The recent death of former football coach Don Coryell, following the death of Coach John Wooden by only a few weeks got me to thinking about what it was that made them successful. Here is a quote from a letter to the editor in the LA Times from Donn Dufford who knew Coach Coryell well. "Like John Wooden , Coach Coryell coached winning teams and was innovative. But what I learned from Don was how to deal with people. He treated each of his players, and everyone he came in contact with, with the utmost respect. He gave you 100% of his attention and was genuinely concerned about your success, on and off the field. He made you feel special and important and vital to the team's success."
When you read about Coach Wooden you see the same sort of traits. His former players say that he wasn't just teaching them basketball, but life lessons. One of Coach Wooden's keys to success is relationships. He has said that friendships are among the most important things in a person's life. He emphasized the achievement of the team above that of the individual, but focused on treating individuals with respect and valued their contributions.
Coach Bear Bryant was a very successful football coach, mostly at the University of Alabama. I read where he criticized his players only when they won. When they lost, he took the blame, saying that he had not done a good enough job of preparing the team for the game. Like all other successful c0oaches he let the individuals know that they were valued and respected.
There is a lot of social science research which shows that this is the best way to achieve success with an organization. Management studies have labeled different approaches as Theory X, Theory Y, and Theory Z. In short, what works best is not top down management, but management which includes and values the contributions of employees and seeks their input. Such organizations have better morale, lower turn over, and higher achievement. Furthermore, once basic salary needs are met, it has been shown that valuing and rewarding employee input is a better motivator than increased salary.
And yet, what do we see in modern American society? Quite the opposite. In the modern corporation the bean counters have won. Employees are treated as cost units, the fewer the better. Rather than being seen as an asset, they are considered a liability. So, what we see all too often is a top down management which uses a slash and burn approach to eliminate employees in order to cut costs to the bone, rather than asking for their ideas to innovate and look for efficiencies. When positions aren't eliminated, then they are outsourced to some place where the employee makes one fifth or one tenth the salary, in large part because the host country has no labor laws or environmental protection. This is the foundation of the conservative obeisance to the free market.
Modern day conservatism is the ultimate expression of what I consider to be an anti-human philosophy. President Hoover reportedly remarked during the depths of the Great Depression that all the the men selling apples on the street was a sign that people were starting their own businesses and recovery was just around the corner. Modern conservatives are just as out of touch. We now have conservative Republicans saying that unemployment insurance encourages unemployment and that people are unemployed because they are dependent and lazy. They don't bother to explain how everyone is supposed to get a ;job when there is an average of five applicants for every job opening. Funny, too, how so many of these same people were busy working and then just left in order to take a drastic cut in income and risk losing their homes, medical insurance, and other assets.
Modern day conservatives seem to be totally lacking in empathy and consumed with personal wealth. Unlike the coaches I mentioned above, they have no concern for the value of others or the success of the organization (in this case, economy and country), as long as they get theirs. About a year or two ago I had some on line correspondence with a conservative about economic issues and I was struck by his overwhelming use of "I messages." Everything was about how much "I" accomplished, how much "I" earned, how much "I" deserved, etc., etc. Folks, if you haven't learned by now that you can't take it with you, you are beyond hope. Who is remembered more, the one who does all he can for himself, or the one who does all he can for others? Modern conservatives only care about themselves.
If you have any doubts, study some recent history. The case study of Saipan is instructive. I first heard about it maybe ten or twelve years ago because of a two part report by Brian Ross of ABC News. I believe it was on the show 20-20. There is a very detailed account in Chapter 9 of The Wrecking Crew by Thomas Frank. Saipan is an American territory in the Mariana Islands in the western Pacific. Conservatives hailed it as a laboratory of liberty, a sign that pro-business policies are pro-people policies, a place to seek answers for the rest of America's family (Congressman Brian Bilbray of San Diego County). What brought about these conservative accolades? Unlimited immigration where the immigrants could be bound by contract to a particular employer and couldn't even change jobs without permission, these so-called "guest workers" could be deported for the slightest offense (like objecting to pay or conditions or trying to organize), lax or no enforcement of labor laws and employees could be restricted to barracks by employers, and a low minimum wage. There were other factors, but these are most important and give you an idea of what conditions were like. Thanks to Republican Congressman Tom DeLay and lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the extension of US labor laws to Saipan was stymied for about a decade until Democrats finally got control of Congress.
What was the result of the above policies? Employees were enticed to work "in America". They were mostly poor women from Asia. They had to work in sweatshop conditions (mostly in the garment industry which used the "Made in America" tag) and some were forced into prostitution and, if they got pregnant, forced to have abortions. They were forbidden to leave their barracks except to go to work and any complaints or problems were met with deportation. Thanks to free market conditions, wages were driven so low for the guest workers that the hourly pay for domestic workers went as low as 64 cents an hour so that people on relief (the natives) could afford to have maids. And rich businessmen controlled the local government. In 2006 Tom DeLay told the Houston Chronicle that we should emulate Saipan and set up a program "where particular companies can bring Mexican workers in," and pay them, "whatever wage the market will bear." (Frank, pp. 229-30)
Since the Gingrich revolution in 1995 the GOP has been captured and run by extreme ideologues such as Howard Phillips and Grover Norquist. Their sole aim is to destroy as much government as possible and let the free market (read huge corporations) control the country. As Norquist famously said, he wants to shrink government so much that you can drown it in a bathtub. As John Dean points out in his book, Broken Government, the Republicans aren't interested in governing, but only want to exercise power in order to enrich their big business friends If they can't do that, they want to stop liberals from doing any good (see p. 23; this was written in 2006). I think the last conservative Republican (who make up about 90% of the party) to be actually concerned about solving problems, was Jack Kemp, who died a few years ago and lost his influence after 1996. We have seen the triumph of anti-human conservatism over the Republican Party. Unfortunately, because of the excellence of Frank Luntz, a political p.r. man, extraordinare, and a compliant, corporation controlled media, the Republicans have managed to control a lot of the political dialog and con a large segment of the American people.
I recommend both the Frank book and John Dean's book, plus Dean's Conservatives Without a Conscience for excellent analyses of modern conservatism. Because they approach the topic from different angles, Frank and Dean are complementary and not duplicative. Finally, I wish to quote from Dean's Broken Government. The following quote, pp. 200-201, is from a former colleague of Dean's who also worked in the Nixon White House and who has a son now working in the Federal government and thus wished to maintain anonymity to protect his son from retaliation (this book was written while Bush was still in power). "Just tell your readers that you have a source who knows a lot about the Republican Party from long experience, that he knows all the key movers and shakers, and he has a bit of advice: People should not vote for any Republican because they are dangerous, dishonest, and self-serving. While I once believed that Governor George Wallace had it right, that there's not a dime's worth of difference in the parties, that is no longer true. I have come to realize the Democrats really do care about people who most need help from the government; Republicans care most about those who will only get richer because of government help. The government is truly broken, particularly in dealing with national security, and another four years, and heaven forbid not eight years under the Republicans, and our grandchildren will have to build a new government because the one we have will be unrecognizable and unworkable."
No comments:
Post a Comment