HerbEly

NASA Culture & Spirituality at Work

Gregory Pierce’s book Spirituality@Work recommends ten different spiritual disciplines for the workplace. Disciplines are practices that can be performed on a regular basis to produce intended results. (For a list of the ten disciplines see my review. ) Among these is the responsibility to make the system work. As we all know, institutions often get caught up in their own survival and expansion, neglecting the very mission for which they were created. When this happens, the system stops working for the purpose for which it was created.

A recent report by NASA concludes that NASA’S "history and culture contributed as much to the space shuttle Columbia accident as any technical failure.” (click here for pdf file) NASA leadership has developed some specific plans for “making the system work”. The conclusions are, I believe, relevant to all of us who work in institutions (including churches). Culture is defined as” the shared values and beliefs of an organization – commonly described as “the way we do things here”. The culture can also be thought of as the shared norms for behavior in the organization, often motivated by unstated assumptions.”

NASA’S culture does not fully reflect its core values of Safety, People, Excellence and Integrity. Specifically, there are barriers to open communication. “People do not feel fully comfortable raising safety concerns to management.” People are strongly committed to their technical work, but perceive that the organization does not respect or appreciate them. Excellence is treasured in technical work but not always in management, support and in communication. Integrity is generally valued but management has sent - perhaps unintentionally - signals that raising issues is unwelcome. The report gives several recommendations for change.

While most of us will never have the opportunity to attempt a wholesale change in organizational culture, we all share some level of responsibility for the corporate cultures in which we participate. If we are working for a business or other institution that genuinely serves the public, we need to discern how best to help the institution fulfill its mission and adhere to its core values. Pierce recognizes that this isn’t easy. It often comes down to the Serenity Prayer – discerning what we can change and then praying for the courage to do it.

Perhaps the biggest danger is that we get so caught up in our own lives and careers that we lose perspective. Institutions and individuals have blind spots. The problem is: knowing how to find our own blind spots, become aware of the blind spots of our company, and discern what to do about it. Pierce recommends finding a balance among work, family and community. He also recommends ongoing personal development including regular spiritual practices that promote awareness of our own blind spots and God’s purpose in our lives.

Management trainers have developed a number of tools that can help us imrprove our communication and behavioral skills. Some companies use a “360 degree feedback” system in which managers get honest information about their behavior and skills. For an example of this see today’s McPherson Cartoon. In my opinion, people can get similar information for an enneagram personality test, without the embarrassment or social disruption. Business coaches can help build communication skills. If you want to try some books, I suggest Emily Sterrett’s Managers Pocket Guide to Emotional Intelligence. Lastly, try learning about the greatest discovery of the 20th century, the best proven program for personal change by looking at Kathy Shaidle’s The Seekers Dozen: the Twelve Steps for Everyone Else.

Culture War Discussion is Crucial

The issue of culture wars has been on my mind since I had breakfast with the editor from the Observer and posted on it on April 23. The reason that it bothers me so much is that the issues of human life and marriage have divided the country so deeply. If the division is not resolved through the political process, the price could be very high. Recall the words from Lincoln’s second inaugural address:

…“Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

(The first quote is from Matt 18:7. (KJV). I prefer the Jerusalem bible translation “Alas for the world that there should be such causes of falling! Indeed there must be, but alas for anyone who provides them!” The second is from Psalm 19.)

For other views on the dangers of culture war see Huntington’s Warning by Rich Lowry and Red, Blue and … so 17th Century by Joel Kotkin

While I don’t have a solution, I would ask that culture warriors - liberal and conservative, pro life and pro choice - meditate on Lincoln’s phrase “with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right,…” There is humility packed into this phrase. Lincoln recognized that someone else might have been given a different view or that his might be skewed. He simply played his part, trusting that “the Almighty has His own purposes.” If we all did likewise it might remove some of the bitterness from the culture wars.

Beliefnet on Da Vinci Code

I plan to avoid the discussion on the Da Vinci Code and all the books written in rebuttal. Please see Beliefnet for extensive commentary, including that of Amy Welborn.

Intro to Centering Prayer

Central Virginia readers: contemplative Outreach has scheduled two introductory workshops on centering prayer. The dates are Saturday, June, 5 in Scottsville and Saturday, June, 26 in Staunton. The time will probably be from 9-1. For other details, please email me.

NASA Cultural Failures

"We dropped the torch through our complacency, our arrogance, self-assurance, sheer stupidity, and through continuing attempt[s] to please everyone. It is time to adjust our thinking." Wayne Hale, NASA executive

Why Smart Executives (and Editors) Fail

Why hasn’t the media, which demanded that Bush acknowledge his mistakes and apologize, hasn’t held itself to the same standard? Howard Kurtz, writing in this morning's Washington Post, comments on Karen Jurgensen’s resignation from USA Today and the forced resignation of Howell Raines from the New York Times.

It all goes to the question of institutional blindness, something that affects the intelligence community, the Catholic Bishops and major corporations. I offered an explanation in my post: Why Smart Executives (and Bishops) Fail (March 24).

Kurtz writes “No one is suggesting that Raines or Jurgensen had an inkling their reporters were lying. But if they're not responsible, who is?

Viewed from another perspective, though, why should editors have to lose their jobs when they, like the public, are deceived by rogue employees?

"The buck stops with the boss," says former USA Today editor David Mazzarella, who says he never heard complaints about Kelley's work during his late 1990s tenure. "Under the same circumstances, I probably would have done the same thing" by quitting. "The boss is the one who takes the fall, no question about it."

Alex Jones of Harvard's Shorenstein media center puts it starkly: "If it happened on your watch, you have to take responsibility for it. Apologizing is certainly part of that.”

This leads to a disturbing question: If media executives will acknowledge a major failure and resign, does this mean that journalists hold themselves to a higher ethical standard than bishops?

White Flag in the Culture War?

Nicholas Kristoff in today's New York Times suggests that "If liberals demand that the Christian right show more tolerance for gays and lesbians, then liberals need to be more respectful of conservative Christians".

I'll place a bet: At least 80% of the conservative commentators will gloat over this statement. Less than 20% will move toward a truce.

"Greater love has no one...

...than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." John 15:13

During my 32 years of civilian service I gained great respect for the men and women who serve in uniform. Please honor them by reading these three tributes to US Army Ranger Pat Tillman:

Sally Jenkins in the Washington Post.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach in Beliefnet.

Peggy Noonan's article from the July 12, 2002 Wall Street Journal.

Pray that their sacrifices lead to a lasting peace.

Culture Wars Bring Bitter Fruit

(I'm now writing an opinion column for the "Charlottesville Observer". Here is the next entry.)

Journalists are using the phrase “culture wars” as an all-purpose descriptor for the bitter controversies inflaming local and national media. Talk show hosts quickly make use of incidents such as Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl or Bush’s latest press conference as ammunition for their side of the “war”. Bill O’Reilly includes it as a topic on his television show. Al Franken, and others, have launched Air America, a liberal response to conservative talk radio, as another front in this war.

A look at the origin and history of the phrase will help explain much of the bitterness that characterizes the current Presidential campaign.

In 1990 UVA Professor James Davison Hunter published an article, soon to be part of his book, Culture Wars: the Struggle to Define America. Evangelical Protestants, traditionalist Catholics and Orthodox Jews seemed to be lining up on one side of the political spectrum against their co-religionists on the other side. Issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and the pledge of allegiance now divide members of the same congregation. Hunter quotes evangelical activist Franky Schaeffer who had called for Christians in different denominations to band together in “an ecumenism of orthodoxy” to counter a liberal ecumenism … bound together by unbelief”.

A recent example of this is shown by the way evangelical Protestants strongly supported Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. Gibson, an ultra conservative Catholic is working from an artistic tradition of elaborate icons that had been rejected in earlier generations of evangelical Protestantism. On the other side, Gibson is finding many mainstream Catholics objecting to his film on the basis that it is not true to the gospels. The emphasis on Christ’s suffering, they add, is a relatively new (19th century) development in Christian art.

Hunter traces the source of disagreement to the issue of moral authority. He finds two polarizing impulses: orthodoxy and progressivism. Those on the orthodox side are characterized by a commitment to an external, definable and transcendent authority. Progressives are more likely to recast historic truths in terms of contemporary life.

He was concerned about the increasingly bitter controversy between orthodox and progressives. His fears were soon to be confirmed: In 1992 Pat Buchanan told the Republican National Convention that, on abortion, “The conflicting positions can no more be reconciled that those of John Brown and John Calhoun.”

In his next book, Before the Shooting Starts, Hunter searches for paths for compromise in a democratic society. He cites comparative law Professor Mary Ann Glendon’s conclusion that the problem in America is unique. In Europe, where the voters had direct influence on the outcome, abortion is permitted but restricted in various ways. In the United States, Roe v. Wade restricts the voters to fighting over which candidate will chose the Supreme Court justices who will interpret the constitution and decide the outcome. Reaching compromise through the ballot box is unlikely.

Hunter searching for a solution, recommends the Williamsburg Charter, written as part of the bicentennial of the Constitution. The charter recommends four guidelines for political discourse:
• Those who claim the right to dissent should assume the responsibility for debate
• Those who claim the right to criticize should assume the responsibility to comprehend
• Those who claim the right to influence should accept the responsibility not to inflame
• Those who claim the right to participate should accept the responsibility to persuade
My own reaction to this is that it is like the convention of mice that concluded that the solution to the feline threat is to tie a bell around the cat’s neck. Good solution, but who can do it?

There is not much that we in Charlottesville can do about the fat cats in the national media and political arenas. At the local level we can take a hint from Bob Hodous’ Observer column calling for civility in local political discourse – and in Mitchell Van Yahres’ letter in response. We can at least make it clear that, at the local level, we will insist that politicians and media figures treat one another with respect and search for solutions rather than attempt to defeat one another in an all out war in which no compromise is possible.

9/11 Commission interviews God

At the end of comments about 9/11 commission having hindsight, Greg Easterbrook adds this lovely parody:

As for Richard Ben-Veniste, his Know-It-All-In-Retrospect act at this point is insufferable, as is his open sneering at those who don't share his gift of retroactive clairvoyance. I imagine this would have happened if Ben-Veniste rather than Abraham had argued with God about the fate of Sodom:

BEN-VENISTE: Mr. God, isn't it true that before the creation, you received a memo saying that men would become wicked?

GOD: If I find at Sodom 50 righteous within the city, I will forgive the whole place for their sake.

BEN-VENISTE: According to the DDB, Divine Daily Brief, you were informed in advance about lack of righteousness, and yet still created humanity.

GOD: I will not destroy Sodom if I find 45 righteous there.

BEN-VENISTE: Why haven't all scrolls and vellum you received before the creation been declassified? What are you hiding?

GOD: For the sake of 40 righteous I will not do it.

BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it obvious you should have foreseen debauchery and licentiousness?

GOD: I will not do it if I find 30 righteous there.

BEN-VENISTE: Why wasn't more funding given to anti-sin programs?

GOD: For the sake of 20 righteous, I will not do it.

BEN-VENISTE: Mr. God, you claim to be all-knowing, yet the iniquity at Sodom was not prevented.

GOD: For the sake of 10 who are righteous, I will not destroy Sodom.

BEN-VENISTE: This witness is being evasive, He keeps changing numbers.

The passage is from Genesis 18.