HR Doesn’t Work for Workplace Abuse Victims

This blog initially began with a rhetorical question – how do perpetrators of domestic violence act when they report for work?

I was reminded of this when I read about the travails of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation radio broadcaster, Jian Ghomeshi, 47, who was fired recently because he allegedly brutally assaulted three much younger women under the auspices of “rough sex.”

The Toronto Star also reported that a CBC staffer who worked on Ghomeshi’s show, Q,  complained to the CBC of verbal and sexual harassment by Ghomeshi. According to the Star:

“She never dated Ghomeshi. She alleges he approached her from behind and cupped her rear end in the Q studio, and that he quietly told her at a story meeting that he wanted to “hate f—” her.

The woman said she complained about Ghomeshi’s behaviour to her union representative, who took the complaint to a Q producer. As the woman recalls, the producer asked her “what she could do to make this a less toxic workplace” for herself. No further action was taken by the CBC, and the woman left the broadcaster shortly thereafter.”

What could the CBC have done to make the workplace less toxic? Really? And this is a unionized workplace?

Victims of workplace discrimination, harassment and abuse often find a deaf ear when they complain to the Human Resources Department. It’s obvious that HR exists at management’s pleasure, to protect management, and not to protect victims of workplace abuse. No matter how many anti-harassment policies are place, that is the bottom line.  Ghomeshi was a major talent at CBC and his subordinate wasn’t.

The question that began this blog is rhetorical because we all know that when abusers go to work they do not stop being abusers. Abuse is about exerting undue  power and control in relationships, whether it be with a partner or a co-worker or subordinate.  That’s why workers everywhere need laws to protect them from workplace abuse and they need courts that are willing to enforce those laws when employer’s won’t.  Maybe some day?

According to the Star, none of the four women the paper interviewed have ever filed a police complaint against Mr. Ghomeshi, and none of them agreed to go on the record. The women said they are afraid that if they come forward, they will be sued or become victims of vicious online attacks, the paper reported.

Elements of a Good Workplace

GallupMany of us have experienced the horrors of a  bad workplace but what does a good workplace look like?

Jim Clifton, the chairman and chief executive officer of the Gallup poll organization, says he knows, based upon decades of polling data.

  What follows, according to Clifton, are the 12 most important, and most predictive, workplace elements.  If these elements are in place, the employer has an engaged, healthy workforce where employees innovate, work hard  and achieve results.  If these elements are not in place, it is likely that workers are disengaged, less healthy, less productive, and less invested in the success of the company.

What’s your workplace look like? Feel free to show this article to your boss.

  1.  I know what’s expected of me at work.
  2. I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right.
  3. At work, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day.
  4. In the last seven days, I received recognition or praise for doing good work.
  5. My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as a person.
  6. There is someone at work who encourages my development.
  7. At work, my opinions seem to count.
  8. The mission and purpose of my company makes me feel my job is important.
  9. My associates are committed to doing quality work.
  10. I have a best friend at work.
  11. In the last six months, someone at work talked to me about my progress.
  12. In the last year, I have had opportunities at work to learn and grow.

 According to Clifton, a major reason that workforces are not engaged is bad management or what he calls “management from hell.”

 Gallup research has found that the top 25% of employees — the best-managed — versus the bottom 25% in any workplace — the worst-managed — have nearly 50% fewer accidents and have 41% fewer quality defects. What’s more, he says, people in the top 25% versus the bottom 25% incur far less in healthcare costs.

Rutgers’ “Independent” Investigation

RutgersOne wonders how an “independent” investigation could support a finding that Rutgers bullying basketball coach Mike Rice should remain on the university payroll?

Rice was forced to resign recently after a videotape was leaked to the public and showed him verbally and physically  abusing players, while using homophobic slurs.

 In his letter of resignation letter to Rutger’s President Robert L. Barchi, Athletic Director Tim Pernetti writes:

 “As you know, my first instincts when I saw the videotape of Coach Rice’s behavior was to fire him immediately. However, Rutgers decided to follow a process involving university lawyers, human resources professionals and outside counsel. Following review of the independent investigative report, the consensus was that university policy would not justify dismissal.”

Corporate Counsel  reports that the outside counsel, Attorney John Lacey, an attorney with Connell Foley of Roseland, NJ,  issued a report in January stating that Rice could not be fired “for cause.” because there was no clear violation of his employment contract.

  Lacey found that Rice was extremely demanding of his assistant coaches and players but that his behavior did not constitute “a ‘hostile work environment’ as that term is understood under Rutgers’ anti-discrimination policies.”  Lacy said  the “intensity” of Rice’s misconduct may have breached provisions in his contract against embarrassing the school but, as Rutgers officials conveniently point out, did not recommend termination. 

The conclusion of the so-called independent investigation once again raises questions about these so-called  independent investigations.

 Increasingly,  employers hire  outside parties to “investigate” claims of workplace abuse.  There  often is  an unstated expectation that the result  of the investigation will affirm the employer’s goal of retaining the valued bully while insulating the employer from a potential lawsuit if the less valued target files a lawsuit. Too often the so-called independent investigators are attorneys who place themselves in the position of appearing to be for sale to the highest bidder.

 The videotape is so shocking that it defies reason that any “independent” investigator could reasonably  conclude that Rice’s behavior did not justify dismissal. In fact, some of the basketball  players could have filed criminal assault complaints against Rice for physically manhandling them. Instead of dismissing Rice, Rutgers fined him $50,000 and suspended him for three games in December.

 Just as in the Penn State scandal involving  pedophile football assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, Rutgers appears to have tolerated Rice’s bad behavior.

After the videotape was leaked, the dominos began to fall. Rice was fired.  Assistant Coach Jeremy Martelli, Rutger’s General Counsel John Wolf, and Pernetti resigned.  If I were Barchi, I wouldn’t make plans to redecorate the Presidential suite.  Barchi’s  claim that he never took the time to watch the videotape.until it was made public was met with obvious disdain at a press conference. Barchi blamed his bad decision on a “failure of process.”

Here is what needs to happen so that employers will take workplace bullying seriously – managers  need to be held accountable.  

These student athletes are essentially workers who are paid in the form of scholarship assistance by the university.  Like any other worker, they know that  a complaint can result in retaliation and their termination.  These players  relied upon their unofficial employer, Rutgers, to insure they were treated with dignity and respect and certainly not subjected to emotional and p physical abuse.

 Most of the players just put up with Rice’s abuse. However, according to news reports, at least three players transferred from the program as a result of Rice’s abuse.

           

           

Link Between Bullying & Discrimination

One of the most common types of lawsuits facing American employers is a discrimination lawsuit.

Workplace bullying and discrimination are closely intertwined and one might even say that bullying precipitates many discrimination lawsuits

Discrimination involves unfair treatment of an individual or group of individuals because of a distinguishing characteristic that is protected under state or federal law, such as sex, race, national origin, disability, religion, etc.   But it also frequently also involves workplace bullying, which is the systematic and repeated harassment of an employee over a period of time..  One employee  – often  a supervisor – attempts to exercise improper power and control over another, often a subordinate.

Even people who despise women or minorities probably would tolerate them if they silently accept whatever abuse the bully chooses to inflict upon them, never outshine or demonstrate competence that threatens the bully and act with complete subservience at all times. Of course, that doesn’t always happens. Targets of discrimination often complain and demand to be treated with fairness. That’s when the workplace bullying begins in earnest. A bully cannot tolerate a target who refuses to aknowledge the bully’s “right” to exercise complete power and control over the target.

Employers never win when they are sued by workers. Among other things, employers have to spend money to defend themselves. It is estimated that it costs an employer $100,000 to defend even the weakest and least meritorious lawsuit, nevermind a strong case that may ultimately result in a settlement or a judgment for the plaintiff.

Last March, a physician’s assistant at a Sacramento hospital won a jury award of $168 million after alleging she was harassed by cardiac surgeons at the hospital.  She filed 18 complaints with the Human Resources Department, which not only ignored her complaints but actually fired her! She speculates the hospital’s failure to address her complaints was because the cardiac surgeons are the highest revenue producers in the hospital. The jury award included $128 million in punitive damages.

Many industrialized countries have adopted health and safety laws and other kinds of legislation to protect workers from bullying and harassment, and to require employers to provide all employees with a workplace free from bullying and psychological harassment.  But America has resisted efforts to protect workers here from bullying for more than a decade. Why?

Some unscrupulous employers use bullying  strategically to get rid of good employees and to avoid legal obligations, such as paying worker’s compensation or unemployment benefits.  Some unscrupulous employers use bullying to thwart unions and  drive out workers who demand their rights under the law. In some cases, the worker actually has a technical right  under some law to sue the employer but the reality is that few workers today can afford the legal process. And it’s biased in favor of employers anyway.

Finally, it is not inconceivable that there’s a lot of ignorance out there  about how much workplace bullying costs American employers – literally billions of dollars a year- in unnecessary turnover, lost work and needless litigation.

The unscrupulous employers are probably a small minority of American employers. Most employers want to follow the law and be good citizens. 

There is an easy and relatively inexpensive way for good employers to mimize the risk of a  potentially catastrophic discrmination lawsuit . They should adopt and rigorously enforce a general anti-harassment anti-bullying policy that makes it clear that bullying will not be tolerated by anyone in the organization, including cardiac surgeons and the Chief Executive Officer.  By the way, that’s also the right thing to do. Doesn’t every employee deserve to be treated with dignity and respect?

Those who are interested in reading more about this topic should read my new book, Surviving Bullies, Queen Bees & Psychopaths in the Workplace.

Workplace Bullying Increasing

A new study by CareerBuilder finds that workplace bullying is on the rise, with 35 percent of workers reporting they have felt bullied on the job, up from 27 percent last year.

 Sixteen percent of these workers reported they suffered health-related problems as a result of bullying and 17 percent decided to quit their jobs to escape the situation.

 The study  found the majority of incidents go unreported.  Twenty-seven percent of  targets said they reported the bullying to their Human Resources department. Of these workers, 43 percent reported that action was taken while 57 percent said nothing was done.

 The scientific  survey was conducted online  by Harris Interactive from May 14 to June 4, 2012 and included more than 3,800 workers nationwide.

 Who Are the Bullies?

 Of workers who felt bullied, 48 percent pointed to incidents with their bosses and 26 percent to someone higher up in the company. Forty-five percent said the bullies were coworkers  while 31 percent were picked on by customers. 

 More than half (54 percent) of those bullied said they were bullied by someone older than they were, while 29 percent said the bully was younger.

 Weapons of a Workplace Bully

 The most common way workers reported being bullied was getting blamed for mistakes they didn’t make followed by not being acknowledged and the use of double standards. The full list includes:

  • Falsely accused of mistakes – 42 percent
  • Ignored – 39 percent
  • Used different standards/policies toward me than other workers – 36 percent
  • Constantly criticized – 33 percent
  • Someone didn’t perform certain duties, which negatively impacted my work – 31 percent
  • Yelled at by boss in front of coworkers – 28 percent
  • Belittling comments were made about my work during meetings – 24 percent
  • Gossiped about – 26 percent
  • Someone stole credit for my work – 19 percent
  • Purposely excluded from projects or meetings – 18 percent
  • Picked on for personal attributes – 15 percent

Standing Up to the Bully

 About half (49 percent) of victims reported confronting the bully themselves, while 51 percent did not. Of those who confronted the bully, half (50 percent) said the bullying stopped while 11 percent said it got worse, and 38 percent said the bullying didn’t change at all.

The company offers the following tips for workers who are feeling bullied:

  1. Keep record of all incidents of bullying, documenting places, times, what happened and who was present.
  2. Consider talking to the bully, providing examples of how you felt treated unfairly. Chances are the bully may not be aware that he/she is making you feel this way. (Personally, I disagree.  Most bullies know exactly what they are doing. A small percentage are actually psychopaths ,completley lacking in empathy.  Use your judgment when confronting a bully – it may work but it also could escalate the problem or the bully could lay low until he/she sees the opportunity to finish the job.) 
  3. Always focus on resolution. When sharing examples with the bully or a company authority, center the discussions around how to make the working situation better or how things could be handled differently.

Surveys consistently show that between a quarter and a third of workers have felt bullied on the job. Furthermore, there is overwhelming research  that workplace bullying can lead to potentially severe mental and physical health problems. Yet, efforts to address the problem in the United States over the past decade have proved fruitless up to now. Meanwhile, many other industrialized countries have adopted regulations or laws to address workplace bullying which place the responsibility upon the employer to insure a safe bully-free workplace for employees.

Readers can sign a petition calling up the Secretary of Labor to take action to address the epidemic of workplace bullying by going here.

CareerBuilder’s on-line site, CareerBuilder.com®, is the largest in the United States with more than 24 million unique visitors, 1 million jobs and 49 million resumes.

 

Microsoft Brass Panned for “Stack Ranking”

An article in Vanity Fair attributes Microsoft’s “downfall”  in part to a widely used employee performance rating review system called “Stack Ranking.”

VF Contributing Editor Kurt Eichenwald said the  stack ranking system incentivizes employees to climb the corporate ladder – not to create new and innovative products.  He argues the stack ranking performance rating system has crippled Microsoft’s ability to innovate and contributed to its decline in the past decade.

Stack ranking, also known as forced-choice rating and “rank and yank,” is used by many leading American corporations to evaluate employee performance.

The concept involves ranking employees on a given team from “most valuable” to “least valuable.”  One technique is to ask: “if the team was on a sinking boat and we had to decide who we would put on the life-boats, who would be included?”

Employees essentially rank each other and their bosses on a zero to four scale –  four being the best. The person with the lowest average score may be given an opportunity to improve or escorted out the door. (That’s where “yank” comes in.)

The stack ranking system was touted by former General Electric CEO Jack Welsh who said corporations owe it to the bottom ten percent of their employees to let them know they have no future with the company.  It also is credited with forcing managers to make tough personnel decisions.

The problems seem obvious. What if all the performers in a given team are top performers relative to other employees in the company or field  – under the forced choice system, only one of these meritorious employees would receive an optimal rating. One potentially would be forced out.  Two would be rated as mediocre. Does this make any sense – especially for a company that wants to encourage innovation?

Not only that but stack ranking seems on its face to be unnecessarily brutal and  clumsy – the antithesis of a system that encourages teamwork.

Microsoft has been on notice since 2005 about the perils of the stack ranking system but  ignored the warnings.

According to a 2005 study of the stack ranking system at Microsoft by Stephen Gall of Walden University, stack ranking is the fourth most commonly used appraisal technique among the 75% of U.S. companies with performance appraisal programs. Gall said stack ranking should not be used to evaluate employees.

Gall said his research found that smart employees spend much of their time figuring out how to manipulate the performance review system to their least disadvantage – not working to innovate and improve the company.

Gall maintains that stack ranking provides questionable insight into an individual’s actual job performance. He says the rank number is most often based on an unsubstantiated subjective judgment by an evaluator who may feel pressured to respond according to a narrow set of guidelines.

Furthermore, Gall says stack ranking “highly politicizes an organization” and can lead to lawsuits.

If stack ranking is used, he says, stack ranking should be well documented using the 360 degree feedback method, where a variety of stakeholders provide input into the ranking based on objective (or using the least amount of subjective) criteria.

The Alexander Hamilton Institute Employment Law Center suggests proceeding carefully before rating employees as “poor performers.”

The following guidelines are suggested:

  •  Ensure that there sufficient evidence to support the claim that an employee’s performance is genuinely substandard, and that evidence is properly documented.
  • Ensure that there is no perceived or credible argument that any action or poor review can be viewed as retaliatory or discriminatory
  • Ensure fairness; Have other’s received such a rating (or been discharged) for similar circumstances?
  • Are, or can the ratings be confirmed by an objective third party reviewer?

All of which leads to the question – how can supposedly smart people, such  as those in charge of Microsoft, be so dumb?

Penn State and Restitution

Artist Michael Pilato this week painted a blue ribbon — a symbol for awareness of child sexual abuse — on the portion of his “Inspiration State College” mural in State College, PA, that once included the image of recently convicted pedophile Jerry Sandusky.

So now what? It’s over?

Although the U.S. Supreme Court insists that corporations have the same free speech rights and citizens, it is not likely that Penn State – the institution – will be indicted and hauled into court as an accessory in the Sandusky matter.

Some former Penn State officials do face prosecution. Gary Schultz, Penn State’s former vice president of business administration, and Tim Curley, the university’s former athletic director, await trial on one count each of perjury and failing to report an alleged instance of child-sex abuse in a Penn State athletic-facility shower in 2001. The men have pleaded not guilty. However, former Penn State President Graham Spanier  who was ousted by Penn State’s trustees in November, continues to draw a salary. No criminal charges have been filed against him.

It can be argued that Penn State as an institution looked the other way where Sandusky was concerned, placing vulnerable children in harms way.  Penn State’s complacency allowed Sandusky, a former assistant football coach, to use his affiliation at Penn State, not to mention the athletic department shower room, to accomplish many of his evil acts.

Penn State will be sued civilly by some of Sandusky’s immediate victims but it seems to me that the university owes a greater debt.  I propose that Penn State consider restitution for its role in the Sandusky tragedy.

Penn State has among the largest endowments ($1.7 billion) of any private university in the world. Why not use some of that money to fund a scientific research program on pedophilia?  How can society combat this insidious menace. What kinds of treatments might really work? And what should the legal system do with pedophiles, who have alarming rates of recidivism.

Also, I propose that Penn State endow a scholarship for the type of poor and vulnerable “at risk”  children who were targeted by Jerry Sandusky. Maybe even ten scholarships, one for each of Sandusky’s victims. Maybe 45 for each count for which Sandusky was convicted?

While I’m at it, here are some other suggestions for Penn State:

  • Next time someone complains to a university official (not to mention the University President) about a potential crime, consider it an opportunity to act to limit the university’s liability..
  • Even the best personnel policies in the world are meaningless if they are not followed. Personnel policies should apply to everyone on campus — not just the cafeteria staff and janitors. There should be basic procedures in place that kick in whenever a complaint is lodged with the campus administration regardless of who is involved.
  • It’s easy to forget that the university’s reputation is more important than the reputation of the football team. Hey, maybe that should be painted on the Penn State mural?

Sandusky was found guilty last week on 45 of 48 counts related to sexual abuse of boys over a 15-year period.

 

Workplace Bullying Affects Family Relationships

There’s an old saying: When mom is unhappy; everyone is unhappy!  (Presumably the same goes  for Dad.)

A study by a Baylor University researcher has found that workplace incivility can be so intense that, at the end of the day, the target brings it home, where it impacts the well-being of the worker’s family and partner.

The study’s author, Merideth J. Ferguson, Ph.D., an assistant professor of management and entrepreneurship at the Baylor University Hankamer School of Business, says:   “Employees who experience such incivility at work bring home the stress, negative emotion and perceived ostracism that results from those experiences, which then affects more than their family life – it also creates problems for the partner’s life at work.”

Since the employee is stressed and distracted, the partner is likely to pick up more of the family responsibilities, and those demands may interfere with the partner’s work life. The study also found that such stress also significantly affected the worker’s and the partner’s marital satisfaction.

“This research underlines the importance of stopping incivility before it starts so that the ripple effect of incivility does not impact the employee’s family and potentially inflict further damage beyond the workplace where the incivility took place and cross over into the workplace of the partner,” said Ferguson.

The study included 190 full-time workers, who all had co-workers and had an employed partner, who agreed to complete an online survey.  After completing the survey, workers were asked to have their partners complete a separate survey.  Approximately 57 percent of the employee sample was male with an average age of 36, while 43 percent of the partner sample was male with an average age of 35. Of these couples, 75 percent had children living with them.

“Unlike the study of incivility’s effects at work, the study of its impact on the family is in its infancy. However, these findings emphasize the notion that organizations must realize the far-reaching effects of co-worker incivility and its impact on employees and their families,” Ferguson said.

“One approach to prevent this stress might be to encourage workers to seek support through their organization’s employee assistance program or other resources such as counseling or stress management so that tactics or mechanisms for buffering the effect of incivility’s stress on the family can be identified,” she said.

Ferguson advises workers who are experiencing “chronic rudeness” to get help with stress management techniques. “Rudeness and instability can result in things like anxiety and depression, so we suggest people get in touch with a counselor,” she said. “If it starts impacting their physical and mental health, they should seek a job elsewhere.”

The study results were announced in an August 16, 2011 press release by Baylor, which is based in Waco, TX.

When is a threat … a threat?

August 4, 2011 – It is ever okay to issue a threat of any kind in the workplace?

Suppose a worker says he’s going to “fight” for his rights?

A case in Missouri demonstrates complexities of this issue.  What is a threat? Do intent and the context in which the threat is made matter?   Yes, say the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Washington, DC.

Here’s the background:

Management at Kiewit Power Construction Co. voluntarily permitted electricians to take 15-minute breaks in the morning and afternoon. As the electricians began working farther away from the trailer containing the break room, they left the worksite earlier and the breaks were taking longer. The company, worried about lost productivity, said the electricians could no longer go to the break room, and provided a table and chairs so they could break where they were working.  The union objected and electricians resisted. The company began issuing warnings.

When a supervisor approached a group of electricians and said he was going to write them up, two electricians mouthed off.

One told the  supervisor he had “been out of work for a year,” and that if he got “laid off it’s going to get ugly.” He also said the supervisor “ better bring [his] boxing gloves.”

 The second electrician told the supervisor he had recently been out of work for eight months and repeated the other electrician’s comment that “it’s going to get ugly.”

Both were fired, and their union, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, declined to pursue a grievance..

After an Administrative Law Judge upheld the dismissals, one of the electricians appealed to the National Labor Relations Board, which reinstated both workers, finding that in context their statements were not physical threats but merely figures of speech made in the course of a protected labor dispute. Kiewit Power appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

In a split 2-1 decision,  the appeals court on 8/3/11 sided with the NLRB and the electricians.

The majority agreed that a worker could be fired if he or she made a physical threat. They said the employee’s remarks were “intemperate” remarks rather than actual threats.  Also, the  Court reasoned the employer provoked the electricians by picking a public scene that was likely to lead to a quarrel, and that it was reasonable for the employees to respond “briefly, spontaneously, and verbally” to the disciplinary measure.  Importantly, they said,  the electricians did not demonstrate any physically threatening behaviors.

The majority said: “To state the obvious, no one thought that  the electricians were literally challenging their supervisor to a boxing match. Once we acknowledge that the employees were speaking in metaphor, the NLRB’s interpretation is not unreasonable. It is not at all uncommon to speak of verbal sparring, knock-down arguments, shots below the belt, taking the gloves off, or to use other pugilistic argot without meaning actual fisticuffs. What these words stand for, of course, is a matter of context.”

To illustrate a  real physical threat,  the majority compared a hockey player dropping gloves to battle another hockey play to Presidential candidate Sarah Palin promising “the gloves are coming off” in the 2008 election.

The majority said the employer’s “subjective perception of an employee’s statement” is not dispositive about what constitutes a threat,  and that it was appropriate for the NLRB to use an “objective standard” consistent with prior decisions.   Furthermore, the majority said it would defeat the ability of workers to unionize “if workers could be lawfully discharged every time they threatened to ‘fight’ for better working conditions.”

The dissent contended the electricians did threaten the management representative and that there was no reasoned basis for the majority’s overturning the original decision of the Administrative Law Judge. “Phrases like “workplace violence” and “going postal” manifest that today’s work setting is often far from calm, especially in precarious economic times … The  Board’s reinstatement—seconded by my colleagues—of employees who openly challenge by threatening language lawful decisions of their employer compels me to observe: ‘So much for industrial peace.’”

The bottom line is that the electricians got lucky!   Almost certainly, an employee who works for a non-union employer, even if provoked, would likely have faced a far different outcome.

 

Crisis of Leadership

Interesting thoughts on leadership  by essayist and critic William Deresiewicz in an article entitled Solitude and Leadership: If you want others to follow, learn to be alone with your thoughts – published by The American Scholar:

  • Why is it so often that the best people are stuck in the middle and the people who are running things—the leaders—are the mediocrities? Because excellence isn’t usually what gets you up the greasy pole. What gets you up is a talent for maneuvering. Kissing up to the people above you, kicking down to the people below you. Pleasing your teachers, pleasing your superiors, picking a powerful mentor and riding his coattails until it’s time to stab him in the back. Jumping through hoops. Getting along by going along. Being whatever other people want you to be …Not taking stupid risks like trying to change how things are done or question why they’re done. Just keeping the routine going.
  • We have a crisis of leadership in this country, in every institution. Not just in government. Look at what happened to American corporations in recent decades, as all the old dinosaurs like General Motors or TWA or U.S. Steel fell apart. Look at what happened to Wall Street in just the last couple of years …
  •  … our overwhelming power and wealth, earned under earlier generations of leaders, made us complacent, and for too long we have been training leaders who only know how to keep the routine going. Who can answer questions, but don’t know how to ask them. Who can fulfill goals, but don’t know how to set them. Who think about how to get things done, but not whether they’re worth doing in the first place.
  • … What we don’t have are leaders. What we don’t have, in other words, are thinkers. People who can think for themselves. People who can formulate a new direction: for the country, for a corporation or a college, for the Army—a new way of doing things, a new way of looking at things. People, in other words, with vision.
  • …  true leadership means being able to think for yourself and act on your convictions.
  • Thinking means concentrating on one thing long enough to develop an idea about it. Not learning other people’s ideas, or memorizing a body of information, however much those may sometimes be useful. Developing your own ideas. In short, thinking for yourself. You simply cannot do that in bursts of 20 seconds at a time, constantly interrupted by Facebook messages or Twitter tweets, or fiddling with your iPod, or watching something on YouTube.