What The H@#* Is A Team Player?
I almost always write a blog post on the Fourth of July. Today, however, I first thought that my topic had nothing to do with the day honoring our nation’s independence, but on further thought, I believe it does. I’ll let you be the judge after you read it.
I wish I had a dollar for every time someone has said to me “he’s not a team player” or “she needs to learn teamwork.” These are very easy statements to make, but a lot harder to substantiate. Usually I even think the person making the statement understands less about teamwork than the person he or she is making the comment about. When I hear this, I always like to ask “What do you mean?” Most is the time the response I get reveals a very limited view of what it means to contribute to a team. Generally, the person making the statement wants the other person to fully concede to another way of thinking. And, if you’re paying attention, they will also use language like “reaching common ground,” as if we are looking for the best campsite.
Recently, I had a friend posit the reason individuals refer to others as non-team players is because it’s the easiest statement to put someone on the defensive. When thinking about the times I have been called out as not being a team player, it has put me on the defensive. When examining this subject in that light it really does reveal the ignorance of the other person’s understanding of team effectiveness, compromise, and consensus building.
If team effectiveness is the capacity of a group of individuals has to accomplish their own and their shared goals and objectives, then we must acknowledge the dichotomy that exists. Teams are made up of individuals and those individuals come with their own values, experience, and goals. That’s what made the melding together of the group that we call our nation’s founding fathers so powerful.
“The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.” ~ Patrick Henry
I’ve studied many former leaders extensively and the greatest of those leaders understood the difference between teamwork and marching orders. Teamwork should allow for diversity of thought and allow exposing the best of each individual. Again, as I said earlier, teamwork relies on style and strength differences of all individuals. Right now I am reading The Years of Lyndon Johnson: Master of The Senate by Robert A. Caro. In this study of power one sees that Johnson’s use of power and definition of teamwork is that of being loyal to him (Johnson). Real teamwork does not involve loyalty to a person or “marching orders.” These “marching orders” shut down new ideas and results in only doing the bare minimum.
Caro also laid out for his readers the fact that sometimes consensus can be reached by compromise and other times it absolutely cannot. In those times when it can’t, there must be a consensus built from scratch. In reality, many times compromise becomes a power struggle where some have to give up to accommodate others to get what they want. If this happens enough, it becomes a power struggle, not teamwork or consensus building.
Finally, the Declaration of Independence was signed by 56 people. Those 56 people did not have the same views. We must remember that not any one of these could have successfully lead us through the revolution. It took a team!
Seeing What Others Don’t See
The best leaders see things that other leaders don’t see. At least I believe this to be true about the leaders I most respect. Recently, I heard it said of George Washington that he was an idealist and saw things as they should be. If we think of idealists as seeing the full potential in others and organizations, I certainly agree. Idealists are visionaries. Think about it, Washington’s vision for our country was visionary because there was not any other country out there to copy off off.
The part that really impresses me about Washington, however, is that he was also a pragmatic leader. He was a practical thinker. When he took over the Virginia Regiment and then the Militia he had to focus on the processes necessary to achieve the vision. Both times he was given groups of undisciplined/unruly men that he had to create the processes of rule, order, and training.
While Washington was that rare leader that possessed idealism and pragmatism, I believe it was his ability to truly inspire and mobilize people that separated him from others. Also, he was able to keep his ambitions in check – most let ambitions for power, position, money, or status wins out over purpose and core values. Washington might be our true shining star role model for this.
As I was studying for this post, I came across a quote credited to French novelist, Marcel Proust: “The real act of discovery consists not in finding new lands, but in seeing with new eyes.” This quote could certainly apply to great visionary leaders and Washington. In doing more research, however, I found this was a paraphrase and not what was actually written in Proust’s novel.
The quote is paraphrased out of Proust’s seven volume novel, Remembrance Of Things Past (1923). The actual phrase is in Chapter 2 of Volume 5, The Prisoner, and is actually referring to art instead of travel. You might disagree, but I believe the actual passage to be more meaningful than the paraphrased version. Here is the actual transcript:
“The only true voyage of discovery, the only fountain of Eternal Youth, would be not to visit strange lands but to possess other eyes, to behold the universe through the eyes of another, of a hundred others, to behold the hundred universes that each of them beholds, that each of them is.”
Proust was an incredibly talented and artful writer. His writing in this novel gives us another way to think about the leadership of Washington. He was seeing our country through another set of eyes - not just using the same paradigms that were known by all at the time. As an artful leader, Washington was able to envision what great things our new universe, a democracy, would behold for each of us.
Today, if we truly want to embrace one-of-a-kind ideas in a world of copycat thinking, we need to see the things that others don’t see.
Reflecting On Our Presidents
“The Republican Club,” by artist Andy Thomas, was personally chosen by President Donald Trump to be displayed in the White House.
Andy Thomas Democratic Club presidents painting Image of “The Democratic Club” painting by Andy Thomas
It has been an incredible 2020 President’s Day. I had to drive to Nashville, Tennessee this morning so I had lots of time to reflect on our Presidents. My son and I were together this past weekend and reflected on the Presidents in the paintings displayed in this post. We pondered what they were discussing and thought about how great it would be to have conversations with these Presidents. As I got closer to Nashville, I reflected on the leadership of Andrew Jackson. I had the chance to go to The Hermitage last year and to the site of The Battle of New Orleans the year before that. There are certainly things that I would not have agreed with Andrew Jackson on, but there is no question he was a great leader. I blogged about his leadership in “Old Hickory” Leadership.
I had a great day tweeting questions every hour or so related to our Presidents. There was some great interaction. Here’s the questions I asked throughout the day:
- Who was our U.S. President the day you were born?
- Who were the U.S. Presidential candidates the first time you were able to vote?
- If you could have dinner and a conversation with any past or present/living or deceased United States President, who would choose?
- If you care to share, who was the first U.S. President you ever voted for?
- Who has spent time in the Oval Office with a U.S. President? Is so, which one?
- If you could add another U.S. President to Mount Rushmore, who would you add?
- Are you reading about any U.S. Presidents right now? If so, which one(s)?
- Have you finished any great President autobiographies or biographies lately?
- What is your favorite Presidential Library you have been to?
- What do you consider the best book by or about a First Lady of our great nation?
Wow, until I typed them out here, I had not realized I had asked 10 questions today. I can’t resist telling you that our 10th President was John Tyler. He became President in 1841 when William Henry Harrison died. He was the first Vice President to succeed to the Presidency after the death of his predecessor. How about that for some President’s Day learning? It was sure fun reflecting on the past and how our Presidents have affected our lives and this great country we call home.
A Clouded Social Critique
My rating: 5 of 5 stars
This book is an absolute genius work of art. The story is told from the three main characters points of view. I believe the most innovative part of Hart’s writing in this novel is that one cannot distinguish between who is protagonist or antagonist. And, I was left still pondering this after I had read the last words. Additionally, all characters have internal and external conflicts. Two of the main characters, Paxton and Zinnia, are dynamic in their character development and again we are left wondering where this development will leave them. Gibson is the only, round, or fully developed main character. One finds him in the book for what he is, a person who talks great core values, but is caught up in ambition over purpose. I blogged about this in “It has been an Honor To Live This Life”: https://byronernest.blog/2020/01/23/i… The book gives us different versions of the same truth. This really reads as a social critique on America. The business, Cloud, that the novel is written around really almost becomes a character in and of itself. This book treads the blurred line very closely to what is real, not so far off in the future real, and still out there a ways – or at least so I hope. There are parts of this book that seem so real that they should worry us. I blogged about this in “Remember, Freedom Is Yours Until You Give It Up”: https://byronernest.blog/2020/01/25/r… This is a must read book because of the great literary art that it is, but also because of its thought provoking nature.
“Remember, Freedom Is Yours Until You Give It Up”
But let’s look deeper into this thought of “…freedom is yours until you give it up.” Freedom means different things to different people. Personally, I have always broken freedom down into two main categories: 1) Freedom To, and 2) Freedom From. To me, everything comes down to those two things. We need to distinguish between what it means to be free from something and to be free to be or do something. For example, freedom to might be described from a political standpoint of having the opportunity to vote for particular ideas, people, or parties which best represent our views. Examples include the right to bear arms or to assemble and speak freely. Or, something as simple as leaving the hotel room I am in right now in Murray, Kentucky and pick anywhere my son and I want to go eat lunch. Freedom from could mean the notion of freedom from environmental hazard or some other preventable hazard. This should not be confused with licentious freedom. To be free, and remain free, we must become responsible human beings.
Interestingly, however, “freedom to” and “freedom from” have always been an area of civic and political tension. The preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that, “…freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.” In striving to achieve these goals, we often face resistance from those who are focused on “freedom to,” who see an aspiration towards “freedom from” as a threat to individual liberty. This is being outlined in another great book I am reading right now by one of my favorite authors, Amity Shlaes, in Great Society: A New History. The book told of President Johnson’s commencement speech at the University of Michigan when he said, “The truth is, far from crushing the individual, government at its best liberates him from the enslaving forces of his environment” (Slaes, 20, p. 98). I, for one, do not believe that more government is the answer to any issue.
Johnson’s Great Society, however, is a great case study for the tension of “freedom to” and “freedom from.” Our country’s move toward socialism during that age was marked by our government’s effort to end poverty which drove federal spending to unsustainable heights. “America,” Shlaes wrote, “morphed into a country that could afford nothing.” Harry Truman always spoke of the nuances of leadership, and the Great Society must be studied, which Shlaes did, in the nuanced context of the relationship of the Vietnam War, poverty, and civil rights. It has been debated whether what was being proposed was socialism, but whether one believes that production being controlled or distribution of wealth being controlled is socialism, one thing is clear; the Great Society created a tension of “freedoms to” and freedoms from.” One of the most interesting comments from Shlaes in the book so far (because I’m only on page 124 of 513) is an interpretation of how Senator George Smathers of Florida was thinking: “A law that defined new rights at the national level was taking away from individuals the authority of their own conscience, and substituting a federal, national conscience to overrule them. And who knew whether the federal government’s conscience would always be better? (Shlaes, 2019, p. 116). This is an interesting question to ponder.
If I bring this full circle back to where we began with the fiction novel, The Warehouse where we found that a business named Cloud had basically taken over everything – it controlled the markets, what products people were able to buy, how they lived, et cetera. Certainly, I do not want that any more than I want the government becoming my conscience, controlling markets, or dolling out huge amounts of money for programs that don’t work. Alexander Hamilton believed, as do I, that the people are very capable of governing themselves based on reflection and choice. We also need to stay true to the desire of framers Washington, Jefferson, and Madison who insisted that governments were instituted for the people, not the rulers. So, freedom really is ours until we give it up. We need to be very careful how we balance this tension.
Interestingly, Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997) studied this very issue. Berlin called what I am calling two types of freedom in this post, two concepts of freedom: 1) Negative freedom – freedom from control by others, and 2) Positive freedom – freedom to control oneself. Berlin referred to our two selves: a lower self, which is irrational and impulsive, and a higher self, which is rational and far-sighted. That certainly does describe each and every one of us. Because of the two selves Berlin posited that negative freedom and positive freedom can both be abused. This was and is an issue that continues to be debated. And, it needs continual debating. This debate is the essence of the statement “Freedom is yours until you give it up.” This is why we must have the tough conversations about issues and why we all need to be involved in our local communities, states, and nations. As I said earlier, I believe as Hamilton did, people are very capable of governing themselves. Some individuals might need help understanding their best interests and achieving their full potential, and some would believe that government has a responsibility to help them do so. The question becomes “Who decides what counts as a rich and fulfilling life?”
There are no easy answers to these questions. Berlin never came up with the exact answer, only new questions. This is one of those conundrums that will continue to be debated, but at least we have distinctions like Berlin’s to help us navigate the tension and contemplate the realization that freedom is ours until we give it up.
REFERENCES
Hart, R.W. (2019) The warehouse. New York, NY: Crown Publishing Group.
Shlaes, A. (2019) Great society: a new history. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishing.
Byron's Babbles 
1 comment