Why capitalism has a "black eye"

Recently South Street Partners bought the Cliffs Communities. One of the first items of business was to buyout the Cliffs Members who had loaned the Clubs $60 M during the financial crisis to keep the communities afloat.

The new owners had several options:
1) do nothing,
2) make as small of an offer as possible to "satisfy the note holders"
3) see this buyout as an opportunity to demonstrate they are an ethical group of business men who will be fair to those they do business with, especially their clients at this high end golfing and retirement community.

They sent out an offer, which appears to be option 2, asking for "indications of interest." I took the opportunity to reply with a perspective that this offer was an opportunity for them to build trust with their clients, and they came up short. I chose to blog this as an example of how businesses should view their actions in ways beyond just immediate financial considerations that benefit them. This memo to them will likely be ignored. I have no illusion it will matter, and that's why capitalism is being questioned by regular people (especially the millennial) who fall prey to "big business."

Here is the content of my memo:

In your recent solicitation to the note holders, you say you are asking for “indications of interest.” While I can show my level of interest by checking a box, I feel I should also provide a more thorough perspective that I, as a note holder, have regarding your offer. I was a business executive for over 20 years (12 years as an executive committee VP with Coca Cola Consolidated in Charlotte). I have taught Business Strategy to college students, preparing them to be ethical professionals. So, my perspective is not uninformed.

Generally, note holders' interest will be driven by emotion and principle, since none of the options you provided is a significant nor reasonable financial choice. For instance, I am disappointed in the way you structured the payout. Depending on whether I assume 3% or 5% avg annual cost of money, your payout options are anywhere from 30% to 50% below the present value of the current payout agreement.

This means you are willing to make a deal with current clients in which the benefits accrue quite asymmetrically to you. Many, including me, will see this as an unethical action on your part, which basically says you are planting the seeds of mistrust with your clients of the Cliffs Communities.

I understand you have the leverage to “squeeze out” of the note holders a significantly discounted payout. You should also understand that ethics is when the person with power does NOT take undue advantage of others for selfish benefit. Ethics is about the principles of fairness. The payout option you are offering is well below the present value of the current deal, which was suboptimal from the start. The note holders are the committed members who “stood up” in difficult times for the sake of the community.

I will not hesitate to share this with others when asked about my view of your deal. You own your character reputation by choices you make. For one of the first major actions as owners, you will not be endearing yourself to members.

You may accomplish your financial goals, but you will lose in the hearts of your clients.

"kill the fatoosh"

I am sitting in a Mediterranean Cafe on Sat night before my grand daughter's final dance performance at the NC School for the Arts. My son orders a dish from the menu and then emphatically says to the waitress without hesitation, "kill the fatoosh."


For some reason this caught my attention as an interesting statement. First, I thought, "my son is starting a new job in NY city Monday and he is practicing his "NY Mafiaism." Then I thought of all the times he had said, "I don't eat salad," and this a new and more direct way to order food.

This statement soon became something the family could banter around the table and have fun with my son. Later, as I continued to sound the phrase, "kill the fatoosh" in my head, I began to think about the ways people quickly cut off experiences in their life.

This can be positive or negative. For instance, we can develop patterns of thought over time that automatically reject some types of experience and never ponder what we may be missing. Do we all directly cancel opportunities out of tradition or habits we form over the years that never get questioned? Should we give others the permission to challenge us on these areas in our life that might bring us benefit we fail to see? Now, fatoosh is only a type of salad, but it may represent types of people or experiences God puts in our life and we shut Him down too quickly.

The opposite may also be true. Spiritual discipline involves "shutting down" habits or appetites that should be sent packing. Habits of gossip or judgmentalism or envy are really good targets for "kill the fatoosh."

Discerning the differences in what we quickly and directly forego can have a big impact on living the life we desire to live. What and how we order our meals may not have eternal bearing on our lives, but pondering the "fatoosh" in our lives that we instinctively "kill" is not a trivial matter.

"unswerved from our deliberate purpose"

It's a really nice idea that any of us can be "unswerved" from anything that challenges where and what we want to be. Maybe you are watching a good movie and you don't want anything to bother you and take your attention away. Maybe you are enjoying time with a friend and hope that you can continue enjoying each uninterrupted.

Remaining in a place or state of mind that you deliberately (intentionally) want to be in is highly desirable. We don't use the word "unswerved" very often, but we sure appreciate the idea.

Christians think about being "unswerved" more than maybe they are aware. The term is usually translated patience or perseverance. The idea of persevering in times of difficulty is an idea many hold onto as a virtue. Christians use scripture like Romans 5: 2-5 and James 1: 3-4 to be encouraged during times of trial or tests. Affliction is viewed as positive when we attach some transcendental benefit to suffering. Perseverance leads to hope, assurance everything is going to be alright.

Yet, often human nature attaches a "grin and bear it" meaning to "unswerved." That's a natural association of patience or endurance in times of difficult circumstances. When Christians view perseverance this way, they have a virtue that is no different than non-Christians. In this case the distinction Christians make between their patience and that of non believers if that they have a better hope. That's true, but that's missing the main distinction in their witness and in their own life.

The notion of "unswerved" used in the Bible (a version of hupomoné ) deals with simply holding fast to the purpose we have intentionally oriented our life around. It means, "don't be distracted by what you see going on around and to you." Don't lose sight of what matters. This is far from a "grin and bear it" mindset that waits for relief. It is a way to remain in the joy of our purpose, like the companionship of a good friend. Turning off the cell phone and staring into the eyes of our beloved at an intimate dinner is Biblical perseverance. Hupomoné reminds us that our circumstances are like a wind storm, blowing temporarily to take us off our game.     

God's idea of perseverance and patience is associated with rejoicing in the very midst of our circumstances, not because something beneficial is coming later, but because we are now in the presence of a loving and generous God.

For example, I recently read a famous football player just found out he may have throat cancer. His dad died of throat cancer at 51 and this former NFL star is now in his early 50's. He admitted he had lived in fear of throat cancer most of his life. He is a Christian, and he said his faith will help him deal with his fear. In other words he sees faith more as a temporary crutch and persevering as "just getting through the tough times."

The passage in Luke 12 came to my mind, "do not fear little flock for your Father has chosen gladly to give you His Kingdom."  Notice, Jesus didn't say "deal with your fear." Instead He said, "DO NOT FEAR." Jesus' idea of being "unswerved" by cancer was to rejoice right now in his relationship with Jesus and his life in the Kingdom. The cancer is a passing wind storm (a distraction) in which he shouldn't have fear in the first place. DO NOT FEAR, not deal with ("grin and bear it") your fear.

Also, notice the fear came from his experience with the futility of his earthly father. His dad was defeated by cancer and could not provide further for him (abandonment). His Heavenly Father is very different. God is able to provide all his soul could ever need and more, forever.

This is why Jesus can say, DO NOT FEAR. We can view perseverance as being "unswerved from our deliberate purpose," not a "grin and bear it" tolerance of pain.

Pondering the difference is an "out of this world" experience ....

knowing the unknown

Since the beginning of time, there is no question more asked and still offers much confusion than, "how can we know what we don't know?"

Recently, a famed behavioral economist, Nassim Taleb, challenged the business world on how their ideas around this question are misguided. The author of "The Black Swan" argues well that success is best obtained when managing the unknown.


For example, he points to the massive destruction of events like Katrina, the financial crisis and 9/11 attack as indications that the most significant outcomes in recent times came out of nowhere. In everyday life we see that when we hire someone or take a new job ourselves, its what we find out about the other 6 months or a year later that matters more than all of the knowledge gathered during the hiring process.

Let's take a closer look at what it means to "know the unknown." I contend we can be misguided and maybe don't even agree on what this means. For instance, the English language just has one word for "know." The 1828 Webster says to know is "to perceive with certainty or to understand clearly." Implied in this is "seeing is believing". So the cultural norm for knowing requires physical evidence.

The ancient Greeks had two words (I have blogged on this several times). One word meant knowing through the physical senses (eido), which aligns more with prevalent thinking. The other was knowing in some way other than through physical senses (gnosis). Since this second way does not fit current thinking about "to know," we find other words to capture what the Greeks called knowing without observable evidence. Some call this way of knowing intuition or conscience or "gut feel." Yet, people refer to this type of knowing with some level of puzzlement when they wonder how they can know if he/she loves them. People say, "I know my spouse" when they are speaking of clarity they have that didn't come though physical evidence, but through an intimacy in relationship with them.

So, there are several ways to think about "knowing the unknown."

First, we can ask, "how do we have certainty about what we observe by gaining more clarity from new observations we have certainty with?" Both views of "to know" deal with observable evidence. This is primarily what we believe science accomplishes.

Second, we can ask, "how do we have certainty about what we cannot observe by getting new observations we can have certainty with?" Here, the idea is getting a certainty about unobservable truth by using rational processes to gain certainty from what we can observe. This is an attempt to verify faith through science. Typically, we see this approach by Christians and non-Christians to "prove" something about the unseen human soul, such as virtue and personality, and God, such as His existence.

The third way to ask this question is, "how do we have certainty about what we see from certainty about what we cannot see?" This is actually the question answered by the Bible. Christians understand "knowing" by trusting revelation from God to clearly understand what they experience in the physical world. Human nature influences us to view type two question about "knowing," Humans naturally want to believe something about the invisible from inferences made from the visible.

The fourth possibility is, "how do we have clarity and certainty about what we cannot see from clearly understanding what we cannot see?" This is the ultimate point of the Bible. Humans adopted into God's family involves an assurance of an invisible act on God's part to bring us into a relationship experienced only through faith. 

The problem arises when the non-Christian thought leaders are asking the first and second type questions about "knowing" when the Bible is applying the third and fourth type of questions about "knowing." Even worst, and too prevalent, is when Christians rely on their flawed human nature and apply questions like one and two above to defend their faith and the Bible instead of questions like type four.

One more point about "knowing the unknown" that contributes to the confusion. When Taleb discusses this issue of "knowing," he is dealing with predicting the future. In other words, the unknown is only unobservable because it hadn't happened yet. This is the only purpose of science, to provide the likelihood B occurs given A depending on C. Science cannot prove the certainty of the future, only the likelihood. We also cannot confuse the "unknowing" (uncertainty) of the future with the "unknowing" of the invisible.

Science has no role in gaining knowledge about what already exists and cannot be seen. For instance, science can analyze data and provide a reasonable explanation of "what is?" Yet, science cannot be used at all to answer "why?" Science cannot determine the heart, or motive. Science can explain WHAT choices people made through observing their behavior, but cannot explain WHY. Science, in no way, can provide certainty about God and the Kingdom of Heaven.

Only revelation allows any human to "know the unknown" God and His gracious, Sovereign rule.

So, when you hear someone use the term "know," you now can ask which of the ways they are viewing "to know"? Maybe after you ponder the multiple ways of knowing, you can ask that they ponder them too.......

 
        

If diversity is the answer, what is the question?

Valuing diversity is unmistakably one of the dominant themes of our times. I was asked recently why I had not blogged on this topic before. I thought I had, but found I had not. This request was not challenging the moral value of respecting people's differences, but rather wondering why it is so popular to see it as the solution to every problem. There is a frustration by thoughtful people that diversity is almost always, without question, viewed as THE ANSWER to every question. 

So, I was asked to ponder, "is it really?"

Diversity is one of the topics that I taught in management classes at the university level. Its an important topic, not because valuing diversity is viewed as "politically correct," but because the way groups of people handle differences in their members affects their effectiveness. This is what people who study diversity want to find out, "does diversity make teams and broader organizations more effective?" In what way does diversity alone make things better? I think this is what many decent, thoughtful ponderers want to know. When diversity is thrown around everywhere as THE ANSWER, should we not better understand the question to which it is the answer?

When I began my lecture on diversity, I would ask each student to look around them at all the other students, then list ways in which the class was diverse (students were different). Invariably the students would list, sex, race, age, looks, height, weight, hair color, hair styles, etc. No one noticed diversity of personality, ability, experience, values, biases, experiences, and such. Are these differences unimportant? No, they are just UNNOTICED. In fact, if I put together a team to accomplish a task, these unnoticed differences would matter more in the team's effectiveness than what the students' listed as their sense of diversity. 

At least, that is what the research on diversity has found. The first list is called "observable diversity." The second list is called "unobservable diversity." In summary, research has found that in the initial moments people are asked to work together, observable diversity is not helpful. In fact, observable differences create emotional barriers to cooperation and collaboration because of social categorization and social attraction (stereotyping). Yet at the same time, unobservable diversity helps tasks that involve information processing, such as decision-making, because diverse views create more options to choose from.

Given sufficient time and relationship building opportunities, the emotional conflicts attributed to observable diversity are mitigated and the team becomes more effective when unobservable diversity is high. Thus, when the question is asked, "does a diverse team perform better than a more homogeneous team?", the answer is best understood by the diversity we do not obviously see. Given time and greater inter dependency in tasks, teams where individuals are different in ways we do not see is preferred.

Whereas, observable diversity gets all of the headlines and attention by social fairness minded people, visible differences in people are not what makes groups of people more effective. In reality, the diversity the culture values can be harmful, not helpful to higher performance.

If diversity is the answer and success is the question, look beyond what is politically correct about diversity and value the diversity that really matters!

That's how I ponder diversity and encourage others to do so too ....

Is this freedom?

Here's a recent face book post. Most people respond with a "thumbs up" like or maybe even a "wow." What about you?

Stop a minute and ponder what this really says. This quote really means that your "real self" is in some kind of bondage to how others see you.

This phenomenon is explained in human psychology as the need for legitimacy. It explains why people feel they must "wear a mask" of some kind to portray what they think others should see that makes them feel OK.

When I pressed the one who posted this quote with the question, "what keeps people from 'being yourself' all the time?" she replied,
"Nobody is. But, ultimately, that’s the goal. The ego gap is a source of rampant unhappiness." 

Wait, I am now confused. Here is a quote that feels warm and fuzzy to almost everyone, at least on the surface, yet it is what causes us to be unhappy. Do you see the irony here?

Young people are seemingly infatuated with the idea of "integrity." Yet, integrity occurs when our public self and our private self are integrated or one in the same. So again, without much thought a young person would LIKE this post because its warm and fuzzy but it represents the very source of unhappiness and lack of integrity.

ay yi yi

What's even more interesting, the very Gospel many young people find irrelevant in their life is the solution to this problem. The freedom of the Gospel is that no one who receives Jesus as their life has to seek legitimacy from those around them in any way. Freedom in Christ is the ONLY opportunity for a joyful and peaceful soul that never has to pretend to be something they are not to win approval of others.

"but we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God and not ourselves"

Now that is GOOD NEWS everyone should ponder  .....

What if your idea of righteousness is wrong?

I really hesitated to write this blog because it is typical for readers to think I am being judgmental. I am not. The Greek's have several ideas of judging. One is simply a examination according to some standard, another is to determine error and thirdly to condemn (punish) when one is found guilty. I try to practice the former. It is not my place to determine anyone's error. Yet, I am troubled by the way our human nature can rob us of the proper idea of righteousness because of any error in understanding. In doing so, there are several consequences. I'll discuss these at the end. But first, let me share with you what we know about fundamental human nature from the study of psychology. This is where the head fake begins.

One of the core influences on the human condition is the desire to be LEGITIMATE. Legitimacy is conformity to expectations of others so we feel OK. Each person chooses which constituency determines this for them. Regardless of the source of the acceptance, some standard is used as the basis for being OK. These norms are often referred to as morality. In early childhood your family sets the moral code. As you mature your peers establish "rules" as the factors that determine whether you are OK or not. For most people when the family is loving and supportive, the family remains a source of acceptance. However, your family's standards can be challenged when you identify more with friends, employers and even gangs who fulfill the role of determining if you are OK. Often, just being different can make you not OK.

Throughout history, religion provided divine guidelines that some people have associated with right behavior. Righteousness then becomes the proxy for legitimacy. You become aware that God has rules for what is acceptable. If you become a religious person, then your need for legitimacy is your conformity to religious morality. Many Christians believe this conformity is their righteousness. This view makes it difficult to differ Christians from non Christians, who also seek legitimacy often appearing to have the same virtue, just from some other source. The moral code may vary, but seeking legitimacy is common to everyone. People may differ in what set of standards establishes their legitimacy, but the need for legitimacy is fundamentally satisfied in the same way - CONFORMITY. Often Christians claim their standard is "a better way" by pushing forth the notion that their view is the only truth. This argument typically falls on death ears. People generally feel its up to them to decide which standard they wish to pursue. Thus, non Christians see no distinction in Christianity when it comes to virtuous living, or being OK.

The pursuit of legitimacy within a Christian context may look and feel like righteousness, but it is not. It is just a religious form of the pursuit of legitimacy, a pursuit that resides in everyone's human nature.  

So, what then is righteousness? Why the confusion? If we look at the current meaning of righteousness from Webster, we get, "acting in accord with divine or moral law." In this case we would be hard pressed to see righteousness as anything different than legitimacy in a religious setting. So, this may explain why so many Christians see righteousness as their form of religious legitimacy.

If we go back 200 years, we find that righteousness meant "conformity of heart to divine law." This is a little different as we see righteousness is about motive, not behavior. However, it is still a conformity we must execute to be made acceptable. It is still a form of the human need to seek legitimacy.  Let's go way back to when the word righteousness was used by Jesus. What did it mean then?

The classical Greek word is dikaiosynē. 

Here we see a subtle, but profound twist. Righteousness still relates to the notion of Divine acceptance, but the focus is shifted. The original use of the word is really about the judge. Righteousness is "judicial approval." It's about the judge's will, not our actions. If our righteousness is not about our actions, then it is not about our conformity, and it is not associated with our desire for legitimacy. My righteousness is God's action as the judge on my behalf. My righteousness is not anything about my pursuit of legitimacy. It's about the nature of the judge and His Sovereign desire and provision for my acceptance.

Wait, you say, that does not feel right. Surely my righteousness is based on my conformity. Surely my need for conformity is critical to my acceptance. It's only natural that this be!

That is right. It is natural. The need to solve our legitimacy problem by our actions is built-in to our human nature. 

BUT wait, isn't our human nature what got knocked off kilter at the fall?

Yup, and that's my point.

Is it possible that one's notion of righteousness is just a natural need for legitimacy wrapped in religious garb?

Maybe we need to see righteousness is about the judge, not the judged!


Oh, btw, the Greek word for justice is the same as for righteousness. Jesus only views justice through the role of the judge. For Christians to think Jesus' calls us to do justice, He is not referring to our natural instincts to be the judge of right and wrong. Rather, God calls us to act from the righteousness of Christ, which is the basis of His approval of us.

Back to the consequences of a natural view of righteousness vs. God's view.
1.   the world sees no real difference between their way to satisfy their need for legitimacy and those of a Christian.
2.   the Christian, who is saved but sees their righteousness through the lens of human nature, lives beneath the privileges they inherit in Christ Jesus.   

That is what I wish that you ponder .....