temps.

The article above appeared at Pnyx ... a forum for comment on global security and politics. It aims to provide concise and productive insight, and focuses on a broad range of issues which reflect the research interests of the contributors.

What about Australia?

As a case in point, France with a population five times that of Australia emits less CO2 than us Australians. The reason is simple as it uses nuclear power to meet its electricity demands. Now given that 36% of Australia’s emissions are generated by producing electricity it might be time we at least begin talking; debating the nuclear option.

Click here and here and here for my previous posts about nuclear power.

Bob Brown's World Government

From the Institute of Public Affairs

Bob Brown's global 'people's assembly' continues to intrigue. There's soon to be 7 billion people in the world.

Brown says it should be 'one person, one vote, one value'. So if 10 million people each got a representative in a 700 member world parliament the votes would look like this:

Are you laughing yet? Well don't, apparantly they're serious about it.

Imagine if you will the parliament, it would probably resemble the galactic senate in Revenge of the Sith ...

Wonder what other silly thoughts our tax on breathing Bob harbours?

Tweet

A warning for the United States

From A Breitbart's Big Government site:

British MEP Daniel Hannan, who gained international recognition several years ago for his passionate denunciation of Keynesian economics in general and then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown in particular, visited The Heritage Foundation last week to discuss his new book. Provocatively titled “The New Road to Serfdom: A Letter of Warning to America”, it does not disappoint. Armed with firsthand experience with the failures of socialism in Europe, Hannan’s message to America is simple: Don’t repeat our mistakes.

Before his speech, he sat down with Heritage for an “In The Green Room” interview to discuss his warning to America. But despite Hannan’s deep concerns, he was clear that we have not yet reached the tipping point and remained optimistic that Americans can right the ship.

With a nod to the Tea Party, Hannan said, “The policies being pursued by this Administration all trend in that direction—European healthcare, European social security, European defense, European green taxes—but these things are reversible. … And from what I can tell looking at this country, you are doing something about it.”

Quality of Life thanks to Economic Freedom

The Charles Koch Foundation has released a great video that underscores the importance of economic freedom. Milton Friedman long-ago argued that, without economic freedom, all other freedoms are vulnerable.

Plain packaging for cigarettes: Which company would stand for this?

Think about it...

The ad reads:

The Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill could destroy brands that are worth millions, if not billions, of dollars.

No company would stand for having its brands taken away and we’re no different. And it may infringe international trademark and intellectual property law.

The (Australian) Government could also end up spending millions in legal fees defending and idea unproven anywhere in the world.

Don’t let the taxpayer foot the bill for a bad bill.

Plainpack.com

Plain packaging is going too far!

Kevin Rudd will survive

I think I'd better rouse my Rudd watch label ...



Does anyone know anyone who was invited to Rudd's assassination anniversary party?

Australian efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are superfluous

$20 – 25 per tonne does it matter? There are several factors that will see our efforts to cool the globe become completely superfluous. What you ask? Is that why we’re doing it? Yes, we are taxing Carbon as part of an effort to cool the world by a factor of 0.00 “something” per cent by 2100. You have heard it before; that Australia emits zilch Carbon by world standards and this is true. Permit me, in non-technical language to provide reasons why that “zilch” will become even more insignificant, with the passage of time.

The economic poles are reverting back to pre industrial revolution positions, out with Europe in with China and India - the East. In 20 short years, these two nations alone will account for up to 35% of the worlds GDP and by 2050, we can only speculate. It is not directly population growth that is driving this, rather, urbanisation and industrialisation will lead to an unprecedented rise in the number of aspirational and upwardly mobile middle class citizens with lots of money to spend. Imagine just 50% of China and India’s population with standards of living approaching that of our own. The numbers are mind blowing; India’s population hit over 1.20 billion recently, a rise of over 180 million since the previous census, which is equivalent to roughly nine times Australia’s entire population between two census counts.

It is not extreme to put forward that the number of middle-class consumers in Asia could increase by more than 3 billion people by 2050. The environmental implications of such a large increase in the middle class market alone should be cause for alarm, even panic for some. Think in terms of ecosystems, think power generation requirements, and think general pollution and landfill pressures, think number of cars on the world’s roads increasing by 1.5 to 2 billion units in Asia alone. The economic activity generated by such a larger consumer base would make today’s emission levels appear diminutive; the implications are of titanic proportions.

For these reasons alone, the mind numbing debate about imposing a Carbon tax in Australia is a joke. According to climate commissioner, Will Steffen the world is going to get hotter regardless, that is, irrespective of a 5 per cent decrease in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Moreover, he would argue, even with complete decarbonisation leading up to 2050, it is still going to get 2 degrees warmer by then anyway. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us that trying to keep global temperature rises down to 2 degrees would require an 80 per cent cut in global emissions by mid-century.

What do you think are the chances of actually cutting emissions down so far by 2050 given the aforementioned urbanisation and industrialisation set to sweep Asia?

We Australians can do nothing to stop or even slow what is coming. The larger world will generate our climate conditions, case in point; all predictions tell us that China alone will increase its emissions by 25 per cent by 2020. Does Julia Gillard realise what this figure alone represents when compared to present day Australian emission levels? Allow me; a 25 per cent increase in China’s emissions is equivalent to roughly 18 times our total emissions today. In addition, we have not even considered India and the rest of Asia or the developing world in this figure.

By all means let us invest in R&D to develop alternative cleaner energy sources, let us too, educate consumers to become increasingly environmentally savvy, let us protect our precious universal bubble but let us accept that the world may get hotter and stop dealing in fantasies about decarbonisation to stop it. Adaptation is the only logical response to something we cannot and will not control. The world will never commit to effectively reducing emissions while demographics continue to change. It makes no sense for Australia to be acting ahead of the rest of the world because we do not lead the world, not even close.

I reject the notion that climate change action is really about tax redistribution or, old-fashioned class war actions dressed up as environmentalism. It is not about that at all; rather the government actually wants to reduce Australian carbon emissions to stop sea levels rising and reduce global temperatures but it is not going to happen, it is dealing in pure fantasy. Passing the Carbon tax legislation is a farcically exercise that will land the government an extra $10bn per year (depending on the price per tonne set) which it will mostly pass on to families as compensation for rising costs of living and other trade exposed industries and do nothing for the environment. In the end we will be left with nothing more than a form of tax re-distribution albeit, for the wrong reasons.

Tweet