Audio Tidbits

ockell, Leslie and Adrienne Avila. The 100 Greatest Leadership Principles of all Time. New York: Warner Business Books, 2007.

Leadership is a matter of intelligence, trustworthiness, humaneness, courage, and discipline.

A leader is one who sees more than others see, who sees farther than others see, and who sees before others see. - Leroy Eimes

The leaders who work most effectively, it seems to me, never say "I." And that's not because they have trained themselves not to say "I." They don't think "I." They think "we"; they think "team." They understand their job to be to make the team function. They accept responsibility and don' sidestep it, but "we" gets the credit ... This is what creates trust, what enables you to get the task done. - Peter F. Drucker

A leader leads by example, whether he intends to or not. - Anonymous

Nobody rises to low expectations. - Calvin Lloyd

A community is like a ship: Everyone ought to be prepared to take the helm. - Henrik Ibsen.

ockell, Leslie and Adrienne Avila. The 100 Greatest Leadership Principles of all Time. New York: Warner Business Books, 2007.

Leadership is a matter of intelligence, trustworthiness, humaneness, courage, and discipline.

A leader is one who sees more than others see, who sees farther than others see, and who sees before others see. - Leroy Eimes

The leaders who work most effectively, it seems to me, never say "I." And that's not because they have trained themselves not to say "I." They don't think "I." They think "we"; they think "team." They understand their job to be to make the team function. They accept responsibility and don' sidestep it, but "we" gets the credit ... This is what creates trust, what enables you to get the task done. - Peter F. Drucker

A leader leads by example, whether he intends to or not. - Anonymous

Nobody rises to low expectations. - Calvin Lloyd

A community is like a ship: Everyone ought to be prepared to take the helm. - Henrik Ibsen.

ockell, Leslie and Adrienne Avila. The 100 Greatest Leadership Principles of all Time. New York: Warner Business Books, 2007.

Leadership is a matter of intelligence, trustworthiness, humaneness, courage, and discipline.

A leader is one who sees more than others see, who sees farther than others see, and who sees before others see. - Leroy Eimes

The leaders who work most effectively, it seems to me, never say "I." And that's not because they have trained themselves not to say "I." They don't think "I." They think "we"; they think "team." They understand their job to be to make the team function. They accept responsibility and don' sidestep it, but "we" gets the credit ... This is what creates trust, what enables you to get the task done. - Peter F. Drucker

A leader leads by example, whether he intends to or not. - Anonymous

Nobody rises to low expectations. - Calvin Lloyd

A community is like a ship: Everyone ought to be prepared to take the helm. - Henrik Ibsen.

In these days of fake news and intentional misinformation, it's easy to wonder if anything we read or hear is true. Maybe even more alarming is our inability to know who to believe, who to trust. And of course, that is the point of fake news and misinformation. The goal is not so much to get us to believe false this or untrue that as it is to fuel mistrust and doubt: mistrust of our political leaders and doubt about the intentions and motivations that underpin our government and institutions.

In The Fine Art of Baloney Detection, Carl Sagan was definitely on point when he counseled, "Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle requires intelligence, vigilance, dedication and courage. But if we don't practice these tough habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us — and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who comes along."

It's harsh but certainly self-evident that "If you don't control your mind, someone else will." John Allston points out the obvious, but it has gotten to where even the obvious is suspect. In testimony to this sad state of affairs, William Safire advises, "Never assume the obvious is true." At the extreme, we get to where we mistrust what we hear, what we see, what we think; and if the insidious erosion of trust persists, we come to distrust our personal judgment and our self-confidence falters.

There is an antidote for this insidious erosion of trust, but I doubt that many would think it is an easy medicine to swallow. The first dose is to give up our reliance on group-think. "Don't think you're on the right road just because it's a well-beaten path." I don't know who said that first and doubt that it matters much. The value is in being reminded that we are responsible for what we think, what we believe, and just because lots of well-meaning folks have signed onto the trip does not make it okay for us to thoughtlessly follow. Anatole France assures us that "If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." It's also true that if fifty million people think or do a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. It's up to us to guard against being just another one of the fools.

The second dose serving as an antidote for this insidious erosion of trust is to give up on our habitual reliance on simply accepting the perspectives, views and opinions of people with the loudest voices or the most followers. Let it suffice to remind us of Buddha's advice, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it — even if I have said it — unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

The third dose is perhaps the hardest to swallow. Grace Hopper argued that "The most damaging phrase in the language is, it's always been done that way." Variations on the point are mental crutches such as "I've always thought…," or "I've always believed…, " or "Everyone knows…." The notion is that once I think or believe anything, that's the way it is forever.

Granted, it's being consistent; but as Bernard Berenson cautioned, "Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." Or perhaps you prefer George Bernard Shaw's take, "Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything." Even so, Glen Beaman has a point, "Stubbornness does have its helpful features. You always know what you are going to be thinking tomorrow." Unless you are content being pulled along by others, there is nothing for it but to take your medicine - all three doses - the only antidote to insidious group-think.

In these days of fake news and intentional misinformation, it's easy to wonder if anything we read or hear is true. Maybe even more alarming is our inability to know who to believe, who to trust. And of course, that is the point of fake news and misinformation. The goal is not so much to get us to believe false this or untrue that as it is to fuel mistrust and doubt: mistrust of our political leaders and doubt about the intentions and motivations that underpin our government and institutions.

In The Fine Art of Baloney Detection, Carl Sagan was definitely on point when he counseled, "Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle requires intelligence, vigilance, dedication and courage. But if we don't practice these tough habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us — and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who comes along."

It's harsh but certainly self-evident that "If you don't control your mind, someone else will." John Allston points out the obvious, but it has gotten to where even the obvious is suspect. In testimony to this sad state of affairs, William Safire advises, "Never assume the obvious is true." At the extreme, we get to where we mistrust what we hear, what we see, what we think; and if the insidious erosion of trust persists, we come to distrust our personal judgment and our self-confidence falters.

There is an antidote for this insidious erosion of trust, but I doubt that many would think it is an easy medicine to swallow. The first dose is to give up our reliance on group-think. "Don't think you're on the right road just because it's a well-beaten path." I don't know who said that first and doubt that it matters much. The value is in being reminded that we are responsible for what we think, what we believe, and just because lots of well-meaning folks have signed onto the trip does not make it okay for us to thoughtlessly follow. Anatole France assures us that "If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." It's also true that if fifty million people think or do a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. It's up to us to guard against being just another one of the fools.

The second dose serving as an antidote for this insidious erosion of trust is to give up on our habitual reliance on simply accepting the perspectives, views and opinions of people with the loudest voices or the most followers. Let it suffice to remind us of Buddha's advice, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it — even if I have said it — unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

The third dose is perhaps the hardest to swallow. Grace Hopper argued that "The most damaging phrase in the language is, it's always been done that way." Variations on the point are mental crutches such as "I've always thought…," or "I've always believed…, " or "Everyone knows…." The notion is that once I think or believe anything, that's the way it is forever.

Granted, it's being consistent; but as Bernard Berenson cautioned, "Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." Or perhaps you prefer George Bernard Shaw's take, "Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything." Even so, Glen Beaman has a point, "Stubbornness does have its helpful features. You always know what you are going to be thinking tomorrow." Unless you are content being pulled along by others, there is nothing for it but to take your medicine - all three doses - the only antidote to insidious group-think.

In these days of fake news and intentional misinformation, it's easy to wonder if anything we read or hear is true. Maybe even more alarming is our inability to know who to believe, who to trust. And of course, that is the point of fake news and misinformation. The goal is not so much to get us to believe false this or untrue that as it is to fuel mistrust and doubt: mistrust of our political leaders and doubt about the intentions and motivations that underpin our government and institutions.

In The Fine Art of Baloney Detection, Carl Sagan was definitely on point when he counseled, "Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle requires intelligence, vigilance, dedication and courage. But if we don't practice these tough habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us — and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who comes along."

It's harsh but certainly self-evident that "If you don't control your mind, someone else will." John Allston points out the obvious, but it has gotten to where even the obvious is suspect. In testimony to this sad state of affairs, William Safire advises, "Never assume the obvious is true." At the extreme, we get to where we mistrust what we hear, what we see, what we think; and if the insidious erosion of trust persists, we come to distrust our personal judgment and our self-confidence falters.

There is an antidote for this insidious erosion of trust, but I doubt that many would think it is an easy medicine to swallow. The first dose is to give up our reliance on group-think. "Don't think you're on the right road just because it's a well-beaten path." I don't know who said that first and doubt that it matters much. The value is in being reminded that we are responsible for what we think, what we believe, and just because lots of well-meaning folks have signed onto the trip does not make it okay for us to thoughtlessly follow. Anatole France assures us that "If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." It's also true that if fifty million people think or do a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. It's up to us to guard against being just another one of the fools.

The second dose serving as an antidote for this insidious erosion of trust is to give up on our habitual reliance on simply accepting the perspectives, views and opinions of people with the loudest voices or the most followers. Let it suffice to remind us of Buddha's advice, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it — even if I have said it — unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

The third dose is perhaps the hardest to swallow. Grace Hopper argued that "The most damaging phrase in the language is, it's always been done that way." Variations on the point are mental crutches such as "I've always thought…," or "I've always believed…, " or "Everyone knows…." The notion is that once I think or believe anything, that's the way it is forever.

Granted, it's being consistent; but as Bernard Berenson cautioned, "Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." Or perhaps you prefer George Bernard Shaw's take, "Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything." Even so, Glen Beaman has a point, "Stubbornness does have its helpful features. You always know what you are going to be thinking tomorrow." Unless you are content being pulled along by others, there is nothing for it but to take your medicine - all three doses - the only antidote to insidious group-think.

In these days of fake news and intentional misinformation, it's easy to wonder if anything we read or hear is true. Maybe even more alarming is our inability to know who to believe, who to trust. And of course, that is the point of fake news and misinformation. The goal is not so much to get us to believe false this or untrue that as it is to fuel mistrust and doubt: mistrust of our political leaders and doubt about the intentions and motivations that underpin our government and institutions.

In The Fine Art of Baloney Detection, Carl Sagan was definitely on point when he counseled, "Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle requires intelligence, vigilance, dedication and courage. But if we don't practice these tough habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us — and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who comes along."

It's harsh but certainly self-evident that "If you don't control your mind, someone else will." John Allston points out the obvious, but it has gotten to where even the obvious is suspect. In testimony to this sad state of affairs, William Safire advises, "Never assume the obvious is true." At the extreme, we get to where we mistrust what we hear, what we see, what we think; and if the insidious erosion of trust persists, we come to distrust our personal judgment and our self-confidence falters.

There is an antidote for this insidious erosion of trust, but I doubt that many would think it is an easy medicine to swallow. The first dose is to give up our reliance on group-think. "Don't think you're on the right road just because it's a well-beaten path." I don't know who said that first and doubt that it matters much. The value is in being reminded that we are responsible for what we think, what we believe, and just because lots of well-meaning folks have signed onto the trip does not make it okay for us to thoughtlessly follow. Anatole France assures us that "If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." It's also true that if fifty million people think or do a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. It's up to us to guard against being just another one of the fools.

The second dose serving as an antidote for this insidious erosion of trust is to give up on our habitual reliance on simply accepting the perspectives, views and opinions of people with the loudest voices or the most followers. Let it suffice to remind us of Buddha's advice, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it — even if I have said it — unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

The third dose is perhaps the hardest to swallow. Grace Hopper argued that "The most damaging phrase in the language is, it's always been done that way." Variations on the point are mental crutches such as "I've always thought…," or "I've always believed…, " or "Everyone knows…." The notion is that once I think or believe anything, that's the way it is forever.

Granted, it's being consistent; but as Bernard Berenson cautioned, "Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." Or perhaps you prefer George Bernard Shaw's take, "Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything." Even so, Glen Beaman has a point, "Stubbornness does have its helpful features. You always know what you are going to be thinking tomorrow." Unless you are content being pulled along by others, there is nothing for it but to take your medicine - all three doses - the only antidote to insidious group-think.

You've probably heard the advice that tells us that we have to go along to get along. Much of the time, if it's not altogether true, it's at least convenient. Christopher Morley puts it like this, "Lots of times you have to pretend to join a parade in which you're not really interested in order to get where you're going."

We have our individual goals and agenda, but much of the time, prioritizing our personal interests requires too much effort or may actually be counterproductive. Michael Korda is on point when he advises, "The fastest way to succeed is to look as if you're playing by other people's rules, while quietly playing by your own."

The truth here notwithstanding, there is a very real danger. On the one hand, we run the risk of becoming so accustomed to fitting in that we passively subordinate our goals and agenda to the will and wishes of others; or on the other hand, we are so intent on guarding our individuality that we become inappropriately rigid and inflexible. Finding the middle ground is difficult and staying on that middle ground is even more challenging.

Bill Veeck tells us what is needed, "I try not to break the rules, but merely to test their elasticity." Nonetheless, for most of us, the trip from knowing to doing is frequently less than smooth. At this point, I think most of us either give up and go along or dig in and side with Bill Watterson's choice, "From now on, I'll connect the dots my own way." As tempting as either alternative may be, experience tells me that the middle ground is still the place to be.

How do you think this works as a helpful way of understanding the middle ground between giving in and digging in? "I am not in this world to live up to other people's expectations, nor do I feel that the world must live up to mine." Fritz Perls' perspective on the middle ground is one that I personally find helpful. I'm comfortable going along so long as I experience other people's expectations as compatible with or at least not incompatible with mine. However, if I experience those expectations as incompatible, passively going along is no longer an option for me.

Saying this is easy but deciding to dig in and then doing it is not always easy and can be downright risky at times. Dr. SunWolf knows the truth of it, "Sooner or later, you will need the courage to be disliked," or perhaps the courage to accept even more harsh consequences. There is a cost to giving in and going along, but perhaps an even higher cost to digging in. The dilemma is in understanding the cost and benefits of both choices and then living with your choice.

You've probably heard the advice that tells us that we have to go along to get along. Much of the time, if it's not altogether true, it's at least convenient. Christopher Morley puts it like this, "Lots of times you have to pretend to join a parade in which you're not really interested in order to get where you're going."

We have our individual goals and agenda, but much of the time, prioritizing our personal interests requires too much effort or may actually be counterproductive. Michael Korda is on point when he advises, "The fastest way to succeed is to look as if you're playing by other people's rules, while quietly playing by your own."

The truth here notwithstanding, there is a very real danger. On the one hand, we run the risk of becoming so accustomed to fitting in that we passively subordinate our goals and agenda to the will and wishes of others; or on the other hand, we are so intent on guarding our individuality that we become inappropriately rigid and inflexible. Finding the middle ground is difficult and staying on that middle ground is even more challenging.

Bill Veeck tells us what is needed, "I try not to break the rules, but merely to test their elasticity." Nonetheless, for most of us, the trip from knowing to doing is frequently less than smooth. At this point, I think most of us either give up and go along or dig in and side with Bill Watterson's choice, "From now on, I'll connect the dots my own way." As tempting as either alternative may be, experience tells me that the middle ground is still the place to be.

How do you think this works as a helpful way of understanding the middle ground between giving in and digging in? "I am not in this world to live up to other people's expectations, nor do I feel that the world must live up to mine." Fritz Perls' perspective on the middle ground is one that I personally find helpful. I'm comfortable going along so long as I experience other people's expectations as compatible with or at least not incompatible with mine. However, if I experience those expectations as incompatible, passively going along is no longer an option for me.

Saying this is easy but deciding to dig in and then doing it is not always easy and can be downright risky at times. Dr. SunWolf knows the truth of it, "Sooner or later, you will need the courage to be disliked," or perhaps the courage to accept even more harsh consequences. There is a cost to giving in and going along, but perhaps an even higher cost to digging in. The dilemma is in understanding the cost and benefits of both choices and then living with your choice.

You've probably heard the advice that tells us that we have to go along to get along. Much of the time, if it's not altogether true, it's at least convenient. Christopher Morley puts it like this, "Lots of times you have to pretend to join a parade in which you're not really interested in order to get where you're going."

We have our individual goals and agenda, but much of the time, prioritizing our personal interests requires too much effort or may actually be counterproductive. Michael Korda is on point when he advises, "The fastest way to succeed is to look as if you're playing by other people's rules, while quietly playing by your own."

The truth here notwithstanding, there is a very real danger. On the one hand, we run the risk of becoming so accustomed to fitting in that we passively subordinate our goals and agenda to the will and wishes of others; or on the other hand, we are so intent on guarding our individuality that we become inappropriately rigid and inflexible. Finding the middle ground is difficult and staying on that middle ground is even more challenging.

Bill Veeck tells us what is needed, "I try not to break the rules, but merely to test their elasticity." Nonetheless, for most of us, the trip from knowing to doing is frequently less than smooth. At this point, I think most of us either give up and go along or dig in and side with Bill Watterson's choice, "From now on, I'll connect the dots my own way." As tempting as either alternative may be, experience tells me that the middle ground is still the place to be.

How do you think this works as a helpful way of understanding the middle ground between giving in and digging in? "I am not in this world to live up to other people's expectations, nor do I feel that the world must live up to mine." Fritz Perls' perspective on the middle ground is one that I personally find helpful. I'm comfortable going along so long as I experience other people's expectations as compatible with or at least not incompatible with mine. However, if I experience those expectations as incompatible, passively going along is no longer an option for me.

Saying this is easy but deciding to dig in and then doing it is not always easy and can be downright risky at times. Dr. SunWolf knows the truth of it, "Sooner or later, you will need the courage to be disliked," or perhaps the courage to accept even more harsh consequences. There is a cost to giving in and going along, but perhaps an even higher cost to digging in. The dilemma is in understanding the cost and benefits of both choices and then living with your choice.