Leading by example

FOLLOW-UP COMMENTARY TO: “CASTING STONES”

I was happy to hear the news about President Obama’s Commencement Address at Notre Dame.

This is the season for commencement speeches and sitting Presidents often leverage a high-profile Key-Note invitation as an opportunity for public address. What makes the Notre Dame ceremony special is that President Obama was invited in the first place, and second, that he accepted.

In case you’re somehow unaware, Notre Dame is the most prominent Christian and conservative university in the country, and one of the most famous in the world. The university administration’s ideology and political positions are well established, well known, and mostly opposed to President Obama’s. The majority of the student body is not only conservative, but among the most active Christian proponents in the country.

Knowing this, President Obama accepted the invitation to deliver the key note address at the Notre Dame Commencement ceremony. He undoubtedly had dozens of invitations to choose from for a high profile public address. Yet, he chose to accept the invitation from the university/constituency most opposed to his views and platform.

BRAVO PRESIDENT OBAMA

At this point, it’s important to point out that I am also opposed to most of President Obama’s policies, positions, ideology, and values. I’m a Christian conservative, did not vote for Mr. Obama, and am quite sure I never will.

Nevertheless, I have always had much respect for Mr. Obama’s intelligence, commitment, and willingness to openly discuss and debate the important issues. I recognize him as a fellow “lifetime student” who never misses an opportunity to discuss, debate, and learn. . especially from the opposition.

His speech was not particularly insightful, original, or moving. However, it did hit the mark on the most important point for stimulating positive public debate on these important and divisive issues. That point is that both sides of an issue should commit to attacking the issues and working hard to find common ground. This, as opposed to attacking the opposition themselves, as was the unfortunate case for Carrie Prejean and Bristol Palin the last couple weeks.

Positive public debate has many benefits:
• Identifying common ground / areas of agreement
• Stimulating critical thinking in defense and promotion of each side’s positions and ideas
• Giving a public voice to the experts and thought leaders on the subject/s
• Removing or reducing the emotion from both sides
• Educating the public on the facts, positions, pros & cons to help them form their own opinions.
• Enabling policies, programs & processes to operate amidst a divided public and leadership
• Changing minds and moving a population towards consensus.

Same-sex marriage, birth control, and abortion are just a few examples from the long list of divisive left vs. right type issues. These issues are polarizing and tend to elicit strong emotions. As any successful business leader knows, emotions can derail a productive debate, thwart progress, and prevent both sides from realizing the benefits listed above.

These issues are not easily solved. In fact, if a “solution” is defined as agreement or strong consensus and support by a large majority, they may never be solved. Again, as any successful leader (or marriage counselor) knows, agreement may not be the proper immediate goal for the most divisive issues. Instead, a positive debate may identify just enough common ground to allow both sides to better appreciate each other’s position and “agree to disagree”. With respect and open communication, both sides can work to maximize the common ground and minimize the factors causing contention (i.e. teen & unwanted pregnancies).

Business people often use the term “Co-opetition” to describe business agreements where competitors cooperate on areas of mutual interest/benefit, while competing in other areas. In some cases, competitors work together to grow a market (mutually beneficial) while continuing to fight it out in that very market for each customer, new or existing.

Co-opetition between conservatives and liberals could serve to minimize the need for solutions they disagree on. Over time, this type of positive working relationship between rivals usually serves to accelerate innovation and creativity which can further minimize the conflict or even result in major discoveries that may eliminate it altogether.

As a business leader, I’ve always been a firm believer and proponent for applying “best practices” whenever possible. American capitalism and competition has created an enormous wealth of proven strategies and tactics for almost every situation.

Although I will not soon agree with President Obama’s philosophies and direction for our country, I hope to see many more examples of sound leadership from the White House.