Thousands of business meetings take place across the country at any moment of every day. Some are a springboard for launching new product or ideas. Most are simply regularly scheduled meetings, occurring year round, regardless of current business activity.

Thousands of business meetings take place daily and it is likely that less than half are actually structured events. If they are, it is likely someone else’s idea of structure, someone else’s idea of agenda and someone else’s idea of an outcome that unfold before bewildered, bored and confused participants. Why are we discussing this again, and again, and again?!

Hosting or leading meetings is an art. It does not occur to all business leaders to become well versed in the practice of this art. To most, meetings are a matter-of-fact by-product of business, one we do not question anymore than we might question any of the automatic actions we take each day.

In truth, business meetings are a fascinating entity that behaves according to unspoken, yet distinct conventions. Individuals whose talents, intellect, ability to focus, creativity, interests, level of confidence and level of expertise vary wildly, come together and generally choose the same chair around the room or table and interact in the same manner at each encounter. In this configuration, hierarchy becomes a key actor. Without a concerted effort to take this into consideration, the outcome, level of participation and, indeed, the level of interest and resulting action are questionable at best, disastrous at worst.

In some of my former work experiences, leaders had come out of meetings exasperated, bemoaning the fact that no one seemed as dedicated to “the cause” as they were. Employees came out overwhelmed and feeling far more oppressed than encouraged. There was no common goal. Worse yet, no attempt to understand and engage the best qualifications and abilities of each person, no awareness of the great expertise and possibilities at hand, no effort to actually communicate.

Conversely, I recently had the great privilege to sit at business meetings where I have watched as a seasoned business manager sat not at the head of the table, but amongst his employees, and genuinely listened as he invited each of them to speak up, should they have something to share. I have watched in total amazement as he asked questions, drawing from the expertise of the individuals present to seek to improve his own understanding of a situation or concept. I have watched in equal amazement when he took the time to thank each speaker, all of whom were part of his daily business universe, not special guests requiring special decorum. However, to him, it seems, they were his special guests in that moment, and he made sure they felt welcome and honored.

Acknowledging and encouraging employees does not deplete leaders of their authority. Instead, it demonstrates genuine authority, the type that stands on, and instills, confidence. Hierarchy is not about lords and subjects; it is about leaders and creators. It is about mature leaders who recognize, accept and call forth the talents and abilities of each individual, who bring their people together to discuss where they are going together, to remember why they are choosing a certain path, product or approach, to brainstorm solutions and ideas, to decide who amongst them is best equipped for each task and to agree, as one, to take charge separately in order to reach a common goal.

Slainte!

As humans, we often strive to behave in ways we feel set us apart in such a way as to demonstrate superior composure and good judgment. In recent years, countless manuscripts were produced by “enlightened teachers” who seek to instill in us the ability to face our struggles with peacefulness equal to the stillness of ancient statues. Emulating these teachers then becomes our key struggle.

Not only do we struggle to overcome the normal sufferings encountered in the course of our careers, interaction with neighbors, siblings, spouses and colleagues, but also on top of that we must struggle to overcome our emotions and the instinctive drive to act according to our innate sense of justice and ethics. This is the good struggle, we think, the only one worth fighting for. Anything else transforms us into some immature, unreasonable beast.

Yet there are, in this world, people who consistently treat others with disregard, business managers who mishandle funds and oppress workers, and public servants who are self-serving instead. We can recognize and even accept that, perhaps, they do not act hurtfully on purpose; perhaps they are doing what they believe is appropriate. Nevertheless, when their actions become oppressive, when we witness injustice and disregard for ethical behavior, should we really sit still and try to convince ourselves that all is well by reciting our mantra du jour? “Karma will take care of this. I need do nothing...”

This may apply in some situations where we are a distant observer with very little information regarding the details of a situation. I question whether it is a sensible approach when we are closely involved or when our family, friends, community or colleagues are at the receiving end of less than loving acts.

After many years of delving into self-help and spiritual texts that painstakingly convey the commendable benefits of the peaceful warrior, I have come to the conclusion that our ability to choose what we react to and how we do so does not mean we must choose stillness when we have the ability to choose otherwise. It means we must choose discernment in our action. It also means that as a fellow human being, co-worker, animal, inhabitant of a planet, we must place our talents, skills and sense of community in the service of others where and when such service is required. Sitting on the sidelines is not smart. It is disrespectful.

The “way of none-resistance” does not mean one must refrain from intervention; it means one must determine the most constructive action to bring about change in the best interest of all involved. This requires a lot of mental and emotional work, and the willingness to do such work. Conventional spiritual models and more modern models such as the Eckhart Tolles and Wayne Dyers of this world are often presented to us in a distorted light. We perceive them as accomplished saints who do not so much as lift a finger against suffering and injustice. This is partly true of course, in the sense that they do not act in opposition to anything, but rather in favor of better behaviors and outcomes.

To think that silence is the proper action is an error. Either we take intelligent action now in service of fellow humans and fellow animals who need it now, or we do nothing but pray, believing that ripple effects will certainly transform some future generation. We are here now, observing now, able to support and encourage and transform now. The ripple effect of intelligent action now surely multiplies the impact on generations now and later.

New age teachings can be as “dangerous” and misleading as ancient religious dogma. They very innocently claim to show the other side, yet they claim this via the same rhetoric, namely that anyone who does not abide by the new dogma is not worthy of being called a saint or Good Samaritan. However, the Good Samaritan did not sit on the edge of the fountain absent-mindedly, did he?

Slainte!

Today, on the radio, the host announced that she would share with the audience a list of the five most intelligent dogs. I am certainly not the only listener who assumed that not only would my own dog make the list; he very likely would be at least number two. He was not even on the list.

As I drove, I could hear my internal babbling critique comment on every single statistic the radio host shared with me. According to reputable sources, Border Collies are well ahead of other breeds for intelligence, even for awareness. Obviously, these same sources did not consider other breeds of equal intelligence, such as Rat Terriers, of which my four-legged son is a fine specimen, thank you very much.

We take these things very personally, as though having a dog that did not make it to some arbitrary top-five list of intelligence levels meant I had a lesser dog, making me as unlikely to end up on a similar list. Instinctively, I want to prove my dog, as a mother who would insist her child’s artwork is impressive, when in truth it is impressive to her only.

We teach tricks to our pets, as a means to extract from them some behavior that might prove a level of understanding and creativity worthy of notice, almost supernatural. My dog can do tricks. In fact, he learned each trick in about fifteen minutes flat, as a puppy, and remembers to this day. He can sit and wait until I say “Slainte” (cheers, in Scots-Gaelic), at which point he stands on his hind legs, does a 360 degree pirouette and grabs a cookie from my hand. This demonstrates his ability to remember a command and to comply. It is a sign of intelligence, by human standards. By dog or animal standards, it is totally useless.

Showing him that trick was not the smartest thing I have ever taught anyone. Perhaps we miss something when we try to assess and demonstrate an animal’s intelligence. We miss the fact that they might also have a rather developed sense of humor, or at least they do not know shame. Our human intelligence comes with a price. It comes with the type of self-awareness that goes beyond monitoring our comfort relative to the environment; an awareness that contributes to the development of self-esteem and, in turn, compulsive self-criticism. Now that is some stupid pet trick.

I take offense to the assumption that any creature that is not human is, by definition, lacking in way of intelligence. We measure everything by human standards. It is human nature. We understand our environment through comparisons. Something is shorter or taller, faster or slower, better or worse, smarter or … do not get me going again. To me, a dog is no less smart than a human is; it simply has a dog’s intellect, allowing it to live, strive and survive as a dog. It does not need to invent complex structures or equipment. It has no need for such things. It is smart at communicating what it needs, playing with other dogs and humans, exploring the surroundings and knowing when a human friend needs a reassuring cold nose against his or her cheek.

Just as a leg is structured differently on the bodies of different species of animals, so is intelligence structured differently for each species. Both adapt to immediate terrain, circumstances, climate and survival needs. There is an intrinsic integrity in most species we humans consider of lesser intelligence, namely, all species but our own. This integrity lies in the fact that it would not occur to any of those other animals to choose to act outside of certain instinctive rules and patterns of behaviors. The human ability to override this integrity at will could be an outcome of our style of intelligence, but it is certainly not proof of an intelligent use of it.

Slainte!

Once again, my dear friend with whom I do not always see eye-to-eye has tested me. Facebook is an interesting place to test one’s tolerance and open-mindedness, especially when someone decides to be quite vocal about their political positions. This is very uncomfortable to me, but I am mistaken to think that my not speaking out means I am not revealing my true colors. It would also be a mistake to think that I am right and they are wrong. Who knows?

I am referring to a post comparing our current president to a snake, stressing that the very same people who are afraid to touch one have placed this man in office and that many may eventually regret this, wondering why the snake has bitten them. “I am a snake, what do you expect?”

Everyone is allowed his or her opinion, and no one knows the whole truth. Some who feel right will discover they are mistaken; some whom we believe to be wrong may end up being right. Some will be a bit of both, depending on the context and changing circumstances. No discussion or debate is solely about righteousness.

In essence, any debate is an opportunity to inspire all parties to consider other points of view and variations to their own opinion and belief. We can focus on the debate itself, the intensity of emotion, often anger, that fuels each word and pronouncement, but we can just as well focus on the opportunity to seek to understand each other better. Understanding does not mean agreeing, it means accepting. Opinions are not the whole of a person.

Speaking of snakes, I happen to love them and any reptile I come across is perceived as a magnificent creature to observe, love, hold and even kiss. I am drawn to them. Interestingly, I happen to have cast my vote in favor of the current president. I do not understand everything he does, I probably also do not fully grasp what I think I know. In any case, I voted for the one some refer to as “snake”, and I wonder. Could it be that the analogy actually refers to a real phenomenon? Is it possible that 100% of the people who elected this man also love real snakes? Could a study of allegiances to plants and animals reveal consistent correlations with political and social allegiances?

Wouldn’t that be interesting? 

Something occurred to me today. Something rather interesting happens when a new recruit joins a team in a workplace. Long-established individuals also have long-established behaviors, attitudes and shared strategies. It does not occur to them one bit that, in the context of an encounter with a new recruit, every word and action becomes a demonstration of personal integrity, or lack thereof.

What is equally interesting, perhaps, is how first impressions are clouded by the excitement of novelty, focus on one’s desire to be accepted, an overall self-centeredness that casts a shadow on deeper meaning and revelation. We see the snarl, hear the deceit, understand the games, yet we do not equate these with anything other than mere business. All of it seems as lifeless and inconsequential as the chairs and desks in the room.

It is likely that most of the time recruiters instinctively pick individuals who somehow seem to be quite similar to their soon-to-be new colleagues. There must be some character trait that surfaces and makes the interviewer feel a sense of kinship, in a sort of “this person very much feels like one of us” moment. It is probably mutual. It must be.

Within a week of being on the job, a newly recruited manager very confidently explained to subordinates how she would approach a situation by modifying certain facts when communicating with the other parties in order to obtain what was sought from them. What at first sounded like cleverness soon had subordinates walk away with a clear understanding that had nothing to do with the business at hand. Their colleague and superior had demonstrated that she believed in securing desired outcomes by resorting to manipulation. Every single one of her subordinates knew what this meant. It meant they were just as likely to be at the other end of the equation as anyone else was. Very informative indeed.

To this day it baffles me that individuals who operate this way can come together and run a business while not once realizing that they should all be aware by now that they do not even have each other’s trust or respect. What baffles me even more is the thought that these individuals are raising children. What do their children witness? What do they understand? Mom and dad are role models after all, regardless of what they model.

We all tend to behave slightly differently with colleagues or within the workplace than we do at home. The human tendency to be inconsistent may be a blessing in some cases. For instance, children are often pleasantly surprised to discover a very confident father in the workplace, while at home he is stifled by a strong-willed spouse. There are liberties we take with others to whom we are not closely related. Likewise, there are liberties we take with “loved ones” we would not dream of exhibiting in public.

The idea of consistency of behavior in all venues raises many questions ranging from our ability to apply self-awareness to every encounter and action, to the willingness to do so. Consistency of behavior also requires a great capacity for forgiveness. We tend to equate this with a specific level of friendship, not necessarily with civic duty. Is it possible to put family first without putting everyone else second?

In this context, if we are to model our behavior according to how we might interact with family, the key question in every engagement might not be “how can I get what I need”, but rather “How can I model and demonstrate integrity as I seek what I need?” This requires a great deal of self-awareness and determination. It does not occur to most of us to apply this in every moment of every day, hence the inconsistency. The saving factor, in the end, is always forgiveness.

Slainte!

The last 24 hours have been a breeze. In fact, it seems odd to refer to this time as “the last” 24 hours, for there is nothing finite about them. Every thought, every action, every movement, whether displacing our bodies for a distance of one centimeter or moving great distances over the horizon, leads to the next thing. The path can flow as a raft on a gentle river, or it can be interspersed with obstacles. We often create the obstacles in our mind’s eye. The eye turns into a projector. We see these obstacles emerge before us and we struggle.

We believe that struggle makes us stronger. This is true, but is it always necessary? Early on, we are encouraged to face every fear, every challenge and every overwhelming situation or task with courage, as though we would not be a whole person should we avoid struggle or resistance. Yet resistance is, in essence, an instinctive mechanism designed to get our attention, stop us in our tracks before something new and unpredictable, long enough to assess whether our well-being is at stake. However, in the complicated world of the human animal, this mechanism must circumvent the scrutiny of the rational mind, which is sometimes too rational and sometimes too rationally irrational.

We ignore the red flags. We spend entire lives facing one situation after another, work and relationship circumstances that teach us so much about who we are, what we are good at, what we are capable of, where we excel and where we fail. We thus accumulate our very own library of personal knowledge and expertise, not about external things so much as about ourselves and what has worked in our best interest. As with any other library or reference book, we often fail to consult this source of knowledge when it is time to make an informed decision about a project or new direction.

The critical voice rises in a great cacophony, as though it could spontaneously multiply much as the cells that become a complex organism through automatic duplication. Soon, we begin to ponder a decision or task from the perspective of the many critical voices that trick us into believing we are indeed calling attention to our great responsibility, which consists in being more, overcoming, facing everything without so much as a whimper, in order to save face, feel like a complete person, appear in control, or worse, in order to not disappoint anyone.

Yet, at times, we know this is a lie. We know that the thickness of the voice is like a cloud that prevents us from seeing the true library of self-knowledge within, and we are afraid of what we might find there, because in those moments of clarity, we know we would find undeniable evidence that the right path is not the road less traveled and that no amount of heroism will ever serve us, or anyone, well.

Early on, many of us learn that when we do not perform well at a certain task we must do everything in our power to overcome this “weakness”, at the expense of our existing strengths. Our strengths go without saying. Few of us think of spending time, energy or money into the further development of an existing skill, because our entourage often focuses on our weakness, or rather our inability to perform at the expected level required for their own ends. In truth, we are to blame just as much as our entourage, or more After all, we choose to think however we think about ourselves and our abilities.

We take on tasks that bore us and deplete our energy because we do not have the personal integrity to choose what we know we are good at, and empowered by, instead. Truly successful people understand how this works. They consistently choose to focus on projects and activities they simply cannot resist because they are damn good at them. They are right. They are successful not because they attain great things, or run flourishing businesses, or develop innovative and popular products; they are successful because they honor their agreement with themselves to refer to the inner library of personal knowledge and make every decision based on undeniable evidence of true purpose and ability.

When we know what we are capable of and what inspires us to perform at the highest level of our abilities and creativity, the surest path is to recognize that the voice of resistance is a distortion, a sort of malfunction of ancient survival mechanisms that, instead of keeping us safe, keep us trapped in all that we are not.

Slainte!