Week 3 - Response 2

ORIGINAL POST: Bruce Neubauer

I learned many years ago there is a great difference between disloyalty and disagreement. Reading the description of the conductor’s relationship to the musicians brought this lesson back to me again. It reminded me of a situation I was in many years ago.

I was on staff in a fairly large organization. The owner believed he was always right, regardless of how many poorly rendered decisions he made or how bad the consequences were from those decisions. He was convinced no one was as wise as he. The most tragic part of the story was that providence, fate, (or what have you), brought together the most talented staff I’ve ever been part of. These seven people were all passionate, all gifted, all creative, and all quite brilliant. But instead of seeing this group as the powerhouse of intelligent creativity and problem-solving that it was, the owner was threatened by it. If one of us contradicted or questioned one of his schemes, his response would be negative and personal. No one questioned he was a true visionary. He had an eye for outstanding ideas. He was brilliant, but lacked execution skills. All of us bought into this vision. So when we addressed looming decision or dissected a new program, we spoke from a unity with, and care for, that vision. But he confused disagreement with disloyalty. He disempowered the people he hired to bring his vision to life.

Not one of those people remain in that organization today. All are scattered, working in different fields or other organizations. All reached a moment when they had to make a decision: Do I remain in a state of constant disempowerment, where my creative and intellectual dignity are constantly diminished, or do I pack up my skills and look elsewhere? And slowly, over time, this owner lost a very talented group of people. Every single one of them. To this day, whenever life causes any of our paths to cross, we mourn the time when great potential was squandered away by a brilliant man’s insecurities.

There is a world of difference between disloyalty and disagreement.

I completely agreed with the idea of Rule Number 6 and the “calculating self”. In particular, I liked the quote, ”A child comes to think of himself as the personality he gets recognition for or, in other words, as the set of patterns of action and habits of thought that get him out of childhood in one piece. That set, raised to adulthood, is what we call the calculating self. The prolonged nature of human childhood may contribute to the persistence of these habits long after their usefulness has passed.”

This can mutate into a constant need to “displace others”. At our school we have a junior class that is captured by their “calculating selves” that they will do everything and anything to outdistance one another in their class rank. No amount of counsel seems able to redirect these efforts. It is clearly out of control, almost reaching a state of obsession.

I am going to teach them about Rule Number 6.

Completely agreed with the idea of the half empty, half full discussion. The optimist is measuring what is actually there, the negative person is only measuring their perception. As a matter of fact I used this in class today.

But this is also what drives me crazy about this book. On one hand he tells me to trust a new, very individualized, very subjective view (what is in my head), but then switches around and tells me I must pay attention to the objective amount of water in the glass (what is actually there). Which keeps the book feeling like a remix of Stephen Covey and semi-religious cosmic New Age idealism. Which means he waivers back and forth between being a pure naturalist and being a wishful spiritualist. You can’t have it both ways (just ask Dawkins and Hitchens). Still, I’m reminded of an Asian proverb, “Be where you are at.” So the overall message is fairly legitimate.

The discussion of evil and struggle was intriguing. “Good” and “bad” are only imposed perceptions? (C’mon, we all know better than that). But there is great life (and art) in pain, strain, and struggle. This is why I liked Stravinsky’s quote, “I don’t want the sound of someone playing this passage, I want the sound of someone trying to play it!” I also liked the conversation diagrams of the two starting points: “what is” and “what should be”. Simple. Elegant. I’ll be using those in class.

In the end, I’m not sure how comparisons with the creative arts helps a salesman caught in the daily grind of their routine. Creative people (painters, musicians, writers) who get to use their creativity for a living (even if they’re offended at conductor) don’t struggle with wishing they had been something else. Can you imagine a paid musician saying to themselves, “Boy, I wish I could have worked in a cubicle for an insurance company instead of doing this orchestra gig.” These metaphors and analogies work perfectly for a creative, but for the average guy stuck in a grinding occupation? I don’t know. The application seems a hard sell to me.

MY RESPONSE:

Wow, what a powerful story! You truly brought to life the distinction between disagreement and disloyalty in a way that I hadn't heard of before. That's very unfortunate that this individual wasn't able to take criticism and ideas for the betterment of his own vision.

I, too, agree that Rule Number 6 is something to be emphasized with high school students as they start to get too into themselves and their competitive nature and desire to be the best at the expense of everything. With age comes wisdom though I suppose - I've realized now that it's ok to be good (and not the best) if I'm able to enjoy the experience and bring joy to those around me rather than being the best at the expense of all that's important to me.