Black Panther was Long Overdue

Image courtesy Babak Fakhamzadeh

Image courtesy Babak Fakhamzadeh

Marvel's recent film, Black Panther, was long overdue both in the way it was created and in the way it met market demand.

 The film was racially ground-breaking. The cast was largely black. The director was black. The antagonist was black. And, of course, our lead superhero, the Black Panther, was… black. According to a TIME article, "Hollywood has never produced a blockbuster this splendidly black", and it's surprising.

Why did it take so long for American media to get here? Black history and culture is as influential to society as that from any race or ethnicity. From an equity standpoint, you would have thought that black kids growing up in American would have had a black superhero to 'marvel' at by now.

Beyond that, even by looking at it from a purely economic standpoint, the numbers should have warranted a film like this long ago.  In the U.S., African-Americans make up a considerable portion of the population. Globally, 1/6+ of the population has African roots.

In other words, theoretically, the market is enormous. There's a reason why Nigeria-based Nollywood is the 2nd largest film industry in the world, and Hollywood realized this when Black Panther shot off the charts. It became the uncontested highest-grossing film of 2018 and, currently, it is the 9th highest grossing film in history. Good for Disney and good for all of us.

The Nobel’s Surprising Past and How Alfred Built the Nobel Legacy We Know Today

Image courtesy Tim Ereneta

Image courtesy Tim Ereneta

The Nobel’s were an impoverished Swedish family living in Stockholm, of the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway. Immanuel, the father, made a living as an engineer helping to make weapons. He brought his inventions to Russia to sell to the government and the family ended up staying there for around 20 years. Immanuel and his wife had 8 children, but only 3 boys survived past childhood. Robert, Ludvig, and Alfred each developed their own interest in engineering.  

Robert and Ludvig helped run their father’s factories, which produced armaments for the Russians in the Crimean War, a war in which the French, British, Ottomans, and Sardinians sought to limit Russian expansion in the Ottoman region. The war was also a religious one between those supporting rights of French Catholic or Russian Orthodox groups in the Holy Land. Needless to say, the Nobel’s were war profiteers from unjustified fighting with many million casualties. Their hands were dirtied, but no longer from the dust of an impoverished life.

When the war ended, profits decreased. Immanuel and his wife and Alfred returned to Sweden, where Alfred studied and became particularly interested in explosives.  Robert and Ludvig, who Immanuel had left the armaments company to, stayed in Russia.

They converted the factory into a distillery, and then later founded a petroleum company – Branobel. It operated primarily in Baku, Azerbaijan and with a minor presence in Turkmenistan. Oil country. It became not only one of the largest oil companies in the world, but one of the world’s largest and most powerful companies. At one point, Branobel produced 50% of the world’s oil.  The family became titans of industry in the 1800’s, and Ludvig was one of the era’s richest men.

While his brothers were making a fortune in Azerbaijan and driving the industrial revolution, Alfred became a world-renowned scientist. He had 355 international patents, including one for dynamite. He invested in his brothers venture and so became extraordinarily wealthy.

Unfortunately, the Nobel’s were about to experience the dirtiness of oil. Ludvig is credited with creating the Russian oil industry, which provided great wealth to one of history’s worst regimes. While the Russian people were sick of the Tsar and their current form of government, the ensuing Bolshevik Revolution, or Red October, was more of a ‘out of the frying pan and into the fire’ type of transition. The idealist communist rule was anything but ideal. Lenin and the Bolshevik’s seized the assets of the elites and took absolute power with their ideology. In an instant, Ludvig’s empire and influence were engulfed by the Bolsheviks. It helped them execute their agenda for years. Lenin is responsible for the death of millions, while his successor, Stalin, is responsible for killing over 20 million of his own people alone. Furthermore, many of the uglier aspects of today’s Russia originate from this period.

In the Crimean war, many were killed with armaments from a Nobel-built factory. During and after the Bolshevik Revolution, many were killed with money and power provided from a Nobel-built oil empire. And, uncountable numbers more have died from weapons engineered from Alfred’s 90+ armaments factories and hundreds of inventions. Most people would have thought the Nobel’s success was wrapped up in dirty money.

Ironically, Alfred was actually a pacifist who just happened to have a scientific passion for explosives. When his brother died, a French newspaper confused Ludvig’s death with it being Alfred’s own death and they titled the story “The Merchant of Death is Dead”. It shook Alfred to his core. He was appalled at his reputation. It is the likely reason he wrote a will that would rewrite his and much of his family’s legacy. He left his fortune to create an award with 5 categories (a 6th was later added) with the objective of promoting global peace. Today, we know the award and Alfred’s family by the world’s most highly-esteemed recognition, the Nobel Prize.

Why Native Americans Impact So Greatly Through the Military?

Image courtesy of Smithsonian

Image courtesy of Smithsonian

Previously, we examined evidence illustrating the significant impact Natives make through the military. That impact begs another question: why? It's an important question, which provides much insight into Native communities.

There are two basic reasons. First, the military provides advancement opportunities for the many Natives who are disadvantaged by a cycle of socio-economics challenges, stemming from historical trauma. The military can provide a structured pathway away from the cycle. Relative to most contexts, the military is a setting where individuals are more likely to be recognized appropriately for their contributions.

Second, and most importantly, the military provides an opportunity to be part of something much bigger than oneself. This deeply aligns with three important components of the Native psyche

Tribal life was and still is driven more by collectivism than by the individualism Americans are used to. Native tribes typically didn't have words for 'I' or 'me'.. Instead, they only referred to 'we' and 'us'. Consider even the idea of one person or group being able to 'own' property. In response to that concept, Wampanoag tribe leader Massasoit said, "What is this you call property?... The woods, the streams, everything on it belongs to everybody and is for the use of all. How can one man say it belongs only to him?" This sense of oneness compels the type of service to 'us' through the military.

Historically, it was considered the greatest honor to protect and fight for the interests of one's tribe. According PBS documentary The West, warrior societies (such as the Bowstrings, the Blackmouths, and the Dog Soldiers) flourished within each tribe, especially leading up to the 1800's. Kids saw members of these societies as superheros. Women would not date a man who hadn't proven his courage to serve the tribe. The warrior culture persists today, especially through military service. The remarkable percentage of Natives who have served with distinction are testament to this. An example is Charles George (Cherokee) who threw himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades. He was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor.

Warrior culture created a deep sense of brotherhood. A common bond around a common purpose. It is no wonder that one of the bright spots of many reservations is athletics. The Ojibwe youth excel in basketball. The Lakota in boxing. The Iroquois in Lacrosse. And, many enter fields of work which offer a strong sense of teamwork, the military is one of them. It's not just men anymore though. Today, around 20% of Natives in the military are women, while around 15% of people from all other races are women. A sense of service and sacrifice for the greater good is pervasive in Native American communities. 

Native Americans in the Military

Image Courtesy of SDNG

Image Courtesy of SDNG

In 2020, the Smithsonian will dedicate the National Native American Veterans Memorial in D.C. It is about time! Some Americans are familiar with the infamous Navajo Windtalkers who led a secretive code communication operation. However, most Americans are unaware of Native military contributions. Here are a few insights.

  • More Native Americans serve in the U.S. military per capita than those of any other ethnic group. According to the National Museum of the American Indian, this has been the case since the American Revolution.

  • 18.6% of Native veterans served in the post-9/11 period. More than those of other ethnicities (14%).

  • The Thunderbirds, or 45th Infantry division, freed tens of thousands of prisoners from the Dachau concentration camp during WW2. Three Natives from the group were awarded the Medal of Honor. According to the National Museum of the American Indian, General Patton stated to the group, "You are one of the best, if not the best, divisions in the history of American arms."

  • 90% of the 42,000+ Natives who served in the Vietnam War were volunteers.

  • Thousands of Natives fought in the Union army during the Civil War. In fact, General Ulysses Grant's secretary, Brigadier General Ely Parker, was an Iroquois Chief. He drafted the terms of surrender which was provided to General Lee, which ended the war.

  • Natives have served with distinction in all major conflicts over the last couple centuries.

With contributions like these, it is a shame that a Native memorial doesn't already exist. However, the development of the monument is underway, as initiated by Congress. It's only fitting for the site to open in 2020 because America will finally be able to truly see the disproportionate sacrifice Natives have made protecting this great land.

Lifecycles 3: How Organizations Can Persist

Image courtesy European Parliament

Image courtesy European Parliament

According to management expert Ichak Adizes, an organization's fountain of youth is found at the balancing point between flexibility and control. Therefore, part of management's responsibility, after the first treacherous stages of growth, is to create an environment that isn't too loose and flexible yet not too controlled and bureaucratic. 

Likewise, Jim Collin's research of best companies of the 20th century reveals their competitive advantage - a unique combination. They're able to preserve the core. Managers create strong frameworks with core values and purposes. The right ideas provide just enough structure to unify. At the same time, these long-lasting companies stimulate progress. They keep flexible enough to shift with quickly changing markets.

To survive, organization's must adapt to their environments. This means, every individual's growth is pinnacle because it is individuals who engage with those being served. Each person's learning forms the organization's collective conscious for staying attuned to meet clients' shifting needs. By doing so, a company avoids becoming obsolete to it's customers. Instead, they're able to adjust themselves to identify new mutually beneficial ways to meet market demands. IBM is a notable example, having pivoted from computer production to technology consulting. They were able to keep their core while transforming the way they served customers.

An organization's impact is a culmination of its individuals' ability to serve effectively. It's easy to feel like a person can simply blend into the mass of a conglomerate company. And, although it is true that those with more power have greater responsibility to be thoughtful in an organization's development, the truth is that everyone's behavior is important. They are the organization, like literal links in the chain of service. Each persons greatest task is simple: to steward themselves and the resources they have as well as possible to serve the greater whole. The better they do, the more evolved their organizations are and the more positive the legacy that carries on.

Lifecycles 2: Organizations Potential to Persist

Image courtesy Yvonne Larsson

Image courtesy Yvonne Larsson

Organizations are similar to people in that their physical constructs - buildings, supplies, people, products, technology - change. But, organizations are different. The persistence of certain sets of ideas allows them to survive indefinitely, or at least as long as their purposes are warranted. Two years ago, the dean of an MBA program clarified my thinking with this definition of 'a team' that she teaches - "two or more people with a shared goal". When individuals choose to group together, as two or two-hundred thousand, it's because they mutually subscribe to a core of ideas. My wife and I grew a relationship based on shared values. Rugby players form a team out of shared passion for the sport and winning. A lawyer joins a firm because she matches with the mission and culture.

As individuals coalesce, shared ideas build momentum. The more that join, the greater the potential for synergistic impact. Ideas have the ability to unite entire organizations of highly diverse people around shared strategies and tactics. And, they have the power to align the symbols, language, values, and norms that make up their culture. While all physical things change, the ideas persist in some way.

Typically, formal organizations die younger than necessary and its ideas merely carry on in the minds of its experience-rs who are scattered across other groupings. However, unlike mortal humans, formal organizations have the ability to survive many generations of people. It's uncommon. There's a reason companies older than fifty years brand themselves to communicate it (e.g. "Since 1837"). Most companies are built haphazardly by leaders who are unintentional about healthy long-term growth. And, what happens? Their markets face disruption, more savvy competitors pop-up, or the economy dips. And, their structures crumble.

Then, there are the few Colgate's, Ziljian's, and AT&T's of the world who manage to survive many series of offices, technology eras and people. The difference can be found with leadership. Leaders with uncanny discretion (and perhaps outlier fortune on a bell curve) and the courage to transform. The way they lead increases their group's odds for greater longevity.

Lifecycles 1: While People are Finite, Their Legacy Persists

Image courtesy of Alona Praslov

Image courtesy of Alona Praslov

Born, live, die. The remarkable earthly life-cycle, especially for humans, when you think about it. We're non-existent and then we come into existence. We're formed from elements that previously made-up dirt, trees, air and who knows what else which became our mothers which became us. It's miraculous. While we live, all of the atoms that make up our bodies are completely replaced many times. Then, we die and the elements that make up our existence return back to become dirt, water, animals, etc. From dust to changing dust to dust.

"Depressing......" many say. Seeing the larger space-time context of human existence often evokes lowly or even frightening emotion, but only to the extent that it collapses our false perceptions and brings us back to earth's humbling reality. And, reality is inspiring. It reminds us of our microscopic size and our macroscopic potential. It compels us to better serve the greater whole and keep focused on the most important things.

Though our bodies are decaying, our impact is just germinating. The key question is: what impact are we having every single day on others? For good or bad, the net sum of the ideas and emotions we sprout in others becomes our legacy. I think of a good friend that passed away. He was one of the most compassionate, loyal, patient, and truthful individuals my family knew. There are moments of stress when I think of his example of patience and there are moments of sadness when I'm reminded of his underlining peace. Like pieces of a mosaic in others, he lives on, and so will we.

At all moments, we are conditioning those around us into something that they weren't before. It's determined by the way we steward ourselves and the resources we have to serve others. Think of yourself as a system. You have three major components - input, throughput, and output. So, how are you managing what comes in, how it processes inside, and the way it comes out? As systems, our primary constraint, which we should harness rigorously, is our attention. The better we're able to harness it positively, the better the shards of memories, ideas, and emotions that we spread into others' mosaic-minds, which then splinter into others.

Scripted Ethics vs. Actual Ethics

Image courtesy of Carl Nenzen Loven

Image courtesy of Carl Nenzen Loven

I made two friends recently. Both are successful small business owners who also work for multi-billion dollar corporations. Kendra supplements her work in event services with a highly lucrative role at Boeing. Mario (names changed) compliments his engineering solutions for small businesses by providing ADT security services.

Mario can't get enough of ADT. In conversation, his admiration went on and on, so I asked him 'why?' Without hesitating, he answered "the ethics". He shared that from top to bottom, the company functions with strong ethics. He said that the employees enjoy the resulting high-trust work culture, which starts with ethical leadership at the top. He went on to say that their emphasis on ethics is a little ridiculous, with their 8-inch standards manual and vast measurement metrics, but that he liked the culture it created.

As a stark contrast, Kendra was disgusted by Boeing's culture, even calling it "a terrible place to work". Surprised by what I'd heard, I probed into what made it so bad. Equally as fast as Mario had responded, she replied "the ethics". Despite a bounty of standards and metrics, her experience was of unethical leadership and a deflated culture, which she called the Seattle stereotype of Boeing. She said it cascades from the top, where company executives have been known for corrupt involvement with politicians and special interest groups. Knowing the economic size and public-private nature of the airline industry, this seemed logical to me. Matching this, Kendra said she, like many, remained only because of the exorbitant salary she was paid, based on doing very little actual work.

So, what accounts for their two very different experiences? It's simple. Although both are clear on their ethical standards, messaging, and metrics, one seems to abide by them closer than the other. And, while it's difficult to know the extent to which these perspectives represent reality for ADT and Boeing, we can pull several take-a-ways from the juxtaposition.

  • It's important to be clear and united on ethical standards and to have clear 'messaging'. It's more important to get beyond well-scripted words and genuinely practice it. Whatever is practiced = true belief. Executive abidance and normalizing is critical. Few things are more frustrating in work settings than hypocrisy from those with greater formal power.

  • Executive behavior cascades throughout an organization to create cultural norms. One level to the next to the next, a manager adjusts his behavior for effectiveness with the manager above him. If you notice this, try to look for how they shift and why that may be the case.

  • Ethical dynamics are important factors in determining individuals' experience. Ones experience becomes the company image that is painted to others. Employees' collective experience becomes a generalized mural for others to see. It is part of their brand.

  • The way others see the company influences whether sales increase or decrease. Whether the market lets an organization survive or fade away. Additionally, this natural process can be stymied when group that is better off dying out is propped-up (or bailed-out by the government), which often further invigorates a poisonous culture.

  • The gap between ethics in statement and action is due to a lack of accountability, which appears to have weakened in many spheres. Two ways to increase management accountability:

    • Create a condensed version of ethical behaviors. Make it simple enough to assure shared understanding and engaging enough to actually be viewed. Where complexity is simplified and humanized, there are fewer loopholes for actions to be rationalized.

    • Re-consider the upsides and downsides of your current management incentives packages. You may at least tie incentives to a combination of performance and ethics ratings or similar reviews. Remember to apply Drucker's adage here "what gets measured gets managed."

    • More ideas here.

Optimizing Development to Potential: Part 2

Image courtesy Tjflex2

Image courtesy Tjflex2

I've seen the same trend (how development is linked to dealing with stress) in companies, marriages, and individuals, and I especially know its relevance because of my own experiences. I believe that there is one most powerful way to interpret stresses stronger on the side of eustress - seeing them within the greater context. Seeing the bigger picture reminds us that:

  1. We need to keep our directional focus, despite the ease of being distracted by challenges.

  2. What feel like unique problems are actually very normal.

  3. There are models and methods to help us navigate effectively.

There are two parts to seeing the bigger picture. The first half is simply pausing to zoom out and be reminded of what is already known. Equally obvious but too often neglected, the second half is studying those who have gone before. A famous Chinese proverb states it well, "To know the road ahead, ask those coming back."

As an example, let's consider a forty-five year-old man whose major challenge for the year has been going through a mid-life crisis. It'd be great if he received insight from a few people like a friend or his father, but what if he could survey thousands of others. Can you imagine what he'd learn? He'd be so much clearer on why he feels the way he does, what's truly unique (or not unique) about HIS situation, how he could mimic others who effectively processed through the stage, how to avoid being like others who damaged family unnecessarily, etc.

Do you think insights from thousands of others would cause this man to face his mid-life crisis any differently? I think so, but how could he engage with thousands? Easy - it's called books (or any other publication medium). For most of the important challenges we and our organizations face in our life cycles, from scaling a business to developing a career to passing on family tradition, there's research to stand upon and leverage. We would do well to spend more time researching related to our real-time challenges to gain greater context for more effectively moving toward potential. The key is simple - to be intentional with individual and organizational development. Here's a sampling of my favorite models (although I don't agree with each fully) as they relate to development.

Optimizing Development to Potential: Part 1

Image courtesy Jill Katley

Image courtesy Jill Katley

Heraclitus is known for saying "The only thing that is constant is change". We can especially see it in human and organizational development. We're not static, but in a continuous state of becoming. The question is: what are we developing into? An even better question is: how can we optimize our development? 

This framework gets us going in the right direction:

  1. What role should you or the organization be playing within the greater whole?

  2. What would optimization look like at this stage?

  3. How can that potential become reality?

Answering these three questions in detail is like the re-orienting of a compass. They point us in the right basic direction. Of course, getting there depends upon ongoing action mixed with re-orientation. Like navigating through dense woods, it involves looking up to take in surroundings and identify a marker, looking down to move through brush, then looking up to take in surroundings and identify the next marker, then moving forward, and so on. In each phase of looking up, we see more clearly where we are and learn more about where we're going. In each phase of movement, we experience new stresses which compel greater optimization.

Years ago, I watched as computer whiz kids, talented communicators, gifted teams, and others faced stresses and then chose to turn themselves from their potential. It deeply troubled me. The more I noticed, the more I realized it was a normal theme, and that was heart-breaking. It was troubling because (a) I often understood their situations and (b) I saw the gap between their reality and potential. You can surely relate with what you've seen.

One helpful way I learned to view it was through the lens of stress. I saw that each person or team always faced a unique and complex bundle of stresses, sometimes more heightened than other times. With this perspective, I noticed a difference between situations where they grew or faltered.

Those who faltered perceived the stresses more negatively than necessary, allowing great "distress", and this spread to become the dominant perception of the group. Their judgment was clouded, and they reacted by making misdirected decision which sent them on off-target development pathways. Even minor miscalculations, across distance, put them noticeably off-target. And, the longer they stayed on the path, the more deeply ingrained the misdirected habits became (and more difficult to change later when they realized their destination options).

On the flip side, those who tended to grow saw more clearly. They saw the stresses as positively as necessary to find the opportunities for improvement. Their challenges were experienced with greater "eustress" that propelled them toward their potential. More simply, and maybe more accurately, they saw challenges as opportunities.