Obama, burgers and essential relationships

Quote
“Our American values are not luxuries but necessities, not the salt in our bread, but the bread itself. Our common vision of a free and just society is our greatest source of cohesion at home and strength abroad, greater than the bounty of our material blessings.”  Jimmy Carter, former US President.

News

President Obama’s state visit to Britain this week has been hailed as a resounding success.  Winston Churchill coined the phrase ‘special relationship’ to describe the mutual regard between Britain and the United States following the second world war.  This week the rather jaded expression was recast as an ‘essential relationship’ – more practical, less sentimental, but still vitally important for both countries.

The heart of the relationship, according to President Obama, is the “values and beliefs that have united our people through the ages,” especially democratic freedom and human dignity.  Out of this flows the present joint commitment to cooperating on Afghanistan, the war on Al Qaeda and supporting the Arab spring uprisings.

It was fitting, then, that the president and the prime minister, together with their wives, personally served the grilled meat and salad to the British and American servicemen and women who were the guests at Wednesday’s barbeque in Downing Street.  In an age of spin and political insincerity, the gesture was genuinely well-received.

These two leaders sign the orders which commit their military personnel into combat around the world, sending them to injury perhaps, or death; yet the gesture of serving some of these ordinary servicemen and women a meal demonstrates the very values which President Obama was citing earlier. 

The head of state is not superior in worth to the soldier who defends its liberty, despite the power and privilege which comes with political leadership.  The human dignity of all is best ensured in a society by reducing the relational distance between prime ministers and privates from time to time.  Eating together, talking face to face and serving each other as happened on Wednesday celebrates another ‘essential relationship’ – our equality and brotherhood as men and women before God.

Read on...

Robert Greenleaf has promoted the concept of servant leadership widely in the business world for 40 years, although it is far older than that (see the Last Word).  For a 3 page article summarising seven practices of servant leaders, click here.

Walk the talk

How easily do we allow power and its associated trappings to increase the relational distance between us and the most junior members of an organisation or institution we are part of?  Do you need to do something to redress the balance, such as making an opportunity to serve authentically, or taking time for conversation outside your normal roles?

The last word
From the Bible, Mark chapter 10, verses 42-44: “Jesus called them together and said, ‘You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all.’ ”

Money, sex and power: a lesson from Mr. Strauss-Kahn

Quote
“The consequences arising from the continual accumulation of public debts in other countries ought to admonish us to be careful to prevent their growth in our own.”  John Adams, second US President, 1797.

News

A week ago, Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK) was the charismatic head of the IMF, taking a leading role in solving the Eurozone crisis and setting his sights on winning France’s Presidential election in 2012.  Today he is without a job, on bail for $1 million, and facing grave charges of sexual assault.  Yet according to the Financial Times, the alleged incident with a hotel chambermaid may not be DSK’s greatest error of judgment – instead it is his handling of the Eurozone debt crisis. 

As head of the IMF, he chose to treat the financial woes of Greece, Ireland and Portugal as problems of liquidity, not of solvency, bailing them out with huge loans on condition of draconian measures to reduce government borrowing.  He eschewed the options of debt restructuring or possible withdrawal from the euro, which would allow these countries to devalue their currency and increase exports, to offset weaker domestic demand resulting from spending cuts. As it is, the current measures are pushing Greece further into recession, tax revenues are falling and borrowing requirements remain stubbornly high.

What do these two decisions associated with Dominique Strauss-Kahn have in common?  Both are relationship problems, both illustrate how something valuable can turn into something destructive when removed from its relational boundaries.  Sex is good but only in the safe limits of a consensual, committed, socially-sanctioned relationship (which once was called marriage).  When a person’s appetite for sex is stronger than the commitment to express it within these limits, it can wreak havoc.

Similarly with debt.  While the ideal is to avoid debt, it can be useful if kept within secure boundaries governing the relationship between borrower and lender, summed up as follows.  The person who makes the loan should share the risk involved in its recovery; the lender should only burden the borrower with an amount that can be reasonably repaid; the borrower must view the loan as a binding commitment to repay the lender; and finally, the lender must be prepared to cancel debt should the borrower become genuinely unable to repay.  The problem is that financial institutions have moved away from lending within relational boundaries, and treat debt more like a commodity; this is a major root of the financial crisis.

Power can deceive people into thinking that the normal rules of relationship (usually enshrined in law) somehow don’t apply to them.  DSK’s alleged incident with the chambermaid may well have cost him his career and reputation, even before his trial.  It remains to be seen what price will finally have to be paid (and by whom) for the way in which banks and global financial institutions have torn up the relational rule book regarding debt.

Read on...

The economist Paul Mills has written about the current financial crisis from the perspective of the relational principles on debt found in the Bible.  You can read his Cambridge Paper here.

Walk the talk

How seriously do we consider the impact of debt on relationships?  Would it be helpful to review your own lending or borrowing in the light of the relational principles above?

The last word
From the Bible, Psalm 37, verse 21: “The wicked borrow and do not repay, but the righteous give generously;” and Proverbs 22, verse 7: “The rich rule over the poor and the borrower is slave to the lender.”

Osama bin Laden and the question of justice

Quote
“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”  Cicero.

 

News

The killing of Osama bin Laden has led to a heated debate about the necessity and legality of the action by the US military last week.  There are two underlying questions: first, what was the extent of bin Laden’s responsibility for the indiscriminate killing of thousands of unarmed civilians?  Was he effectively the commander of a military force still at war with America?  If that was indeed the case, then killing him (whether he was armed or not) was justified according to the rules of war – a view widely held in America and supported by the Attorney General.

If there is any uncertainty about the first question, then a second one is this: was it justified to shoot bin Laden in his own home, when he had been indicted for trial?  Could this amount to an extrajudicial killing under civil law, which would undermine the rule of law and right to a fair trial, two of the democratic values which America is promoting in countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan?  

From a relational perspective, which was the lesser evil: killing bin Laden unarmed and in front of family members, or capturing him and bringing him to public trial?  Initially one might think the latter – but this would have promoted the terrorist’s cause, inflamed extremist opposition to the West and probably led to Al Qaeda networks taking Americans hostage somewhere round the world and demanding their leader’s release.  Although there is high risk of reprisals by Al Qaeda now, the time for them will pass.  But a lengthy trial would have brought a more insidious risk for a much longer period to a greater number of unarmed people.     

Thinking relationally helps to shed light on the wider dilemma.  Human rights – including the right to a fair trial – should be understood in their relational context.  Rights can only be granted and upheld by means of relationships with other people, acting individually or as representatives of an institution. 

Consequently, a narrow, individualistic concept of human rights, uprooted from its wider relational context, can produce nonsensical outcomes such as society being obliged to uphold the right of an individual to destroy the very society which granted him that right.

Killing as opposed to capturing Osama bin Laden on May 2nd may end up saving thousands of civilian lives and averting relational tragedy for countless networks of families and friends.  On other hand, when an American president authorizes the killing of a man without trial and outside the rule of law, this may legitimize autocratic regimes in disposing of dissidents without recourse to judicial process. 

Such choices are hard, and we would do well to weigh the rights and wrongs of this incident carefully – and relationally.

Read on...

Li-ann Thio, Professor of Law at the National University of Singapore, has reflected on the tension between the rights of an individual and the interests of society in a paper “Constitutionalism in Singapore: through a Relational Lens”.  You can read an extract from the paper here. 

Walk the talk

It can be easy to pass judgment on others whom we scarcely know, on the basis of hearsay and rumour.  

Is there anyone in that category over whom you might suspend your judgment for a while, with a view to getting to know them better first so that your judgment is a more considered one?  

The last word
From the Bible, Proverbs 18:17 “The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.”

(Good) Friday Five

We take a break from our usual format to present the following parable, which has been told a few times before, but perhaps you haven’t seen it.  May you have a very happy Easter!

A wealthy industrialist and his son loved to collect great works of art.  They would often sit together to discuss and appreciate the paintings in their collection, which ranged from Raphael to Rembrandt, and from Monet to Matisse.

But when war broke out, the son went off to fight in a distant land.  He was very courageous but died tragically in battle while rescuing a wounded comrade.  The father was notified and grieved deeply for his only son.

A few months later, just before Easter, the doorbell rang.  A young man stood in the entrance with a large package in his hands. He said, "Sir, you don't know me, but I am the soldier for whom your son gave his life. He saved many lives that day, and he was carrying me to safety when he was hit by that fateful shot.  He would often talk about you, and your love for art.”

The young man held out his package. "I know this isn't much. I'm not really an artist, but I think your son would have wanted you to have this."  The father opened the package. It was a portrait of his son, painted by the young man. He was deeply moved by the soldier’s visit, and by the way he had captured his son’s personality in the painting.   Tears welled up in the father’s eyes as he thanked the young man and offered to pay him for the picture.

"Oh, no sir, I could never repay what your son did for me.  It's a gift."   

The father hung the portrait in a prime position in his house.  Every time visitors came to his home he showed them the portrait of his son before taking them to see any of the other great works he had collected.

A few years later the old man died.  There was to be a great auction of his art collection. On the day, many wealthy and influential people gathered at the house, excited by the opportunity to purchase one of the masterpieces for their collections.  But the first lot on the platform was the soldier’s painting of the son.

The auctioneer called for silence. "We will begin the auction with this painting of the collector’s son. Who will start the bidding?"

There was silence.  No one was interested.  A voice near the back of the room called out, "We have come for the great masters; just skip this one." But the auctioneer persisted. "What am I bid for this painting?  Who will start?  Will anyone give me $200?"  

People rolled their eyes and others scowled in frustration as no one made a bid.  The buyers became restless and another voice called out angrily, "We didn't come to see this painting; we came for the Renoirs and Turners.  Let’s move on to the real bids!"

But the auctioneer persisted, "I want a bid on the painting of the son!  Who will start the bidding?  Who wants the son?"  Finally, a voice came from the very back of the room to break the tension.  "I'll offer $50 for it, as I knew the young man since he was a child."  It was the gardener who used to work for the old man.

"Thank you.  We have $50; will anyone bid $70?"  Someone called out, "Come on, give it to him for $50.  Let's see the great masters."

"$50 is the bid, am I offered more?"  The auctioneer looked round the room before pounding the gavel.  "Going once, going twice.... sold for $50!"

The assembled art collectors sighed with relief as this seemingly pointless detour finally came to an end.  A woman sitting on the second row said, "Now let's get on with the real auction!"  

The auctioneer then laid down his gavel and closed the catalogue. "Ladies and gentlemen, the auction is now over."

Gasps of dismay were heard all round the packed room.  Someone cried out incredulously, “What about the masterpieces?"  

"I am very sorry, but when I was invited to conduct this auction, I was told of a certain stipulation in the will. That stipulation could only be revealed at this moment.  Only the painting of the son would in fact be auctioned.  Whoever took the son would also be given the entire estate, including all the other paintings.  They now belong to the gentleman at the back. Good day.” 

Justice for all? Relationships and the “no win, no fee” system

Quote

“I believe that every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty.” John D. Rockefeller

News

This week the UK Justice Secretary unveiled plans to limit the costs of legal fees for compensation cases, and make the winner pay their own costs from damages awarded. 

The current “no win, no fee” system enables people who feel they have suffered loss due to negligence to enlist a lawyer no matter how poor they are.  However, in recent years the legal costs in such cases have escalated; for example, in 2008-09 the NHS paid out almost 50% more to lawyers than compensation to patients who suffered due to negligence (£456 million in fees, as opposed to £312 million in compensation). 

At one level the new plans are an attempt to restore a sense of proportion and balance between the competing interests of individual claimants, large organisations, insurance companies and law firms.  However, beneath this lies a warning that relationships are breaking down, as people who feel wronged tend to resort increasingly to the courts to get what they want, rather than seek a fair outcome through mediation. 

The slide towards a litigation culture is the consequence of other relational factors.  Firstly the scale of many organisations makes it hard for individuals to feel their grievances are being heard. Secondly, the emphasis on rights tends to polarise the individual and the community, with the former claiming entitlement to their rights from the latter – rather than trying to identify and deal with the particular strained relationship. 

Furthermore, there are ripple effects from compensation claims, because every pound paid in compensation and legal fees means a pound less for medical care or other public services, plus higher insurance premiums for everyone.

Two realities remain in tension: the need to hold people responsible for their actions, and the need to be gracious when people make mistakes, as we all do.  The more attention we pay to the underlying relational issues in a dispute, the more likely we are to appreciate that many cases a sincere apology may be more valuable compensation than cash.

Read on...

The Cambridge Paper by Julian Rivers called “Beyond Rights: the morality of rights-language” offers a Christian perspective on the pros and cons of seeing justice in terms of rights.  You can read the paper here.

Walk the talk

It is easy to get entrenched in a dispute, and it takes courage to seek a compromised settlement.  Is there a situation in which you could make the first move?  You may lose what you feel entitled to, but you would gain the peace of mind that comes through reconciliation.
 

The last word
From the Bible, Matthew 5, verse 25-26: "Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison.  I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.”

Companies: cash cows or communities?

Quote

“I have found no greater satisfaction than achieving success through honest dealing and strict adherence to the view that, for you to gain, those you deal with should gain as well.” Alan Greenspan

News

The bank bonus scandal has been stirred up again this week, as the directors of Dutch bank ING backed down from paying executive bonuses for 2010 after public pressure from clients, MPs and trade unions.  Chief Executive Jan Hommen, who renounced his €1.25 million bonus, said ING had underestimated the negative public reaction.

A few weeks ago, the two British banks that have received the biggest bailouts – RBS and Lloyds TSB – announced “modest” bonus payments.  There is still strong public feeling against bankers’ bonuses in Britain, especially as the impact of government cuts, rising unemployment and lower real incomes begin to bite. 

However, protests have not had the same impact on board decisions as in Holland this week.  This might be a reflection of stronger social solidarity on the continent, and the tendency for companies to defer more readily to the state compared to Britain.

 

But it may also signal a shift in attitudes towards corporate governance; South Africa is leading the way in this respect, where a “stakeholder inclusive” approach is preferred over an “enlightened shareholder” focus regarding what is in the best interests of the company.

In Holland, four types of stakeholders in ING voiced their opposition to the decision by directors and shareholders: employees (via their unions), customers, government and taxpayers who rescued the bank. 

Perhaps the winds are changing towards recognising the broader, long-term interests of all stakeholders and not just the narrow, short-term, transient financial interests of its present shareholders.  This would move companies closer to what they actually are – a community of stakeholders, whose relationships together determine the long term financial, social and environmental impact of the company wherever it works.

Read on...

The ground-breaking proposals which launched South Africa into the forefront of corporate governance reform are laid out in the King III Report.  You can read a summary of the report here.

Walk the talk

It can be easy to overlook the impact of our decisions on others who are lesser stakeholders – particularly if they are not party to any relevant discussions.  Are there any important decisions that you are taking at work, home, or in the community, which will have a significant indirect impact on others?  It may be worth including them in the stakeholders you consult.
 

The last word
From the Bible, Proverbs 15:31 “He who listens to a life-giving rebuke will be at home among the wise.”

Japan: disaster response and relational capital

Quote

"Fall down seven times, get up eight" Japanese Proverb 

News

Few can be unmoved by the events of the last seven days in Japan, which are being reported on from a variety of points of view. These include:

- the physical perspective, which focuses on the power of the tsunami, destruction of property and the wiping out of whole towns;
- the humanitarian perspective, which concentrates on the numbers of people killed, missing, or homeless; it emphasises the need for food, water, fuel and shelter, and highlights the logistical challenges;
- the environmental perspective, which is focused on the Fukushima nuclear power station and the battle to cool the reactors fuel storage pools, in order to reduce radioactive emissions and prevent a much more serious disaster.;
- the financial perspective, which highlights the costs of reconstruction, the insurance loss and effect on GDP, stock market changes and the impact on Japan’s government debt.

Alongside all these is the relational perspective. This is not only about the raw, emotional side – the breadth and depth of human suffering caused by the disaster – but it also sheds light on one of the most significant factors determining the speed and effectiveness of the response: relational capital. This might be defined here as the sum of trust, knowledge and shared experience in a relationship, leading to empathy, goodwill and perhaps a measure of obligation.

The evidence of strong relational capital in Japan can be seen at different levels. In the extended family, people are going to great lengths to rescue and care for loved ones. Various companies and organisations have contributed generously to the rescue efforts. Then the general efficiency and preparedness for disasters is brought about by the high level of social cohesion in Japanese society.

But it is on the international plane that the evidence is most striking. Japan has long been one of the most generous nations in responding to disasters. They gave $500 million to Indonesia after the 2005 tsunami (nearly as much as USA, UK and China combined), and pledged $5 billion to Afghanistan, one third of the total international response. Japanese rescue teams were at the forefront in Christchurch, New Zealand, and regularly assist in other emergencies.

It is no wonder, then, that offers of assistance have been pouring in from around the world – despite the fact that Japan is financially wealthy. The mayor of Khandahar in war-torn Afghanistan promised $50,000 to the relief effort the day after the quake, and New Zealand promptly dispatched one third of their own search and rescue teams to Japan. In all 113 countries have offered to help.

As people invest in relationships of all kinds, they are building relational capital. When a crisis comes, and help is needed, then that capital is translated into the spontaneous outpouring of help such as we've witnessed this past week.

Read on...
Hugo Slim wrote an insightful article on relationships between relief workers and the survivors of disasters - with particular reference to the 2004 Indonesian tsunami. You can read his paper, "The Grammar of Aid" here.

Walk the talk

Where might it be wise or good for you to invest in building up more relational capital, either personally or on behalf of an organisation you are part of? And are you aware of any person or group who might want to draw on the relational capital they have invested in you?
 

The last word
From the Bible, 2 Corinthians 8, verse 14, “At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality…”