Big or Bloated?

Today's organizations push to be bigger, wider (global), and highly profitable (not just profitable). The pressures to become "too big to fail" drive failure itself. Add greed to the equation and you have the 2008 economic crisis that we are now struggling to reverse. Good is not good enough, was the mantra of many companies in the early 21st Century; good to great (the name of a best seller about business) was the rallying cry. We have lost perspective. The challenges for the organizations of the future include balancing the drive to grow with the understanding that service and leadership sometimes mean contracting in order to do a few things really well as opposed to being everything to everyone.

It is interesting to note that the banks that got in trouble during the last few years were among the biggest. Many smaller banks fared well. So, the challenge for large organizations is to maintain a sense of the personal touch. Giant corporations would be better served to look at themselves as groups of smaller companies made up of real people. Some say they do this but how does that idea compare to looking at the stock price?

While working for one of the biggest companies in the world--General Electric--it was instructive to witness how the corporate culture took hold after our station was purchased by GE. Even though we were encouraged to be a resource for our own community, we also learned that we had to do things the GE way. NBC has slowly, but steadily, declined during the decades since it was purchased by GE; some of that is a consequence of other factors, but GE/NBC is big enough to be a driver of the trend. If large corporations--or other organizations for that matter--are going to thrive, they need to have character, diversity, and consistent quality. Bigness alone may actually hurt.

As we've learned in the last few months, too big to fail sounds rather foolish.

It's always seemed a bit too facile to blame all our ills on greed, but greed plays a big role. Ultimately, capitalism, socialism, all the isms offer only partial solutions. The communication scholar, Neil Postman, offered a view I share. The idea that capitalists tend to be creative and innovative must be tempered with restraint, not on their creativity or innovation, but on their tendency to inflict damage along the way. Since we know that self restraint tends to be minimal or absent in the face of certain temptations, the larger society, through government, public opinion, and the forces of the marketplace have to set limits. While my most conservative friends like to argue that the marketplace is the most potent force for regulation (self regulation), ideas based on Adam Smith and expanded upon by the University of Chicago economists who follow Milton Friedman, we are learning that the marketplace has limits.

Now we have to regulate the market place to make it work again. President Obama reminds us that while action is painful, inaction is worse, in terms of fixing the economy. So, as is the case with much of life, the real solutions come from many places. The biggest, grandest enterprises have their place, but if we don't have small boutique centers of excellence it all becomes a boring shopping mall, with all the same stores, whether you're in Tokyo or Texas.

Seasons of Fear

Thirteen years after its opening on Broadway, the musical Rent continues to provoke controversy. Now the issue is whether it is appropriate for it to be produced as real life high school musicals. A slightly toned down version of the show is being offered to schools. Across the country, drama departments are taking advantage of the offer, but a few principals and parent groups don't want their kids doing a show about AIDS, gay relationships, and difficult problems that might make some audiences uncomfortable.

Rent was the seventh longest running show in Broadway history, a Pulitzer Prize winner for drama, and a Tony winner as best musical. The opportunity for students attending high school in 2009 to experience a play that captures a time not very long ago would seem to be an ideal learning experience. This story of recent cultural history and the evolution of the AIDS pandemic should be studied by high school students. Rent's own website says it may not be appropriate for children under 13, but very few high school kids are that young.

Good art is often controversial. Arts education--including high school drama productions--should include explorations of controversy. During my many years of covering news I was often struck by the fear and ignorance of those who wanted to ban books or limit access to material that some might find offensive. Many times the outrage was based on a lack of understanding or simply not wanting to deal with topics that made them uneasy. Certainly, there are limits. But those limits should apply to libelous falsehoods, flagrant and malicious disregard of the truth, and deliberate provocations of hatred. Rent is none of these.

Ultimately, communities make choices. Rent is a play that should not be banned from high school drama departments. For some students it may be life changing. My own daughter wrote a college application essay about seeing Rent and learning about life outside her own experience; it touched her deeply. She has since gone on to work on Broadway, as a theatrical publicist. How many other young people might be inspired by such a highly acclaimed contemporary musical?

The Buck Stops Where?

The defensive--tone-deaf--manner in which Wall Street and Washington respond to revelations of their own wrongdoing speaks volumes about what is wrong and why it is so difficult to fix. When Tom Daschle’s problems became a news story, all his friends, and even some Capitol Hill rivals, seemed ready to confirm him. That “ordinary Americans” were outraged finally turned the tide. President Obama eventually got it. To his credit, he took responsibility and responded to the voices outside the halls of Washington power, and beyond the boardrooms of the island Manhattan. When bankers enriched by bailouts made themselves bonus babies despite their bottom lines bottoming out, they claimed that they, the best and the brightest, are different and deserve everything they get.

So the president goes to Elkhart, Indiana and then Fort Myers, Florida, grounds zero for the unemployment and foreclosure crises. He should continue to get out of Washington as often as possible. And he ought to use the bully pulpit to suggest a few field trips for the executives who favor costly commodes and gilded garbage cans. Most of the Wall Street royalty and the Washington ruling class can travel incognito; they are not recognizable outside of their own kingdoms. They should be required to take these trips in order to understand the pain and suffering they have wrought or failed to mitigate.

President Obama took responsibility for the Daschle debacle. “I screwed up”, he said. Until leaders acknowledge their own mistakes, fixing problems remains somebody else’s job. Haven’t we had enough of that?

The latest “we didn’t do anything wrong” response comes from bailout recipient Wells Fargo, forced to cancel an expensive employee recognition get away after news of the trip to Las Vegas became public. The bank’s response was to take out ads in the NY Times, and Washington Post, defending the practice, and blaming the media for creating problems. This, of course, created even more outrage. Until the most powerful start to take responsibility and stop pointing fingers the recovery will continue to stagger. The “buck” has to stop somewhere, but these so-called leaders seem to think it is always someplace else.

UPDATE--Daschle Steps Down

When I wrote the blog immediately below this one, last night, and posted it this morning, I did not expect Daschle to be out so soon. Whatever his problems, his quick action to remove himself as a distraction deserves praise. Now it's time to move ahead. President Obama needs the public's confidence in his picks. This will help.

Truth Has Consequences

President Obama’s promises to do things differently and change the toxic culture of Washington won him much support and grass roots enthusiasm during the campaign. When news of Tom Daschle’s problems broke, on Friday afternoon, on Super Bowl weekend, it looked like all the forces of power and influence on the Democrats’ side of the aisle were falling in line to support their former colleague. The President, himself, pledged he would stand behind his friend.

Despite excellent reporting from The Washington Post, The New York Times, and ABC News, many missed the heart of the story. Rather than focusing on Daschle’s tax problems, the potential for conflicts of interest is equally disturbing.

As somebody who worked hard—on the local level--to help elect Barack Obama, I was particularly concerned about how the Washington establishment seemed to be getting in line to support one of its own despite many good reasons to step away. Now the Times, in Tuesday’s edition, has come out with a lead editorial asking Daschle to step down. He should do so immediately.

After a distinguished career of public service Daschle was defeated for reelection in 2004 and went for the big bucks. He made more than five million dollars during the three years after he left the Senate. Hundreds of thousands of dollars came from health related industries, including insurance companies. Daschle did nothing wrong—other than having to fix his six figure tax problem—but he made a choice. He went for the money, something I suspect many, if not most of us, would do, if we had the opportunity. But for the millions he was paid, he gave up the chance to jump right back in and set policy for the same industries that enriched him. Actions should have consequences, particularly if the boss is serious about what he says regarding the ways of Washington. True, there can be exceptions. But they should be used only for truly special cases. This is not one of those situations.

Health care is one of the most important public policy challenges facing the new president. Fixing the broken system will require clear vision. One of the major forces in the health care debate is the insurance industry. To really reform health care this important player may have to lose money, influence, and power. The person in charge should not be beholden to—or even appear to be influenced by—insurance companies. On this main point, Mr. Daschle ought to withdraw his name from consideration and spare the president and the country unnecessary strife during these challenging times.