The Impotence caused by Political Correctness

Many Canadians watched the future generation do their best to destroy downtown Vancouver after game 7 of the Stanley cup finals. I expect that most, like me, wondered how this could happen. I am not referring to the reason it started, I get that – a bunch of immature adults that never received a good old-fashioned whipping while they were growing up (Uh-oh, that wasn't very politically correct). But, why were these boneheads allowed to continue to burn cars, break windows and loot businesses?

To be very clear, I am not suggesting that this is the fault of the police. Police are dammed if they do, dammed if they don't take action. No one has any right to criticise the police until they personally stand in a riot, dressed in riot gear, and endure the same verbal and physical abuse. Treating the authority of the law of the land with this kind contempt (seen in any riot) is a sign of the times to come. It is great to see the citizens of Vancouver showing their appreciation for their police department after this riot – even covering a police cruiser with thank you notes – vs. condemning them for the problem.

We have arrived at this era where we are seemingly powerless to act from the riots of days past in which any action on the part of the police has been heavily condemned in the name of the almighty Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To be forced to stand by and watch, while personal property is being destroyed and looted is about as stupid as it gets.

If we were not ruled by political correctness (liberalism) this is how we could solve this problem:

• Amend the charter; if you are involved in a riot – you no longer have any rights.
  
• If riot occurs, police assemble and communicate loudly, repeatedly and clearly; if you are not part of the riot leave immediately or you will be arrested.
  
• Provide reasonable amount of time for the spectators to leave, and then move in.
  
• Use water cannons, tear gas, rubber bullets, and overwhelming force to shut down the riot completely and decisively.
  
• Arrest everyone and charge all with every crime that has been committed during the riot.
  
• Introduce corporal punishment as an option for sentencing i.e.: public caning (tie them to a post in the center of town and beat them with a stick).
  

Now that is not very politically correct, but does anyone think we would see what happened in Vancouver ever occur again?

Sure, this is rather extreme but I believe that the vast majority Canadians would agree with a very harsh response to the anarchy that is prevalent during a riot. However, most won't come out and say it because this is not politically correct. Some reading this have a poor opinion of me because I stated an opinion that did not mesh with their own. Some feel that I should not even be able to state my view. Hence my point.

It is this same fear of criticism that has paralyzed organizations because too few people are willing to face and speak out about the brutal facts. And many leaders create this atmosphere by condemning the messenger rather than hearing the message. This type of impotence can't be corrected with a little blue diamond shaped pill.

Great leaders actively encourage the communication of all opinions.

The Impotence caused by Political Correctness

Stop managing people

"Inventories can be managed but people must be led" - Ross Perot.

This is leadership 101 - "leadership for dummies." Fundamental? Obvious? Should be, but surprisingly not all that common.

While inventory is inanimate, people have their own self-will, hopes, dreams and ideas. They [people] come with unique personalities and talents or gifting. All of this is problematic for managers, but invigorating for leaders.

Consider these contrasts:

• Procurement of inventory at the cheapest price possible is desirable, but not a winning strategy with people.
  
• Holding the least amount of inventory possible in order to increase turnover is a wise yet the complete opposite of what you would do with people.
  
• All inventory decreases in value over time (exceptions: wine, cheese, collectable memorabilia); this is completely opposite with people.
  

The "people" of the business are considered a cost of the business, listed on any profit & loss statement after sales and margin just before operating costs.

In Jim Collins' best seller "Good to Great," he outlines how great companies consider first "who" then "what." Here is his summary of this concept:

The good-to-great leaders began the transformation by first getting the right people on the bus (and the wrong people off the bus) and then figured out where to drive it. The key point is that "who" questions come before "what" decisions – before the vision, before strategy, before organizational structure, before tactics.

This is going to drive the accountants batty; what if salaries (people) were listed at the beginning of the P&L, before sales and margin vs. a cost that must be reckoned with? What if business operated like a sports team, which decides the amount of payroll it is going to spend and acquires the team as the most important part of the enterprise?

I can't imagine that anyone would dispute the importance of people to any organization. Most would not deny the findings of Jim Collins in "Good to Great." There are endless stories of both managers that failed because they treated their people like machines, and leaders that succeeded through inspiring and positively influencing their people. With the overwhelming evidence in support of putting people first in the organization, why is it so uncommon?

Stop managing people